Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 7228
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7228) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/6/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Downtown RPP Phase 2 Update Title: Acceptance of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 Status Update and Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Eligibility Area for the Program as Directed by the City Council (Continued From August 15, 2016) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: Accept this status report on the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program; and Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A), expanding the boundary of the Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 eligibility area originally established by Resolution 9577 to incorporate streets in the Crescent Park neighborhood identified for inclusion by the City Council in response to a neighborhood petition. In the course of this item, the Council may wish to discuss program parameters and potential adjustments for implementation at the end of the Phase 2 trial on March 31, 2017. Executive Summary Since early 2015, staff has been acting on the Council’s direction, implementing the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) pilot program developed in collaboration with community stakeholders. This work has included development and launch of a new online permit sales website and sales support, installation of signage in the permit area, negotiation and oversight of an enforcement contract, and community outreach about the program. Phase 1 of the Downtown RPP trial program began on September 15, 2015, and Phase 2 was implemented on April 1, 2016. As requested by Council in February 2016, staff is providing a program update four months into the Phase 2 trial period. Also, as requested by Council in May 2016, a draft resolution has been provided to expand the eligibility area to include streets that have petitioned for inclusion in an RPP district. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Data collection regarding the Phase 2 trial will continue this fall and desired program adjustments can be considered for adoption in the context of a resolution making the program permanent, anticipated in early 2017. Practically, the timing of any adjustments is dictated by the duration of Phase 2 permits, which expire at the end of March 2017. Background and Discussion The attached Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program amends Resolution 9577 to include the following streets in the Downtown RPP district: 500 block of Chaucer Street 1000 and 1100 blocks of Hamilton Avenue Residents of these three streets submitted a petition to be annexed to the Downtown RPP Program after the November 2015 deadline for consideration. The petition was reviewed with all other RPP petitions received as of March 31, 2016 (Attachment B). Following review and discussion, City Council directed staff to return with a resolution expanding the approved Eligibility Area for the Downtown RPP Program to include these three street segments for future inclusion in the program. The attached Downtown RPP Program Resolution also amends Resolution 9577 to provide for City Council to consider whether to make the program permanent and any associated modifications by March 31, 2017, rather than December 31, 2016, because March 31st is the date that permits issued in Phase 2 of the program will expire. Resident and Employee Permit Sales Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 permits were made available through an online permit sales website as of March 2016, and were required for parking on-street in the Downtown RPP Program district as of April 1, 2016. Permit holders were notified of the required new permits via mailed notices, email, social media, and the City’s website. Staff supported the sale of permits by responding to email and phone inquiries, hosting an employer workshop at City Hall, conducting on-site help sessions at the Avenidas Senior Center, and through customer service contract staff on-site at City Hall for one month before and one month after permits were required. All employees and residents living and working within the geographic area of the Downtown RPP Program district (see Attachment C) are eligible to purchase permits. The following types of permits are available to residents and employees during Phase 2: Resident Decal: one free of charge and up to three additional at $50/year Resident Visitor Hangtag: up to two per residence at $50/year Resident One-day: unlimited at $5 each Employee Decal: $466/year City of Palo Alto Page 3 Employee Reduced Decal: available to those who qualify based on income at $100/year Employee One-day: $5/each Employee Five-day: $15/each Employer Transferable Hangtag: $466/year Figure 1 shows the number of employee and resident permits sold as of the writing of this report—a total number of 6,185 permits, 4,817 of which were resident permits and 1,368 of which were employee permits. In Phase 2, employee permits are zone-specific, meaning that employees and employers purchase a permit for a specific parking zone. The permit limits their parking to that identified region. The total available employee permits were limited to 2,000 during Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP program, and were distributed among zones based on total available on-street parking in each zone, as seen in Table 1. Half of the available permits in each zone were prioritized for low-wage workers. Figure 1. Number of RPP Phase 2 Permits Sold (as of July 6, 2016) City of Palo Alto Page 4 Source: Planning Department, Transportation Division, July 2016. Table 1. Employee Permits by Zone Zone Permit Allocation 1 75 2 120 3 225 4 190 5 175 6 100 7 135 8 365 9 25 (245)* 10 55 (370)* *A portion of permits in this zone will be held in reserve and released as additional streets opt into the Downtown RPP district. Source: Planning Department, Transportation Division, February 2016. Data on Parking Occupancy and Distribution Staff has been collecting parking occupancy data within the Downtown neighborhoods and within the parking assessment district facilities since 2011. Following implementation of the City of Palo Alto Page 5 Downtown RPP Program, staff has conducted on- and off-street parking occupancy counts and RPP permit-specific distribution counts (parking distribution by employee and resident permits). Phase 1 of the Downtown RPP Program successfully reduced the overall number of vehicles parked in the Downtown RPP Program district by approximately 300 to 400 vehicles, a number determined by calculating the number of vehicles parked at midnight subtracted from the average number of vehicles parked at noon. While overall parking occupancies decreased, employees were still parking primarily on the streets nearest to the Downtown core and SOFA. Phase 2 introduced employee parking zones (Attachment D), which were designed to distribute employee parking throughout the Downtown RPP Program district more equitably. The total number of permits available to employees and employers was capped at 2,000, and those permits were assigned to the individual zones based on the total number of available on-street parking spaces in each zone. Attachment E shows parking occupancy data collected in the neighborhoods before and after Phase 2 implementation, collected on March 24, May 19, and June 30 respectively. The parking occupancy data collected in May is roughly one month after enforcement of the new Phase 2 program began, and the June data is approximately two and a half months into enforcement. Improvements in the streets immediately adjacent to the Downtown core and SOFA areas are apparent in the June data collection, indicating that the parking in the neighborhoods has settled into the Phase 2 program and vehicles are not clustering on the streets nearest to the Downtown core and SOFA with as much frequency. Most block faces are at or below 85% occupancy, meaning that there are one or two parking spaces available on most blocks during most times. Parking permit data was collected during the midday peak at each of the data collection sessions. In June 2016, the permit data indicates that of a total vehicle count of over 3,000 in the Downtown RPP Program district, approximately 13% of vehicles parked displayed a long- term employee parking permit. Parking distribution for vehicles displaying resident permits, employee permits, and no permits are contained in Attachment F. Data collection in the Downtown commercial core, including on-street and off-street occupancies, was conducted during the same time period. High occupancies were noted throughout, and additional information will be provided in early 2017 as part of the Downtown Parking Management Study, which is currently underway. Garage permit sales have continued to be high through Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP program, and most Downtown garages have waitlists for permits at present. Petitions from Eligible Streets As updated in December 2015, the City-wide RPP Ordinance enables the creation of eligibility areas adjacent to existing RPP districts. As such, an eligibility area was created through City of Palo Alto Page 6 Resolution 9577, whereby streets within the area are pre-approved by City Council to opt into the Downtown RPP Program district through an administrative process. This process requires residents to self-organize and submit a petition including signatures from at least 50% of households on the block requesting addition to the Downtown RPP Program district. The City will then mail a survey to all households on the block regarding the program, and at least 70% of households must reply with a positive response to the mail survey. If the required response is received, the block will be approved for inclusion into the Downtown RPP Program district, and signage installation will be scheduled and permit information will be shared with residents. To date, the following streets have participated in the opt-in process for the Downtown RPP district: Table 2. Status of RPP Eligibility Area Opt-In Requests (as of July 2016) Street Status 500 block of Hale Street Approved; pending signage installation 600 block of Hale Street Not approved; less than 70% approval on mail survey. 800 block of Palo Alto Avenue Approved; pending signage installation Source: Planning Department, Transportation Division, July 2016. Public Input Written and email comments received in advance of the August 15, 2016 Council meeting have been provided in Attachment G. A staff memo responding to some of these general comments has been provided in Attachment H. In addition, staff would offer the following observations: 85% occupancy has been used as a metric for reporting parking occupancy for several years now, and when a block face is at 85% occupancy, it usually means there are one or two spaces available. If 80% were used instead of 85%, it might change the color of some streets on the maps provided, but it would still mean that there would be one or two spaces available per block face. Commenters suggested that more data was required to draw conclusions about the success of the Phase 2 trial. As stated earlier, additional data will be collected in the fall and the final decision whether to adjust or extend the program does not have to be made now, since Phase 2 permits do not expire until March 31, 2017. Timeline Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 permits expire on March 31, 2017. Staff expects to return to City Council in early 2017 with program information to support making the program permanent, and will include any recommended modifications required to support a permanent program. Resource Impact City of Palo Alto Page 7 The operations of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 are fully-funded in the FY2017 Operating Budget. Staff will include a discussion of projected on- going revenues and expenditures under a permanent program in the Action Item to be scheduled for early 2017. Between now and then, there are limited staff resources available for data collection and analysis of potential program modifications because the same staff person responsible for the Downtown program is also working on initiating new RPP districts in Evergreen Park and Southgate, as well as other Council priorities. Policy Implications The implementation of Phase 2 of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (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 resolution regarding an Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program is 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 this document may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed document will have a minor impact on existing facilities. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Resolution Amending Downtown RPP Districts Phase 2 (PDF) Attachment B: Staff Report 6788 New RPP District Implementation (PDF) Attachment C: Downtown RPP District Map (PDF) Attachment D: Downtown RPP Employee Parking Zones (PDF) Attachment E: Parking Occupancy Counts (PDF) Attachment F: Permit Parking Distributions (PDF) Attachment G: Public Comment Submitted for August 15, 2016 (PDF) Attachment H: 8-15-16 "At Places" Memo (DOC) NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution No. 9577 to Expand Eligibility Area of 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, 2014 the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding Chapter 10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Municipal Code. This Chapter establishes the city-wide procedures for RPP Districts in the city. D. On December 2, 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 expired on March 31, 2016. E. On February 23, 2016, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9577 amending Resolution No. 9473 to implement Phase 2 of the pilot program. Permits issued for Phase 2 will expire on March 31, 2017. F. The Council desires to expand the eligibility area for Phase 2 of the Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking program pilot established by Resolution 9577. These modifications shall only apply to Phase 2 of the pilot. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES to AMEND Resolution No. 9577, as follows: SECTION 1. Duration and Trial Period. The following provisions shall apply to Phase 2 of the Trial Period for the Downtown RPP District: 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, 2016on or before March 31, 2017.” 1 160722 jb 0131540 Rev. July 25, 2016 NOT YET APPROVED Eligibility Areas. The areas shown on Exhibit A are eligible for administrative annexation as provided in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.50.085. SECTION 2. 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 3. 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 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately. Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ __________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _______________________ ___________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment 2 160722 jb 0131540 Rev. July 25, 2016 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 500 block of Chaucer Street 1000 and 1100 blocks of Hamilton 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. Exhibit A City of Palo Alto (ID # 6788) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/9/2016 Summary Title: New RPP District Implementation Title: Direction to Staff Regarding Implementation Priority for the following New Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts: a portion of Crescent Park, the Edgewood Plaza area, the Southgate and Evergreen Park Neighborhoods From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council determine implementation priority for new proposed RPP programs and direct staff to move forward with the outreach and stakeholder process for the priority program(s). Executive Summary Beginning in early 2014, the City has been actively addressing parking and transportation challenges throughout the City using a strategic, multi-faceted approach focused on parking management, parking supply, and transportation demand management programs. Parking management strategies have included the development of a city-wide Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) ordinance, which was adopted in December 2014, as well as establishment of a new RPP district in residential areas surrounding Downtown. The city-wide RPP ordinance includes parameters for neighborhoods to petition and request a new RPP district, or to request annexation to an existing RPP district. Petitions for new RPP districts are accepted until March 31st of each year and the City received four petitions this year from the Southgate neighborhood, the Evergreen Park neighborhood, from several streets within the Crescent Park neighborhood, and for a street adjacent to Edgewood Plaza. This staff report discusses the resident-organized petitions for new RPP districts, and requests Council prioritization. Pursuant to the city-wide RPP ordinance, the Planning and Transportation Commission is being asked for a recommendation on prioritization on April 27 and minutes of their meeting will be forwarded when available. Background and Discussion City of Palo Alto Page 1 Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, residents may self-organize and request the formation of an RPP district in their neighborhood. The process, as outlined in the Ordinance, is as follows: 1. Residents must request a petition from the Planning and Community Environment Department. The petition includes a narrative portion and a signature form to demonstrate resident support. 2. The Director of Planning and Community Environment will review all petitions received by March 31 of that year. 3. Following receipt of the petitions, staff will review and bring the complete petitions to the Planning and Transportation Commission for prioritization. The Planning and Transportation Commission will provide feedback and prioritization on April 27, 2016 (Attachment A when available). 4. After prioritization, Staff will initiate work on the priority RPP district(s), and the assumption has been that limited resources will likely preclude the simultaneous processing of all requests (hence the need for prioritization). Staff’s work will include gathering additional information, community outreach, and stakeholder engagement. This process includes parking occupancy counts and a stakeholder process to develop a program that meets the needs of all parties as best as possible. At the end of the stakeholder engagement process, the City Attorney will prepare a draft resolution containing the parameters of the proposed district(s). 5. Staff will bring the proposed RPP District to the Planning and Transportation Commission by the end of September of the same calendar year. The PTC will review the draft resolution and make a recommendation to City Council regarding the RPP district. 6. Following these steps, the City Council will hold a public hearing to review the proposed resolution, and to adopt, modify, or reject the proposal. As of March 31, 2016, staff has received petitions for the following neighborhoods: Crescent Park (Attachment B) Date submitted: January 2016 Boundary: 1000 and 1100 blocks of Hamilton Avenue, 500 block of Chaucer Street Background: A petition to add the 500 and 600 blocks of Hale Street, the 1000 and 1100 blocks of Hamilton Avenue, and the 500 block of Chaucer Street to the Downtown RPP district was received by staff in early January. The blocks of Hamilton Avenue and Chaucer Street are outside the approved Eligibility Area for the Downtown RPP district, and the neighborhood was advised that the petitions received would be evaluated as a request for a new RPP district. Resident-Requested Program Parameters: Residents have indicated interest in resident permits only, although the petitions were initially submitted to annex into the existing Downtown district which does offer employee permit parking. Streets could either annex into the existing Downtown RPP district, or a small, new district could be formed. Parking Occupancy Levels: None Submitted Potential Implications: The formation of a new, resident only RPP district on these few City of Palo Alto Page 2 streets would result in employee vehicles moving to other adjacent streets such as those within the existing Crescent Park NOP areas. Outreach would be necessary beyond the streets initially identified in the petitions. The Downtown RPP district boundary has been finalized, and would require Council direction and an updated resolution to modify. Edgewood Plaza (Attachment C) Date submitted: October 2015 Boundary: Greer Road/Edgewood Drive to Channing Avenue/West Bayshore Road to St. Francis Drive/Channing Avenue. Background: Petition notes parking intrusion from East Palo Alto and from Edgewood Plaza. Parking congestion is noted daily and on weekends, as well as overnight parking on the weekdays. Signatures were collected from 13 residents on Edgewood Drive. Resident-Requested Program Parameters: No specific program was requested. Petition notes daytime and overnight parking intrusion, and makes a reference to deterring non- resident parking. Parking Occupancy Levels: None Submitted Potential Implications: This is a very small area to consider implementing a permit program, and would likely need to be looked at as part of an existing program or a larger area for a focused program. Additional inquiries have been made in this area regarding overnight parking restrictions. Southgate (Attachment D) Date submitted: February 2016 Boundary: Southgate neighborhood, including Churchill Avenue between El Camino Real and Alma Street, Mariposa Avenue, Manzanita Avenue, Madrono Avenue, Escobita Avenue, Portola Avenue, and Miramonte Avenue. Background: Residents submitting the petition note parking overflow primarily on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and during school hours when Palo Alto High School is in session. The petition notes primary generators of the parking impact are Palo Alto High School students, employee parking from nearby medical offices, PAUSD offices, and Stanford employees and students. The designated bike boulevard on Castilleja has resulted in a high volume of cyclists in the neighborhood that are impacted by the narrow streets and saturated parking. Residents submitted a petition signed by 169 residents. Parking Occupancy Levels: Residents submitted occupancy counts to City staff in March 2016 (Attachment E), collating data collected over a time period of November 2015 through March 2016. The occupancy studies indicate high levels of parking on streets in the northern portion of Southgate, including several streets reportedly in excess of 90% occupancy at 10 a.m. South of Manzanita, streets are less occupied, ranging from 14 to 83% of total capacity at 10 a.m. The reported occupancies reduce to a maximum of 56% occupied at 4 p.m., with most streets less than 40% occupied. Resident-Requested Program Parameters: Specific program parameters were not noted City of Palo Alto Page 3 in the petition, and would be addressed and proposed based on the community outreach and stakeholder process. Residents note a daytime parking intrusion. Potential Implications: Establishment of a resident-only permit parking program in Southgate would not address the root causes of the parking overspill. An in-depth community outreach and stakeholder process would be necessary to address the causes of the parking issue and to establish other options for those who are parking in the neighborhood. Engineering and enforcement solutions for the neighborhood, including red curb, passing areas, and timed parking restrictions may be an option to pursue in lieu of or in addition to a permit program, and should be considered prior to or in tandem with the implementation of an RPP District Evergreen Park (Attachment F) Date submitted: March 2016 Boundary: El Camino Real, Cambridge Avenue, and Park Boulevard Background: The petition and attached letter requests annexation of the non- commercial core of Evergreen Park into the existing College Terrace RPP program. Residents note parking overflow on weekdays, and attribute the parking impacts to employees of neighboring businesses, employees from nearby office buildings, Caltrain commuters, and Stanford University affiliates including faculty, staff, students, and visitors. Residents have also noted safety concerns related to bike routes in the neighborhood. ouncilmembers Duois, Filseth, Holman, and Schmid have submitted a olleagues’ Memo recommending that ouncil direct Staff to return with either a “ollege Terrace- like” RPP with resident-only parking established by amending the College Terrace RPP, or a new RPP district under the city-wide RPP ordinance, but on an accelerated timeline with either zero non-resident permits or a small number (for example, ten percent) of the permits available to merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District. The colleagues’ memo also requests that staff investigate allowing merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits among their own employees. Resident-Requested Program Parameters: Evergreen Park residents have requested to be annexed into the existing College Terrace resident-only parking permit program. Parking Occupancy Levels: Residents submitted occupancy counts to City Staff dated October 2015. The counts indicate parking saturation in excess of 90% of capacity, and on several blocks more than 100% occupancy, particularly on College Avenue and Oxford Avenue and adjacent blocks, and along El Camino Real and the adjacent blocks. Potential Implications: While annexation into an existing program would be a simplified approach from the planning perspective, a stakeholder process and community outreach process is recommended to develop a program that provides for residents and employees and could include permits for on-street parking, as well as parking management strategies at California Avenue lots and garages to increase supply, or evaluation of public-private parking partnerships. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Given the nature of the petitions received and the limitations in terms of staff resources to accomplish more than one new RPP district in this fiscal year, Staff requests Council to review the petitions and PTC prioritization list, and provide direction regarding which RPP district to move forward into implementation. Policy Implications The implementation of Residential Preferential Parking districts is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts. Evaluation and implementation of each program would be conducted as follows: Crescent Park: Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, staff would conduct a community outreach and stakeholder process to design a program for the area. If the neighborhood wishes to be annexed to the adjacent Downtown RPP program rather than establish a new program, further City Council action would be necessary. Edgewood Plaza: Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, staff would conduct a community outreach and stakeholder process to design a program for the area. If the neighborhood wishes to be annexed to the Downtown RPP program or Crescent Park No Overnight Parking programs rather than establish a new program, further City Council action would be necessary. Southgate: Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, staff would conduct a community outreach and stakeholder process to design a program for the area, ideally starting with a community forum to solicit feedback and identify stakeholders to participate in the process. At the conclusion of the stakeholder process, which would include residents as well as the source(s) of parking intrustions, the City Attorney will draft a resolution for evaluation by City Council to adopt, modify, or reject the proposed RPP district. Evergreen Park: If directed by Council to annex Evergreen Park to the existing College Terrace RPP district outside of the process set forth in the City-wide RPP ordinance, staff would work with the ity !ttorney’s office to develop a draft resolution proposing a program boundary. Following adoption of the resolution by City Council, staff would begin field work for signage and order additional permits for the newly annexed streets. Staff would need to evaluate staff impacts of handling permit fufillment and enforcement internally as is currently done for the College Terrace program instead of using contractors (similar to the Downtown RPP district). Resource Impact The Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Capital Improvement Budget includes funding of $300,000 for the creation of future RPP programs. There is no approved budget at this time for the operations of any new RPP program. Operating impacts are expected to include equipment and staff time to manage the program, customer service, office supplies, parking enforcement, and bank card charges. City of Palo Alto Page 5 ** Assume services provided by COPA and PAPD staff as in College Terrace RPP Source: Planning Department, April 2016 Based on the associated costs with implementation of a new RPP district, including signage, enforcement, permit sales, customer service, and staff time, staff estimates that the requested Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Improvement Fund budget of $300,000 is sufficient for the start-up of one new RPP district in the next fiscal year. Pricing of parking permits will be based on the City ouncil’s direction on the cost recovery level to be applied to these programs. Timeline Staff anticipates beginning a community outreach and stakeholder process for the priority RPP program immediately upon direction by City Council. Environmental Review The City Council decision this evening is expected to provide conceptual direction for a new RPP district in Palo Alto. Specific parameters for the new RPP district would be subject to approval of a formal resolution at a later date. That resolution would address compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A: Planning and Transportation Prioritization At Places Document (DOCX) Attachment B: Crescent Park RPP Petition (PDF) Attachment C: Edgewood Drive Petition (PDF) Attachment D: Southgate RPP Petition (PDF) Attachment E: Resident-Submitted Southgate Parking Study_2015-2016 (PDF) Attachment F: Evergreen Park RPP Petition (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 7 ATTACHMENT A PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PRIORITIZATION This document will be presented as an At Places item on May 9, 2016 Staff will be drafting the document based on the April 27th P&TC Meeting Attachment B - Attachment C - Attachment D - Neighborhood Petition Form City of Palo Alto Residential Parking Permit Program Request FormThe purpose of this form is to enable neighborhoods to request the initiation of a ResidentialPreferential Parking Program in accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s adopted Residential ParkingPermit Program Policy and Procedures. This form must be filled out in its entirety and submitted with any request to: The City of Palo AltoTransportation Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Feel free to attach additional sheets containing pictures, occupancy maps, additional testimony or additional text if the space provided is insufficient. 1. Requesting Individual’s Contact Information Name: Christine Shambora (main contact) Jim McFall, Keith Ferrell, Nancy Shepherd Address: 1565 Castilleja Avenue, 94306 Phone Number: 650 868-7523 Email(optional):christineshambora@gmail.com 2. Please describe the nature of the overflow parking problem in your neighborhood. 1. What streets in your neighborhood do you feel are affected by overflow parking? Castilleja Ave, Mariposa Avenue, Manzanita Avenue, Madrono Avenue, Escobita Avenue, Portola Avenue and Miramonte Avenue and Churchill between El Camino and Alma. 2. How often does the overflow occur? Primarily on weekdays from 8am to 4pm; during school hours when Palo Alto High School is in session. Although not the focus of this application, there are also significant parking impacts in our neighborhood during Palo Alto High School and Stanford University football games whichunderscores the non-residential parking burden the Southgate neighborhood bears and the unusual nature of our situation. 3. Does the impact vary from month to month, or season to season? The greatest impact is when Palo Alto High School is in session, however we are beginning to experience Stanford employee and student parking, as well as employees from nearby medical offices, which occurs at all times during the year. Southgate RPP Page 1 of 42 SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 1 3. Can you identify a parking impact generator that is the cause of overflow parking in the neighborhood? Are there any facilities (churches, schools, shopping centers, etc.) near this location that generate a high concentration of vehicle and pedestrian traffic? Please list your understanding of the causes: -The primary impact is from Palo Alto High School students using Southgate neighborhood streets for school parking. -Secondary impact is employee parking from nearby medical offices, as well as from the PAUSD office, and Stanford employees and students. -A recent trend that has been observed is commuters parking in the neighborhood and walking or biking to other transportation links, e.g., CalTrain, SC Valley Transit (on El Camino). -These generators and related neighborhood parking problems are exacerbated by the unusually narrow public streets in Southgate. When cars are parked on both sides of the street it reduces travel to a single narrow lane. In such cases, the narrow, single lane cannot accommodate larger emergency vehicles or even delivery trucks that are now common to normal residential uses (e.g., UPS, FedEx, etc.) Further, normal neighborhood construction and service vehicles access, including garbage trucks, is difficult and in many cases impossible. We are losing our ability to make normal residential use of our neighborhood streets. 4. Please describe how a Residential Parking Permit Program will be able to eliminate or reduce overflow parking impacting the neighborhood: An RPP will eliminate the use of Southgate streets for overflow parking of Palo Alto High School students, employees of local medical offices, PAUSD District employees and Stanford employees and students, as well as the recent trend for commuter parking. 5. Is there neighborhood support for submittal of this Residential Parking Permit Program application? Have you contacted your HOA/Neighborhood Association? A neighborhood meeting was held on December 3, 2015, a weekday morning with a strong turnout of 38 neighbors with City Transportation staff in attendance. Notice of the meeting was provided through the neighborhood email list (Southgate Watch) and a meeting notice was posted on Next Door Southgate. Leaflets were also distributed to each residence. In January ten residents on various streets in the Southgate neighborhood carried petitions to solicit signatures for the application. That effort was successfully completed resulting in contact with most residents in Southgate. In a few cases signatures were not obtained due to homes being for sale, under construction or residents away for an extended period. The results: 95% of residents who were contacted signed the petitionand support proceeding with the RPP process. (See attached map, Exhibit 1.) Southgate RPP Page 2 of 42 SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 2 Additional Information: BACKGROUND Southgate is a neighborhood along Churchill Avenue between Alma and El Camino.In the early 80’s the street linking Southgate to the Evergreen Neighborhood was closed in an effort to reduce cut-through traffic. This reduced the Southgateneighborhood entry roadways to three streets off Churchill and one off El Camino.The three Southgate entryway streets from Churchill (Madrono, Castilleja and Mariposa) are narrow 24 feet wide streets, making it difficult and dangerous for traffic, including the Castilleja public bike boulevard use, when significant numbers of cars are parked on the streets. BIKE BOULEVARD Castilleja Avenue has also been designated by the city as a public Bike Boulevard that has resulted in a very high volume of cyclists. Due to the saturated parking onCastilleja Avenue, visibility is impaired and that, along with the narrow street width,makes bike and auto movement very hazardous and has created an extreme safetyconcern, particularly for Paly student bikers and pedestrians. EMERGENCY RESPONSE In the event of an emergency, fire trucks and ambulances have reduced access to neighborhood residences when a large volume of cars are parked on both sides ofthe streets; currently a common occurrence on weekdays. CITY SERVICES Recently, street sweepers have had difficulty cleaning streets due to the large number of cars parked on the streets. In addition, garbage and recycling trucks have experienced difficulty getting through streets due to the reduced clear traffic lanewidth with the increased parking activity. COMMERCIAL SERVICES Delivery trucks, again due to the narrow streets, have experienced challenges inaccessing Southgate when high volume parking has occurred. A recent delivery problem, and potential safety hazard, occurred when a FedEx truck could not navigate down Castilleja Avenue, with cars parked opposite each other, and was forced to back up onto Churchill Avenue. A Southgate neighbor, who was behind theFedEx truck, was also forced to back up onto Churchill. There have also been debris box delivery and pickup problems because of the many cars which arrive on weekdays and park curbside. PROXIMITY TO PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL AND PAUSD DISTRICT OFFICES Due to ongoing construction at the High School and increasing enrollment (projectedto grow to 2400 students from 1950 students (currently) by 2020) the school has lostparking and will continue to be unable, under the current parking configuration, to meet the demand for student parking or student parking for the adult school . The neighborhood has reached out to the High School Administration repeatedly for helpin addressing theses overflow parking issues that impact our neighborhood withoutany response to work toward possible solutions. The PAUSD District Office parking generally appears to be at or near capacity mostdays of the week. If community wide meetings are held at their offices the need for parking often exceeds supply and Southgate becomes the de facto overflow parkinglot. Southgate RPP Page 3 of 42 SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 3 GROWING PARKING INTRUSION FROM STANFORD Southgate residents have begun to observe a number of people parking in the neighborhood and heading to Stanford. In many cases these people, after parking, remove a bicycle from the trunk of their car and then ride onto the Stanford Campus. El Camino Real is now parked solidly from Stanford Avenue to Palm Drive all day, Monday through Friday, thus creating a spillover of parking into the Southgate neighborhood. ATTACHED EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1- Southgate map with petition results EXHIBIT 2- Southgate and Comprehensive Plan Policies EXHIBIT 3- Ongoing Parking and Traffic Issues: Resident’s comments EXHIBIT 4- Vlasic letter EXHIBIT 5- Southgate Parking/Safety Impacts-Photos Southgate RPP Page 4 of 42 SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 4 Mariposa Southgate RPP Page 21 of 42 EXHIBIT 2 Southgate Residential Parking Permit Petition Consistent with and Supports Implementation of Existing and Draft Proposed Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan goals and policies call for protecting, preserving and enhancing the residential character and qualities of the City’s Single Family Residential Neighborhoods. As this petition demonstrates, heavy daily parking from non-residential uses, including particularly Paly High students, employees and visitors and also employees of adjacent non-residential activities, has dramatically reduced and not “protected, preserved or enhanced” the residential character and qualities of the Southgate single family neighborhood. Granting this petition will go a long way towards returning our neighborhood to it’s former residential character and implementing the comprehensive plan objectives as set forth, particularly, in the draft plan. We focus on these plan visions and policies as they are more reflective of the current challenges facing the city and the more current view of the City decision makers as to how these should be addressed. (Emphasis added with italics.) LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT Proposed Vision: Palo Alto’s land use decisions shall balance our future growth needs with the preservation of our neighborhoods, address climate protection priorities and focus on sustainable development near neighborhood services, and enhance the quality of life in our community. Southgate comment: The current parking situation is not residential neighborhood in character. As detailed elsewhere in this petition, Southgate has become a Paly parking lot. Our very narrow streets cannot support our own neighborhood use and a public parking lot use. We have lost part of our property rights pertaining to safety, emergency access and our own use of our street frontages for street sweeping and garbage collection that are rights enjoyed in other city neighborhoods not impacted like Southgate. We pay taxes for things like street sweeping and safe emergency and other access to our property and we are not receiving value equal to our costs. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Proposed Vision: Maintain and promote a sustainable network of safe, accessible and efficient transportation and parking solutions for all users and modes, while protecting and enhancing the quality of life in Palo Alto neighborhoods including alternative and innovative transportation practices and supporting regional transit facilities and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Southgate comment: The same comment as above, but with emphasis on safety and accessibility. Southgate RPP Page 26 of 42 Transportation Vision Element Statement (excerpt). Palo Alto . . . Streets will be safe and attractive, and designed to enhance the quality and aesthetics of Palo Alto neighborhoods. Emphasis will be placed on alternatives to the automobile, including walking, bicycling, public transit, and car and van pooling. The adverse impacts of automobile traffic on the environment in general, and residential streets in particular, will be reduced. Solutions that reduce the growth in the number of automobiles on City streets, calm or slow traffic, and save energy will be supported. PROGRAM T-7: Encourage the Palo Alto Unified School District to use parking fees, regulations, and education to discourage students from driving to school. POLICY T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. POLICY T-39: To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over vehicle level-of-service at intersections. POLICY T-40: Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of school children in street modification projects that affect school travel routes. The safety of children traveling to and from school has always been a high priority. Because more parents now regularly drive their children to school, safety concerns from school traffic congestion have increased. POLICY T-53: Discourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods Southgate comment: It is clear that the current Southgate non-residential parking situation is fully inconsistent with the intent of these transportation objectives/policies. Safety for use of the City designated Castilleja bike boulevard is at high risk. Pedestrian safety is compromised throughout the neighborhood and residents have difficulty safely exiting their properties in their own vehicles, including bikes. There are many small children in the neighborhood and their safety is significantly compromised due to the limited sight distance with cars park continuously along curbs up to and crossing residential driveways. No matter what, the school district must be involved in the discussions to ensure that they appreciate the concerns and city objectives, as set forth above, and in the existing bike plan for the city. Moving ahead with this parking petition will be essential in helping the city work toward achieving the community land use and transportation objectives that have existed for some time in the comprehensive plan and that are currently being articulated more carefully as we look ahead to the protecting the future character of the community. Southgate RPP Page 27 of 42 EXHIBIT 3 ONGOING PARKING AND TRAFFIC ISSUES-SOUTHGATE NEIGHBOR’S COMMENTS Southgate neighbors share some of the current difficulties with the increasing congestion and traffic: GENERAL SAFETY “…Garbage service and emergency access is being impacted and more importantly general traffic flow is awful with safety to pedestrians, drivers and vehicles all at high risk. Cars have been scraped and rear view mirrors are now routinely hit. The streets are all way too narrow to accommodate the current scope of non Residential parking…” “…having so many non-residential cars in the neighborhood makes for heavier traffic and decreased safety for kids on bikes and scooters or just playing in their front yards. “I am concerned about access for first responders. I recently spoke with a Palo Alto Fire Captain who recalled an emergency medical call several years ago when, arriving in Southgate, his team could not get to the site of the emergency. They had to stop, due to congestion on the street, and walk a block to the site on Castilleja.” Note: drawings are drawn to scale. “Two instances in the past 90 days of cars parking too close to a fire hydrant. In once instance, the hydrant was blocked completely. These incidents occurred on the southwest corner of Manzanita and Escobita.” “I worry that public safety vehicles may need to come during the day on a moment's notice AND could easily find the streets connecting to Churchill unpassable or difficult to navigate.” “Students speeding in neighborhood as they try to find parking and opening their car doors without looking. Students also park on corners which blocks all visibility.” “Every single day, whether I am walking or driving during the morning and mid afternoon hours I either experience this myself or see cars having to back up to let others come into Mariposa or Castilleja. Many times this involves a car having to back up onto Southgate RPP Page 28 of 42 Churchill to let a car coming out of one of these two streets navigate on to Churchill. Cars are lined up along the curbs on the first part of each of these streets so there is no way for cars coming out of the street to pull over making it necessary for cars coming in to stop traffic on Churchill as they back out. On these two streets there are also cars that shoot down the street at higher than safe speeds trying to make it to the end of the street before another car turns onto the street so they don’t have to pull over. It’s a crazy mess for sure and a dangerous situation to say the least.” BICYCLE SAFETY “The car congestion on Castilleja raises similar concerns that it becomes a less-safe bike boulevard. It is hard to see bikes because so many cars are along the street, you can't see down the street (Castilleja) until you have almost pulled into it from Manzanita.” “I had a situation where I tried to turn on Castilleja to be confronted by a oncoming truck who had no where to go as there were cars on each side. So I reversed back on Churchill Avenue and into the path of a cyclist.” “I dread going through the intersection of Miramonte and Castilleja. Twice I have been startled by racing bicyclists heading towards Churchill and Paly. There is no way to see them easily as they are blocked by the parked cars on both sides of Castilleja. I have inched out and inched out and am almost in the center of the intersection before I can actually see them.” “In the mornings after 9am Castilleja and Mariposa are now filled bumper to bumper with cars and there is no where for a car to move out of the way for either a cyclist or an oncoming car from the opposite direction.” “I also encounter bikers using the Castilleja Bike Boulevard swerving around cars going up or down the street. It’s almost impossible for bikes and cars to use the street at the same time when each side of the street is filled with parked cars. “ Southgate RPP Page 29 of 42 RESTRICTED DRIVEWAY ACCESS “It is extremely difficult to back out of our driveway with cars parked on either side of driveway and directly opposite the driveway. Very frustrating as we make an effort to keep our cars off the street by parking in driveway/garage.” “Reduced maneuverability backing out of the driveway because cars park across from driveways on narrow streets.” “Cars parking so closely behind other cars that residents are virtually pinned into their parking spots. “ CAR ATTEMPTING TO BACK OUT OF A DRIVEWAY STREET CONGESTION “Streets are already narrow so when cars are parked on either side the streets do not permit two-way traffic flow which often leads to somewhat dangerous procedures where one party has to either reverse, find a driveway, etc. so that the other party can proceed.” “While trying to exit the neighborhood (from Castilleja & Madrono) onto Churchill, we have had to reverse back to the Miramonte intersection when encountering cars entering the neighborhood as there isn't enough room for 2 cars to pass each other and there is nowhere to pull over. Also have to stop if bicyclist is coming opposite direction as unsafe to pass while moving.” “I have seen the Street Sweepers skip our street due to the non-resident parking.” “We also have staff from Stanford and the Medical offices park on the 1600 Portola block and use the Paseo pathway to either go to Stanford University or the Bay Area fertility or Dentist offices on El Camino. “ Southgate RPP Page 30 of 42 _____________________________________________________________________ EXHIBIT 4 Tom & Linda Vlasic 1540 Mariposa Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 November 22, 2015 To: City of Palo Alto Transportation Staff, City Manager and City Council Membersc/o Christine Shambora From: Tom & Linda Vlasic Subject: Comments on Southgate Parking Issues and Problemsfor December 3, 2015 Neighborhood Meeting Unfortunately we will be out of town at the time of the subject December 3rd meeting. We do, however, want to share the following comments and information for consideration at the meeting and also ask that it be considered by city staff and officials in follow-up to the meeting. The attached photo exhibits underscore our concerns over vehicle, driver, pedestrian and bicycle safety in the neighborhood, particularly in the blocks immediately east of Churchill Avenue. Paly students, staff, general commuter and other non-residential parking is destroying the residential character and, more importantly safety, of our neighborhood. During weekdays the intensity of non-neighborhood parking along the very narrow streets is so great that all street users are at risk and Castellija is no longer a safe bicycle boulevard; many bikers use Mariposa instead. Garbage pick up is jeopardized and emergency vehicle access is impossible. Getting in and out of driveways is extremely hazardous, and parking in front of one’s own property is either not possible or places your car and you at risk of being hit by vehicles. UPS and other deliveries to residents is also seriously impacted. Parking on both sides of the street, now typical during most of the weekday, renders the narrow streets to only one travel lane. Simply put, it is a parking and access mess and certainly an accident waiting to happen. Last week I called the fire department administrative offices to express concern over emergency access and bicycle boulevard safety. I was promised a check and call back, and the return call never occurred. For too long, the school district and City have ignored the situation and the neighbors have tolerated it. We cannot now just wait until an accident of some kind occurs. Someone in the public sector must take responsibility for these narrow public streets that are being used more and more for non-residential purposes, purposes they were clearly not designed or designated for. We ask you to seriously consider the photos herewith, investigate the neighborhood and take actions to remedy the situation. This is a public problem and the City and School District must work together to solve it. The neighborhood is being asked to shoulder the burden for inadequate planning on the part of both the City and School District. We would be pleased to meet with city staff and officials to further outline our concerns. Sincerely, Tom and Linda Vlasic (650) 269-15553cc. Superintendent and Board of Trustees, Palo Alto School District Southgate RPP Page 32 of 42 Conditions Around the Intersection of Castilleja and Manzanita Normal Weekend Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 33 of 42 Conditions Around the Intersection of Castilleja and Manzanita Normal Weekday Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 34 of 42 Conditions Around the Intersection of Castilleja and Manzanita Normal Weekday Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 35 of 42 Conditions Along the 1500 Block of Mariposa Avenue Normal Weekend Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 36 of 42 Conditions Along the 1500 Block of Mariposa Avenue Normal Weekday Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 37 of 42 EXHIBIT 5 SOUTHGATE-PARKING/SAFETY ISSUES PHOTOS Parked Illegally October 22, 2015: Escobita Ave October 5, 2015: Manzanita Ave May 13, 2013: Castilleja Ave May 9, 2013: Escobita Ave Southgate RPP Page 38 of 42 Page 1 of 5 Parked in wrong direction: both a parking and moving violation as they drive on the wrong side of the road both when parking and exiting. Bike Safety (Nowhere for bikes or cars to go. This is before streets are completely full of cars) November 4, 2015: Castilleja Ave November 4, 2015: Castilleja Ave November 4, 2015: Castilleja Ave Inadequate room for bikes and cars to pass. Southgate RPP Page 39 of 42 Page 2 of 5 Public Services Interruptions May 9, 2013: Escobita Ave Feb 8, 2016: Escobita Ave Garbage trucks cannot access streets Street sweeper cannot clean curbs October 30, 2014: Escobita Ave Southgate RPP Page 40 of 42 Page 3 of 5 Parking Impacts Nov 3, 2015. Castilleja (north) 4:15pm Escobita Driveway Dec 3, 2015: Escobita (north) 11:30am Dec 3 2015: Escobita (north) 3:15pm Dec 4, 2015: Manzanita (east)12:40pm Dec 3, 2015: Manzanita (east) 4:10pm Southgate RPP Page 41 of 42 Page 4 of 5 Dec 4, 2015: Madrono (north) 12:40pm Dec 3, 2015: Madrono (north) 4:10pm Nov 17, 2015: Escobita (north) 12:15pm Nov 17, 2015: Escobita (north) 3:45pm Corner of Castilleja and Manzanita Paly parking lot: Oct 2 2015 8:40 am Numerous spaces available Southgate RPP Page 42 of 42 Page 5 of 5 Attachment E - Southgate Parking Occupancy Study 2015-2016 Methodology: Between the months of November 2015 and March 2016, volunteers performed counts of the cars parked in Southgate. Counts were done at three different times of day to provide a view as to the cause of the parking congestion in the neighborhood. Counts were done at 10am, 4pm and 7pm on different days of the week, in order to provide a random sample. Counts were then averaged and compared to the number of spaces available. In order to calculate the number of available spaces, city staff advised us to use a 20' space as the basis for calculating the number of spaces on each block. The following worksheets provide both summary and detailed information on these counts. The neighborhood occupancy maps show the percentage of spaces occupied at different times of the day. The summary sheets provide the information in table format. Observations The area north of Miramonte sees an increase of over 86 cars, on average, at 10 am compared to 4pm, and an increase of over 95 cars when compared to 7pm. The increase is due to non-residential parking occurring during the day. There are nearly three times as many cars parked north of Miramonte at 10am (129.6 cars) as there are at 4pm (43.3), a 199.4% increase. There are nearly four times as many cars parked north of Miramonte at 10am(129.6 cars) as there are at 7pm (34.4), a 281% increase. Of the blocks north of Miramonte (closest to Churchill), all but two have over 68% of their parking full at 10 am. 9 of those blocks have over 75% of their parking full at 10am. At 7pm, only one of the blocks north of Miramonte is over 60% occupied, 200 block of Manzanita. This is due to a large number of multi-dwelling units on that block. Summary of Southgate Parking Occupancy # of Spaces 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Available 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 12.0 2.0 3.0 13 92% 15% 23% 7.3 0.8 0.5 6 121% 13% 8% 200 Manzanita 6.8 5.5 6.3 10 68% 55% 63% 0-29 Churchill 12.8 4.8 1.3 14 91% 34% 9% 30-59 Churchill 7.3 3.3 3.5 6 121% 54% 58% 60--95 Churchill 4.5 2.0 2.0 5 90% 40% 40% 8.0 2.0 2 7 114% 29% 25% 23.3 5.0 3.3 28 83% 18% 12% 1500 Escobita 20.8 2.3 3.5 26 80% 9% 13% 1500 Mariposa 28.8 11.0 6.5 42 68% 26% 15% 1500 Portola 5.3 4.0 5.5 17 31% 24% 32% 1500 El Camino 10.7 5.3 1.3 9 119% 58% 14% 10.5 5.3 4.0 14 75% 38% 29% 7.0 5.5 3.8 21 33% 26% 18% Average number of cars @ Percent Occupied Block North of Miramonte Manzanita (Mad. to Esco) Manzanita (Esco to Cast.) 1500 - 1521 Castilleja 1527 - 1599 Castilleja 1500 - 1515 Madrono 1520 - 1599 Madrono Miramonte and South 1600 Castilleja 8.8 6.3 8.8 40 22% 16% 22% 1600 Escobita 13.8 8.8 5.5 24 57% 36% 23% 1600 Mariposa 7.5 5.8 4.8 44 17% 13% 11% 1600 Portola 8.5 8.3 8.0 18 47% 46% 44% 1600 Madrono 5.0 5.8 3.5 21 24% 27% 17% 1600 El Camino 6.0 2.3 0.5 10 60% 23% 5% 200 Sequoia 3.8 5.0 5.5 13 29% 38% 42% 300 Sequoia 1.5 3.5 3.0 11 14% 32% 27% 400 Sequoia 2.5 2.5 2.5 14 18% 18% 18% 100 Miramonte 3.3 2.8 3.3 10 33% 28% 33% 200 Miramonte 3.3 3.5 1.0 12 27% 29% 8% 300 Miramonte 4.3 5.0 5.3 9 47% 56% 58% 400 Miramonte 5.3 3.8 3.0 13 40% 29% 23% 500 Miramonte 4.8 4.3 3.0 13 37% 33% 23% Notes: 1) Counts were done on 4 different occassions at each time period. 2) Spaces available based on 20' spaces per advice of city staff. Daily Parking Counts Day Friday Friday Wednesday Thursday Friday Wednesday Thursday Tuesday Tuesday Monday Thurs Mon Date 11/20/2015 12/11/2015 2/17/2016 2/18/2016 12/11/2015 2/17/2016 2/18/2016 3/7/2016 3/1/2016 3/6/2016 2/18/2016 2/29/2016 Time 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM North of Miramonte Mariposa 29 27 28 31 10 13 10 11 7 7 6 6 Castilleja 37 28 31 29 11 7 6 4 4 4 6 6 Escobita 21 22 22 18 2 3 1 3 4 4 3 3 Madrono 18 12 20 20 7 11 12 13 3 3 5 4 Portola 6 8 2 5 3 2 7 4 5 5 6 6 Manzanita 25 23 28 28 5 9 11 8 10 10 9 10 Total 136 120 131 131 38 45 47 43 33 33 35 35 Miramonte and South Miramonte 14 18 26 25 13 25 21 18 15 15 15 17 Mariposa 10 6 6 8 5 7 7 4 5 5 4 5 Castilleja 10 7 6 12 7 9 6 3 9 9 8 9 Escobita 11 16 14 14 13 7 8 7 6 6 5 5 Madrono 6 3 6 5 9 4 4 6 3 3 4 4 Portola 6 6 10 12 7 9 10 7 9 9 7 7 Sequoia 2 12 9 8 9 10 13 12 11 11 10 12 Total 59 68 77 84 63 71 69 57 58 58 53 59 Exterior Block Churchill 20 22 28 28 8 12 14 6 7 7 6 7 El Camino Real 15 15 20 0 12 9 1 8 1 1 1 4 Total 35 37 48 28 20 21 15 14 8 8 7 11 Grand Total 230 225 256 243 121 137 131 114 99 99 95 105 Note: 2/18 10am count of El Camino Real not factored in to average. No Parking on Thursdays due to garbage pick up. Parking Comparison by Time of Day Avg # of Cars by Time Increase/(Decrease) in # of cars Percent increase/(decrease) in avg. # of cars % of spaces full 10 00 AM 4 00 PM 7 00 PM 10am vs 4pm 10am vs 7 pm 4pm vs 7 pm 10am vs 4pm 10am vs 7 pm 4pm vs 7 pm # of 20' spaces 10 00 AM 4 00 PM 7 00 PM # of counts 4 4 4 North of Miramonte Mariposa 28 8 11 0 6.5 17.8 22.3 4.5 161.36% 342.31% 69.23% 42 68 5% 26 2% 15 5% Castilleja 31 3 7 0 5 0 24.3 26.3 2.0 346.43% 525.00% 40.00% 35 89 3% 20 0% 14 3% Escobita 20 8 2 3 3 5 18.5 17.3 (1.3) 822.22% 492.86% -35.71% 26 79 8% 8.7% 13 5% Madrono 17 5 10 8 3 8 6.8 13.8 7.0 62.79% 366.67% 186.67% 35 50 0% 30.7% 10.7% Portola 5 3 4 0 5 5 1.3 (0.3) (1.5) 31.25% -4.55% -27.27% 17 30 9% 23 5% 32.4% Manzanita 26 0 8 3 9 8 17.8 16.3 (1.5) 215.15% 166.67% -15.38% 29 89.7% 28.4% 33 6% Total 129.5 43.3 34.0 Total 86.3 95.5 9.3 Total 199.42% 280.88% 27.21% 184 70.4% 23.5% 18.5% Miramonte and South Miramonte 20 8 19 3 15 5 1.5 5.3 3.8 7.79% 33.87% 24.19% 57 36.4% 33 8% 27 2% Mariposa 7 5 5 8 4 8 1.8 2.8 1.0 30.43% 57.89% 21.05% 39 19 2% 14.7% 12 2% Castilleja 8 8 6 3 8 8 2.5 0.0 (2.5) 40.00% 0.00% -28.57% 40 21 9% 15 6% 21 9% Escobita 13 8 8 8 5.5 5.0 8.3 3.3 57.14% 150.00% 59.09% 24 57 3% 36 5% 22 9% Madrono 5 0 5 8 3 5 (0.8) 1.5 2.3 -13.04% 42.86% 64.29% 21 23 8% 27.4% 16.7% Portola 8 5 8 3 8 0 0.3 0.5 0.3 3.03% 6.25% 3.13% 18 47 2% 45 8% 44.4% Sequoia 7 8 11 0 11 0 (3.3) (3.3) 0.0 -29.55% -29.55% 0.00% 43 18 0% 25 6% 25 6% Total 72.0 65.0 57.0 Total 7.0 15.0 8.0 Total 10.77% 26.32% 14.04% 242 29.8% 26.9% 23.6% Exterior Blocks Churchill 24 5 10 0 6.8 14.5 17.8 3.3 145.00% 262.96% 48.15% 25 98 0% 40 0% 27 0% El Camino Real 16.7 7 5 1 8 9.2 14.9 5.8 122.22% 852.38% 328.57% 19 87.7% 39 5% 9 2% Total 41.2 17.5 8.5 Total 23.7 32.7 9.0 Total 135.24% 384.31% 105.88% 44 93.6% 39.8% 19.3% Grand Total 242.7 125.8 99.5 Grand Total 116.9 143.2 26.3 Grand Total 92.98% 143.89% 26.38% 470 51.6% 26.8% 21.2% March 7, 2016 Page 2 Members’ conclusion in the Memo that the City Council should take the “quickest, most efficient way to achieve success” in alleviating the parking problems in the Evergreen Park non-commercial core. The best way to do this is to annex Evergreen Park’s residential streets into the College Terrace RPP district. Evergreen Park meets all the criteria for being designated a RPP district. The Municipal Code allows the City to designate a RPP district if non-resident vehicles substantially interfere with the use of street parking by residents; if that interference is regular; if the interference creates traffic, noise, parking shortages, or other disruptions; and if other parking strategies are not feasible or practical. Municipal Code § 10.50.030. As documented in the EPPP Committee’s parking occupancy surveys and neighbors’ photographs attached to the Neighborhood Petition Form, by mid-morning every weekday, Evergreen Park’s streets are packed bumper-to-bumper with cars, nearly all of which are from outside of the neighborhood. This high parking saturation leaves neighborhood residents unable to park near their homes, prevents them from putting out their trash and recycling bins, impedes street sweeping, and creates traffic and safety problems. No other parking options exist for neighborhood residents. Parking conditions have been like this for years, and neighbors have documented that the situation continues to worsen, especially as more and more office space is developed in the area. The fastest, simplest, most efficient, and most cost-effective way to remedy these adverse impacts of non-resident parking in the Evergreen Park non-commercial core is for the City to annex the Evergreen Park residential streets, as described in the Neighborhood Petition Form, into the College Terrace RPP district. The Municipal Code expressly provides that a street’s residents “may petition the [planning] director for annexation into a contiguous RPP district.” Municipal Code § 10.50.080. This provision allows small areas to be joined to existing RPP districts, thereby saving the City from creating whole new programs for areas adjacent to established RPP districts. Evergreen Park is a perfect example of where annexation to an existing district makes the most sense. Annexing Evergreen Park’s residential streets into the College Terrace RPP district is far more reasonable than going through the extensive procedures for designating a new RPP, as outlined in Municipal Code section 10.50.050. The Evergreen Park non-commercial core is small—just three blocks by five blocks—and it would be a waste of the City’s resources to devote dozens of hours of staff time over a year or more to study and develop a separate RPP program just for this small neighborhood, when another viable option exists. Parking occupancy studies have already established that there are severe parking shortages in the neighborhood. And the parking-related problems in Evergreen Park are nearly identical to those suffered by College Terrace March 7, 2016 Page 3 before its RPP went into effect. Indeed, the City recognized the likelihood that Evergreen Park would suffer similar parking issues as College Terrace in the 2000 Stanford University General Use Permit, which recommended that parking in Evergreen Park be studied. See Excerpt from Stanford University General Use Permit, at p. 19-20 (attached as Exhibit 2). Because the City has already developed and implemented the College Terrace RPP program—and knows that the program works—it should not reinvent the wheel for Evergreen Park. Instead, the City should expand the successful College Terrace RPP district to include Evergreen Park and provide these near neighbors with the same kind of parking relief. Annexing the Evergreen Park non-commercial core into the College Terrace RPP district is—as was recognized in the Colleagues’ Memo—“the simplest, least costly, and most expeditious solution” to Evergreen Park’s burgeoning parking problem. The parking situation in residential Evergreen Park is critical, and this is the best option to quickly alleviate the problem. However, regardless of the path the City takes forward, the EPPP Committee emphasizes that it is essential that any RPP instituted in residential Evergreen Park allows permits only for residents, lest the program risk conflicting with state law’s requirement that residents’ parking needs take precedence over businesses’ parking demands in RPPs. See Veh. Code § 22507. Residents-only is the system that has worked so well in adjacent College Terrace, and that is the system that will work for Evergreen Park. On behalf of the EPPP Committee, thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss further. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Laura D. Beaton 761293 2 EXHIBIT 1 City of Palo Alto COLLEAGUES MEMO DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2016 SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS DUBOIS, FILSETH HOLMAN, AND SCHMID REGARDING CREATION OF AN EVERGREEN PARK RESIDENTAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM Goal: Provide immediate parking relief to the non-commercial area of Evergreen Park. Background and Discussion: Serious parking problems have been acknowledged in Evergreen Park for 16 years. In the 2000 Stanford General Use Permit, Stanford committed $100,000 for parking impacts starting with College Terrace but also considering impacts on Evergreen Park and Southgate. At that time, it was acknowledged that Evergreen Park may need to be annexed into the Parking Permit program for the same reason that the College Terrace program was started – impacts from Stanford University and California Avenue. In July 2007 a Colleagues memo directed staff to use the $100,000 to initiate an assessment of a permit program in College Terrace. In December 2009, the College Terrace Permit Parking ordinance was approved and started in January 2010. The program has significantly reduced parking problems. The City has no system to measure commercial parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods so residential leaders have conducted a series of parking surveys over more than 2 years documenting the problem and have provided data to City council and staff. Survey data for 2015 shows that the parking saturation rate on Evergreen Park residential streets is consistently over 70% on weekdays. Major new construction projects such as 2865 Park Blvd, 2650 Birch Street, 2100 El Camino, 1501 California Ave, and 385 Sherman will be coming on line soon and potentially will add increased demand and exacerbate the already existing parking problem. In the summer of 2015 concerned residents gathered over 225 signatures (from 300 units surveyed) in Evergreen Park requesting an RPP for Evergreen Park identical to the College Terrace program, selling permits only to residents. Evergreen Park non-commercial residential area is small, just 5 blocks by 3 blocks. Evergreen Park is contiguous to College Terrace and has a community of interest with College Terrace because commuter parking comes from many of the same sources. Yet unlike College Terrace, Evergreen Park has not been granted relief from commuter parking, which now floods the neighborhood. January 31, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Annexing Evergreen Park to the existing College Terrace RPP is the simplest, least costly, and most expeditious solution since the College Terrace RPP has been in place for over 5 years and efficient procedures and policies have already been established that could easily expand to Evergreen Park. This Council has also taken steps to support and strengthen the position of the California Avenue merchants, and we do not want to jeopardize their ability to survive and thrive in that protective environment. Currently, a merchant cannot share permits among its employees, thus putting more strain on limited parking supply and adding cost to merchants who must otherwise purchase additional permits. Given the small area of consideration and the proximity to CalTrain and El Camino Real bus lines, this also seems an appropriate area to test the efficacy of Palo !lto’s TDM program, and assumptions of potential results before incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan. A number of projects have been approved in the area with TDM programs but coincident with those buildings being occupied the parking situation in Evergreen Park has been exacerbated. This proposal intends to find the quickest, most efficient way to achieve success by addressing ways to remove a large majority of commuter cars from the neighborhood. Recommendation: We recommend that Council direct Staff to return to Council after community outreach and not later than the end of May with a proposal for providing the most expeditious relief to Evergreen Park through a resident parking program which restores and enhances the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by drastically reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby businesses and institutional uses. Two potential actions could be: 1. Create a College Terrace-like RPP with resident only parking, either under the new RPP ordinance or by amending the College Terrace RPP to annex the non-commercial core of Evergreen Park, bounded by El Camino Real, Park Blvd and College Avenue. Concurrent with adoption of the RPPP, allow merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits valid within the commercial district among their own employees. Staff should recommend what type of parking can be modified most easily in the commercial district to enable permit sharing by these users – parking lots, garages, street parking or some combination. 2. Create an RPP initiated by Council under Section 10.50.040 on an accelerated timeline for the same non-commercial core area of Evergreen Park. The RPP should provide either zero non- resident permits or a small number (for example, ten percent) available to merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District. Employees of these businesses should be enabled to share such parking permits among their own employees, tracked by January 31, 2016 Page 3 of 3 employer. (This is as opposed to the proposed unlimited daily permits in the Downtown RPPP area). Non-resident permits in this area should decrease over time, potentially replaced by retail employee permits in the California Ave commercial area (South of College Ave). Concurrent with adoption of the RPPP, allow merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits valid within the commercial district among their own employees. Furthermore, the City should ensure that: 1. Signage Poles required for the implementation of the program be installed expeditiously. 2. Merchants and offices in the California Avenue Business District and along El Camino Real are notified of pending changes. 3. Ideally, if annexed into the College Terrace RPP complete the creation of the RPP in time to allow Evergreen Park residents to enroll during the next scheduled yearly College Terrace renewal period which occurs 8/1/16 TO 8/31/16. In any case, treat this issue with urgency to implement a solution for the neighborhood. Acknowledging the critical timeliness of this proposal, we request that the City Manager's Comments include short updates on this project. Staff Impact: The City Manager and Director of Planning have reviewed this Memorandum and have the following comments: EXHIBIT 2 Neighborhood Petition Form City of Palo Alto Residential Parking Permit Program Request Form The purpose of this form is to enable neighborhoods to request to be annexed to an existing Residential Preferential Parking area or the initiation of a Residential Preferential Parking Program in accordance with the City of Palo !lto’s adopted Residential Parking Permit Program Policy and Procedures. This form must be filled out in its entirety and submitted with any request to: The City of Palo Alto Transportation Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 Feel free to attach additional sheets containing pictures, occupancy maps, additional testimony or additional text if the space provided is insufficient. 1. Requesting Individual’s Contact Information Name: Paul L. Machado for the Evergreen Park Parking Permit Committee Address: 363 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone Number: 650-323-8554 Email: plmachado@gmail.com !s explained in our attorneys’ letter, submitted with this form, we request that the Evergreen Park Non- Commercial Core be annexed to the existing successful College Terrace Residential Parking Permit (“RPP”) district. The Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core is adjacent to the College Terrace RPP district: it is directly across El Camino Real. Palo Alto Municipal Code section 10.50.080 provides that areas may be annexed to contiguous RPP districts, and this is the most expeditious, efficient, and cost- effective way to reduce the parking problems in our neighborhood. 2. Please describe the nature of the overflow parking problem in your neighborhood. 1. What streets in your neighborhood do you feel are affected by overflow parking? 2. How often does the overflow occur? 3. Does the impact vary from month to month, or season to season? 1) The residential Evergreen Park neighborhood experiences overflow parking on the streets generally bounded by El Camino Real, Park Boulevard, and Cambridge Avenue (the “Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core”). The streets affected by overflow parking are: a) Park Boulevard from El Camino Real to Cambridge Avenue b) Birch Street from Park Boulevard to College Avenue c) The north half of Birch Street between College Avenue and Cambridge Avenue d) Ash Street from Park Avenue to College Avenue e) Park Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard, including the two parking spaces in front of 120 Park Avenue f) Leland Avenue from the barrier east of El Camino Real to Park Boulevard g) Stanford Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard h) Oxford Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard i) College Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard 2) The parking overflow occurs every weekday, which has been documented by Parking Saturation Surveys conducted periodically since 2014. The saturation rate in the Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core has continually increased since then, and our residential area has been more than 70% parked by midday on weekdays, as noted in the February 10, 2016, City of Palo Alto Colleagues Memo on this topic. The results of the Parking Saturation Surveys are included in the Evergreen Park Residential Parking Permit Proposal Presentation (Nov. 4, 2015), attached hereto as Exhibit A. Photographs of the neighborhood streets early and the morning and during the day are attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3) The parking saturation on weekdays is consistent year-round. 3. Can you identify a parking impact generator that is the cause of overflow parking in the neighborhood? Are there any facilities (churches, schools, shopping centers, etc.) near this location that generate a high concentration of vehicle and pedestrian traffic? Please list your understanding of the causes: Parking impacts in the Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core come from the following sources. Many of the drivers park in the neighborhood to avoid paying for parking elsewhere. 1) Employees of customer-serving businesses near the neighborhood, which do not have adequate parking for both employees and customers. The employers instruct employees to park in the residential neighborhood to leave business parking lot spaces open for customers. 2) Employees from office buildings near the neighborhood. The area surrounding the neighborhood is experiencing an increased number of office workers, including development of new office buildings with inadequate parking and use of spaces for offices that were previously not used for offices. 3) CalTrain commuters, who park in the neighborhood instead of paying to park in the CalTrain station lot. 4) Individuals going to airport, who leave their cars for extended periods instead of paying to park at the airport. 5) Stanford University faculty, staff, students, and visitors, who park in the neighborhood to avoid paying for Stanford’s on-campus parking. 4. Please describe how a Residential Parking Permit Program will be able to eliminate or reduce overflow parking impacting the neighborhood. Please include your suggestion for the boundary of the program: Including Evergreen Park in the College Terrace RPP district would limit non-resident parking to two hours. This would virtually eliminate the parking impact from CalTrain commuters, airport travelers, Stanford University, and nearby business and office employees. Removing these all-day—and sometimes multi-day—parkers from the neighborhood’s limited parking would allow for neighborhood residents to park in their own neighborhood, near their homes. This will increase our safety, security, and freedom of movement (especially for the disabled and seniors), and improve our quality of life. It would also enhance bike safety as we have multiple bike boulevards through the neighborhood. The boundaries of the Evergreen Park zone of the College Terrace RPPP district should be El Camino Real, Cambridge Avenue, and Park Boulevard. 5. Is there neighborhood support for submittal of this Residential Parking Permit Program application? Have you contacted your HOA/Neighborhood Association? Neighborhood representatives have been working to be annexed to the existing College Terrace RPP Program for many months. We have the support of the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association and strong support among neighborhood residents. In 2015, over 225 residents of Evergreen Park signed a petition requesting that a Residential Parking Permit Program be established. The signed petition is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Our proposal, as well as the petition, for the Evergreen Park RPP was submitted to the City Council on Feb 1, 2016. 761279.2 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C University Ave Lytton Ave Everett Ave Fu l t o n S t Gu i n d a S t Gu i n d a S t Se n e c a S t Ha l e S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d By r o n S t By r o n S t Wa v e r l e y S t Wa v e r l y S t Ta s s o S t Ta s s o St Fl o r e n c e By r o n S t We b s t e r S t Co w p e r S t Co w p e r S t Br y a n t S t Ra m o n a S t Em e r s o n S t Hi g h S t Fu l t o n S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d We b s t e r S t Br y a n t S t Br y a n t S t Ra m o n a S t Em e r s o n S t Hi g h S t Ki p l i n g Ki p l i n g Hawthorne Ave Ruthven Ave Poe St Hamilton Ave Forest Ave Forest Ave Homer Ave Channing Ave Addison Ave Lincoln Ave Kingsley Ave Melville AveMelville Ave Kellogg AveKellogg Ave Churchill Ave Coleridge Ave B o y c e A v e A d dis o n A v e Lin c oln A v e Fife A v e F ore st A v e C h a n nin g A v e P arkin s o n A v e H o p kin s A v e M elville A v e H arriet St P a l o A l t o A v e Alma St Alma St Embarcadero Rd El Camino Real Downtown RPP District N SOFA DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Downtown RPP District Approved Eligibility Area University Ave Lytton Ave Everett Ave Fu l t o n S t Gu i n d a S t Gu i n d a S t Se n e c a S t Ha l e S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d By r o n S t By r o n S t Wa v e r l e y S t Wa v e r l y S t Ta s s o S t Ta s s o St Fl o r e n c e By r o n S t We b s t e r S t Co w p e r S t Co w p e r S t Br y a n t S t Ra m o n a S t Em e r s o n S t Hi g h S t Fu l t o n S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d We b s t e r S t Br y a n t S t Br y a n t S t Ra m o n a S t Em e r s o n S t Hi g h S t Ki p l i n g Ki p l i n g Hawthorne Ave Ruthven Ave Poe St Hamilton Ave Forest Ave Forest Ave Homer Ave Channing Ave Addison Ave Lincoln Ave Kingsley Ave Melville AveMelville Ave Kellogg AveKellogg Ave Churchill Ave Coleridge Ave B o y c e A v e A d dis o n A v e Lin c oln A v e Fife A v e F ore st A v e C h a n nin g A v e P arkin s o n A v e H o p kin s A v e M elville A v e H arriet St P a l o A l t o A v e Alma St Alma St Embarcadero Rd El Camino Real Downtown RPP District N SOFA DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Downtown RPP District Approved Eligibility Area 9 10 8 7 6 5 41 2 3 Downtown RPP Parking Occupancy Collection Date: March 24, 2016 City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 8 AM ‐ 10 AM 85% 67% 76% 80% 30% 24 % Pa l o Alt o Av 25% 67% 85% 28% 83% 93% 94% 82 % 89 % 63 % 22 % 4% 29 % 64% 67 % 75 % 75 % 50 % 25 % 29 % Emerson St Emerson 71 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 12 0 % 10 0 % 29 % 63 % 64 % 75 % 70 % 53 % 44 % 14 % 86 % 84 % 90 % 33 % 63 % 92 % 10 7 % 95 % 83% 100% 15 % 25% 36% 63 % 60 % 83 % 44 % 10 0 % 50 % 57 % 83 %0%29 % 86 % 84 % 53 % 42 % 69% 0%0% 75% 50%70% Kipling 36% 73 % 10 0 % 50 % 0% 53% Kipling St 6% 82% 85% 33 % 44 % 67 % 17 % 25 % 52 % 38 % 22 %0%0% 0% 0% 60% 56% Ha w t h o r n e Av 25% Ev e r e t t Av 33% Ly t t o n Av 33 % 14 %0%14 % 33 % 67 % 10 0 % 88 % 64 % 0% 0% 20% 19% 0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t Av 50% Ly t t o n Av e 70% 62%38% Un i v e r s i t y Av 53% Ha m i l t o n Av 15% 36% 55% 21% 11%63% 38%0% 3/24/2016 0% 71% 0% 31% 40% 8% 29% 33% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0% 43 %0% 57 % 67 % 50 % 44 % 80 % 90 % 72 % 92 % 50 % 29 %0%0%0% 10 0 % 75 % 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%40% 13% 0% 5% Pa l o Alt o A 10 0 % 60 % 67% 0% 17% 0% Fulton 38% 0% 50% 45%0% Fulton St 0% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 50% Ad d i s o n 31% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 18 % 12% 27% 69% 100%0% 44 % 46% 14% 47% 108%0% 0% 0% 52% Ke l l o g g 38% 45 % 65 % 10 0 % 80 % 69 % 63 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 14 % 22 %0%14 % 43 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 21% 47% 60% 80%#REF!79% 64% 69% 69% 19% 31% 69% 22% 75% 0%29 % 0%25 % 22 % 61 % 50 % 78 % 35 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% 50%54%0% 0% 0% Me l v i l l e 0%100%21% 39 % 53 % 90 % 55 % 50 % 77 % 75 % 11 7 % 82 % 29 % 33% 6%100%62% Ha m i l t o n Av 58% 50% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0% 31%100%0% 17% 64% 20% 83% 77% 50% 42% 35% 76% 60%0% 0% 0% 0%33 % 29 % 38 % 67 % 91 %0%0%22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 8% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 29% 25% 36% 86% 83% 64% 46% 82% 64% 79% 41% 0% 0% 0% 25 % 67 %0% 33% 38% 115% 80% 115% 77% 62% 43% 33% 31% 12 0 % 93 % 63 % 67 % 75 % 33 % 50 % 24 %0% 18% 0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 12 % 41% 25% 56% 109% 40% 76% 50% 140% 60% 25% 19% 53% 0% 33% 29 % 53 % 56 % 88 % 77 % 25 % 33 % 33 % 14 % 50 % 85 % 0%6%Pa l o Al t o Av 0% Po e St 54 % 13 % 58 % 43% 45% 13% 56 % 55 % 89 % 78 % 22 % 20% 55% 50% 38% 100% 60% 90%81% 69% 44% 0% 58% Bryant St Bryant 41% Ha w t h o r n e Av 50% Ev e r e t t Av 90% Ly t t o n Av 73% Un i v e r s i t y Av 75% Ha m i l t o n Av 125% Fo r e s t Av 73% Ho m e r Av 87% Ch a n n i n g Av 71% 63% 0% Kin g s l e y 25% 22 % 50 % 60 % 75 % 20 % 33 % 29 % 64 % 75 % 33 % 43 % 60 % 60 % 33% 92% 14% 88% 80%79% 50% 0% Ramona St Ramona50% 81% 6% 100% 53% 93% 73% 92% 89 % 50 % Ad d i s o n 47% 80 % 44% 62% 92% 29% 88% 86% 86% 100% 6% 89% 31% Lin c o l n 73% 89 % 50 % 22 % 29 % 25 % 27 % 44 % 86 % 36%Legend 31 % 62 % 75 % 43 % 38 % 60 % 75 % 0%40 % 50 % 63 % 90 % 10 0 % 83 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 75 % 13 % 25 % 16 0 % 63 % 0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy 87% 77% 8% 60% 92% 100% 88% 78% 75% 60%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy83% 100% 25% 23% 79% 108% 55% 38 % 0%0%0%50 % 25 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 20 % 75 % 13 % 44 % Alma St Alma13% 24 % Pa l o Alt o Av 67 % 75 % 75 % 50 % 25 % 29 % 31 % 62 % 38 % 0% 25% 21% 11% 0% 63% 100% 64% 0% 8% 0%0%50 % 25 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 20 % 75 % 13 % 44 % City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12p ‐ 2p 92% 100% 94% 80% 80% 28 % Pa l o Alt o Av 50% 108% 77% 94% 50% 114% 88% 73 % 78 % 63 % 56 % 13 % 12 % 109% 67 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 50 % 75 % 0% Emerson St Emerson 86 % 14 3 % 88 % 12 0 % 10 0 % 57 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 90 % 95 % 81 % 14 3 % 86 % 95 % 10 0 % 30 0 % 11 3 % 10 8 % 87 % 95 % 111% 107% 30 % 13% 64% 53 % 73 % 50 % 78 % 14 3 % 38 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 86 % 10 0 % 15 7 % 89 % 95 % 42 % 54% 0%0% 92% 83%60% Kipling 43% 11 8 % 43 % 33 % 0% 80% Kipling St 88% 91% 115% 89 % 11 1 % 10 0 % 67 % 10 0 % 30 % 50 % 39 % 57 % 12 2 % 0% 12 % 40% 33% Ha w t h o r n e Av 25% Ev e r e t t Av 53% Ly t t o n Av 33 % 14 % 14 %0%33 % 44 % 10 0 % 75 % 57 % 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 8% Ev e r e t t Av 14% Ly t t o n Av e 100% 46%62% Un i v e r s i t y Av 60% Ha m i l t o n Av 23% 27% 36% 42% 89%75% 46%100% 3/24/2016 0% 243% 50% 46% 40% 17% 29% 25% 0% 0% 33 %0% 67 % 33 % 57 %0% 29 % 56 % 50 % 44 % 53 % 80 % 72 % 0%36 % 29 %0%0%0% 10 0 % 25 % 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%0% 13% 0% 5% Pa l o Alt o A 10 0 % 80 % 67% 0% 17% 0% Fulton 46% 110% 42% 45%0% Fulton St 58% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 36% Ad d i s o n 23% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 27 % 35% 27% 62% 85%0% 44 % 100% 57% 47% 77%0% 0% 0% 52% Ke l l o g g 38% 40 % 76 % 80 % 67 % 63 % 68 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 14 %0%11 % 14 % 43 % 88 % 10 0 % 0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 107% 47% 87% 80%#REF!93% 93% 94% 50% 13% 31% 69% 22% 75% 0%29 % 0%88 % 33 % 83 % 72 % 44 % 71 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 20% 60%92%0% 0% 0% Me l v i l l e 0%100%21% 78 % 76 % 40 % 73 % 86 % 85 % 88 % 75 % 47 % 29 % 47% 38%100%69% Ha m i l t o n Av 100% 50% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0% 15%200%0% 17% 71% 50% 100% 100% 80% 67% 71% 88% 53%0% 0% 0% 14 % 33 % 14 % 13 % 83 % 91 %0%0%22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 4% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 14% 50% 64% 93% 100% 91% 77% 35% 64% 71% 47% 0% 0% 0% 31 % 40 %0% 72% 100% 54% 80% 154% 77% 69% 43% 0% 100% 17 0 % 93 % 44 % 56 % 50 % 28 % 61 %6%0% 35% 17% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 12 % 35% 125% 78% 100% 53% 100% 50% 130% 53% 50% 13% 94% 11% 33% 12 % 63 % 83 % 10 0 % 10 8 % 38 % 38 % 39 % 33 % 55 % 21 4 % 0% 13 %Pa l o Al t o Av 0% Po e St 54 % 13 % 68 % 157% 100% 125% 78 % 55 % 13 3 % 89 % 44 % 20% 60% 50% 100% 109% 220% 100%94% 94% 44% 27% 17% Bryant St Bryant 59% Ha w t h o r n e Av 71% Ev e r e t t Av 120% Ly t t o n Av 182% Un i v e r s i t y Av 81% Ha m i l t o n Av 125% Fo r e s t Av 67% Ho m e r Av 93% Ch a n n i n g Av 93% 63% 37% Kin g s l e y 17% 89 % 50 % 10 0 % 15 0 % 70 % 10 0 % 86 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 33 % 57 % 60 % 50 % 44% 92% 79% 88% 80%57% 44% 100% Ramona St Ramona67% 106% 94% 100% 65% 87% 73% 92% 56 % 50 % Ad d i s o n 60% 60 % 100% 62% 100% 71% 88% 93% 107% 100% 69% 89% 8% Lin c o l n 60% 15 6 % 50 % 78 % 86 % 10 0 % 55 % 44 % 11 4 % 36%Legend 50 % 69 % 88 % 86 % 63 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 40 % 11 0 % 63 % 75 % 10 0 % 88 % 67 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 0%0% 16 0 % 50 % 0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy 100% 92% 92% 50% 77% 94% 88% 100% 108% 40%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy100% 120% 88% 92% 86% 108% 55% 50 % 0%0%0% 11 7 % 88 % 88 % 88 % 60 % 75 % 0% 15 6 % Alma St Alma43% 28 % Pa l o Alt o Av 67 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 50 % 75 % 0% 50 % 69 % 50 % 0% 50% 86% 89% 114% 19% 100% 64% 31% 0% 0%0% 11 7 % 88 % 88 % 88 % 60 % 75 % 0% 15 6 % City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 5p ‐ 7p 115% 100% 59% 93% 0% 24 % Pa l o Alt o Av 81% 58% 100% 100% 89% 100% 100% 91 % 89 %0%0% 8% 29 % 82% 16 7 % 75 % 88 % 12 5 % 75 % 43 % Emerson St Emerson 10 0 % 14 3 % 11 3 % 12 0 % 63 % 43 % 63 % 91 % 10 0 % 90 % 68 % 10 6 % 12 9 % 10 0 % 95 % 11 0 % 67 % 11 3 % 10 8 % 93 % 57 % 117% 86% 15 % 38% 64% 63 % 60 % 11 7 % 56 % 14 3 % 38 % 86 % 83 % 86 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 62% 0%0% 92% 117%40% Kipling 14% 10 9 % 43 % 33 % 0% 60% Kipling St 24% 100% 100% 11 % 67 % 67 % 67 % 10 0 % 57 % 13 % 22 % 43 %0% 0% 0% 20% 44% Ha w t h o r n e Av 17% Ev e r e t t Av 47% Ly t t o n Av 33 % 57 % 57 % 29 % 33 % 33 % 35 0 % 0%36 % 0% 0% 30% 19% 0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 0% Ev e r e t t Av 43% Ly t t o n Av e 30% 46%31% Un i v e r s i t y Av 60% Ha m i l t o n Av 8% 27% 27% 32% 50%81% 54%50% 3/24/2016 0% 114% 50% 31% 47% 33% 21% 25% 0% 0% 33 %0% 67 % 13 3 % 86 %9%0% 44 % 25 % 39 % 40 % 70 % 39 % 46 % 50 % 29 %0%0%0% 25 % 50 % 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%30% 20% 0% 25 % Pa l o Alt o A 10 0 % 60 % 33% 0% 17% 0% Fulton 17% 70% 50% 100%0% Fulton St 25% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 7% Ad d i s o n 0% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 9% 29% 27% 38% 77%0% 44 % 38% 29% 40% 8%0% 0% 0% 52% Ke l l o g g 38% 65 % 41 % 67 % 60 % 25 % 37 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 0%11 %0%14 % 14 % 88 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 29% 40% 60% 80%#REF!71% 21% 63% 63% 25% 81% 69% 22% 75% 0%0%0%13 % 17 % 67 % 61 % 89 % 94 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% 50%100%0% 0% 0% Me l v i l l e 0%100%21% 33 % 53 % 90 % 91 % 43 % 38 % 56 % 75 % 94 % 47 % 80% 88%54%92% Ha m i l t o n Av 117% 29% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0% 8%0%0% 17% 29% 40% 92% 100% 90% 117% 106% 35% 67%0% 0% 0% 0%17 %0%13 % 10 0 % 10 9 % 0%0%22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 12 % Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 36% 50% 55% 71% 108% 164% 100% 41% 71% 50% 76% 0% 0% 0% 25 % 67 %0% 67% 100% 138% 100% 162% 92% 62% 50% 27% 13% 17 0 % 93 % 19 % 44 % 50 % 39 % 56 %0%0% 12% 17% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 12 % 41% 100% 56% 100% 93% 112% 20% 90% 33% 42% 38% 24% 21% 67% 29 % 53 % 61 % 65 % 85 % 13 % 0%22 % 10 % 10 % #D I V / 0 ! 0% 19 %Pa l o Al t o Av 0% Po e St 62 % 47 % 0%114% 64% 125% 89 % 10 0 % 12 2 % 89 % 33 % 20% 45% 50% 50% 73% 120% 105%75% 56% 44% 27% 42% Bryant St Bryant 50% Ha w t h o r n e Av 43% Ev e r e t t Av 100% Ly t t o n Av 100% Un i v e r s i t y Av 94% Ha m i l t o n Av 50% Fo r e s t Av 67% Ho m e r Av 93% Ch a n n i n g Av 50% 63% 32% Kin g s l e y 0% 39 % 83 % 80 % 75 % 11 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 91 % 10 0 % 33 % 29 % 60 % 50 % 44% 92% 107% 106% 100%50% 39% 0% Ramona St Ramona67% 81% 94% 142% 82% 120% 93% 67% 11 % 10 % Ad d i s o n 40% 40 % 44% 46% 108% 86% 106% 93% 93% 117% 63% 61% 8% Lin c o l n 20% 10 0 % 50 % 33 % 10 0 % 11 3 % 10 0 % 67 % 12 9 % 21%Legend 44 % 69 % 63 % 43 % 38 % 10 0 % 11 3 % 40 % 12 0 % 63 % 63 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 25 % 50 % 11 0 % 38 % 0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy 73% 85% 115% 100% 85% 100% 81% 78% 25% 30%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy67% 70% 100% 108% 100% 117% 45% 38 % 0%0%0% 11 7 % 11 3 % 10 0 % 88 % 80 % 50 % 25 % 0% Alma St Alma26% 24 % Pa l o Alt o Av 16 7 % 75 % 88 % 12 5 % 75 % 43 % 44 % 69 % 38 % 0% 75% 29% 11% 86% 100% 100% 64% 0% 0% 0%0% 11 7 % 11 3 % 10 0 % 88 % 80 % 50 % 25 % 0% Downtown RPP Parking Occupancy Collection Date: May 19, 2016 City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 8 AM ‐ 10 AM 55% 38 % 78% 12 5 % 10 0 % 17 % 25 % 12 5 % 10 0 % 20 % 75 % 12 5 % 0% 12 5 % 0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy 53% 54% 0% 10% 38% 6% 38% 78% 50% 50%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy67% 50% 0% 15% 29% 67% 10 0 % 57 % 36%Legend 31 % 77 % 75 % 43 %0%20 % 25 % 20 % 90 %0%0% 11 0 % 63 %0%67 %0%25 % 12 5 % 15 0 % 20 % 13 3 % 10 0 % Ad d i s o n 47% 80 % 63% 69% 69% 14% 0% 36% 0% 100% 75% 11% 23% Lin c o l n 13% 33 % 17 % 22 % 71 %0%55 % 0% Ramona St Ramona 75% 50% 25% 0% 0% 20% 20% 33% 63% 37% Kin g s l e y 25% 56 % 83 %0% 50 % 20 % 83 % 12 9 % 82 %0% 10 0 % 43 % 20 0 % 90 % 50% 54% 71% 0% 100% 43% 61% 38% 63% 44% 33% 192% Bryant St Bryant 82% Ha w t h o r n e Av 71% Ev e r e t t Av 60% Ly t t o n Av 55% Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% Ha m i l t o n Av 150% Fo r e s t Av 60% Ho m e r Av 87% Ch a n n i n g Av 21% 38 %Pa l o Alt o Av 0% Po e St 38 % 33 % 79 % 114% 64% 63% 67 % 10 9 % 0%67 % 11 1 % 20% 15% 50% 38% 55% 0% 80% 0%8% 75 % 19 %0%57 % 25 % 85 % 14 4 % 0% 0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 4% 65% 100% 33% 55% 73% 53% 60% 60% 0% 0% 63% 0% 0% 150% 29 % 58 % 39 % 0% 6% 92% 31% 73% 46% 62% 23% 64% 33% 75% 80 % 12 0 % 38 % 67 % 17 5 % 56 % 67 % 53 %0% 50% 4% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 29% 100% 45% 79% 42% 18% 0% 35% 29% 100% 18% 0% 0% 0% 6% 20 % 0%33 % 29 % 38 % 50 % 73 % 0%0%22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 62% Ha m i l t o n Av 67% 43% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0% 31%900%0% 17% 64% 80% 42% 77% 90% 50% 35% 12% 33% 0% 0% 0% 21% 39 % 71 %0%0%71 % 38 % 13 % 83 % 12 %6% 33% 19%69% 19% 13% 69% 22% 75% 0%29 %0%25 % 22 % 33 % 56 % 78 % 12 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% 50%46%0% 0% 0% Me l v i l l e 0%57% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 21% 47% 93% 80%27%0% 7% 0% 0% 50% 14 % 22 %0%14 % 43 % 25 % 10 0 % 0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 46% 14% 47% 23%0% 0% 0% 52% Ke l l o g g 38% 0%0%0%13 % 50 %0%40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 50% Ad d i s o n 8% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 18 % 12% 27% 69% 62%0% 50 % 0%0%0% 200%60% 27% 0% 25 % Pa l o Alt o A 10 0 % 14 0 % 58% 0% 17% 0% Fulton 38% 0% 50% 100%0% Fulton St 100% 0% 0% 67 % 0% 11 7 % 18 3 % 0% 11 8 % 43 % 33 % 50 % 28 % 80 % 90 % 28 % 31 %0% 29 % 0%0%0% 25 0 % 13 % 0% 5/19/2016 2% 29% 217% 0% 7% 25% 29% 0% 0% 13% 0%Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t Av 36% Ly t t o n Av e 0% 8%31% Un i v e r s i t y Av 27% Ha m i l t o n Av 23% 36% 55% 0% 11%19% 23%0% 0%13 % 0%0% 0% 0% 60% 56% Ha w t h o r n e Av 25% Ev e r e t t Av 73% Ly t t o n Av 33 % 14 % 0%0%33 % 89 % 20 0 % 0%0% 0% 0% 69% 0%0% 42% 25%20% Kipling 14% 10 0 % 0% 11 7 % 0% 47% Kipling St 12% 45% 62% 33 % 56 % 67 % 33 % 25 % 22 % 35 % 138% 73% 5%33 % 83 % 78 % 10 0 % 63 % 57 % 83 % 29 % 29 % 71 % 42 %0% 26 % 0% 58 % 44 % 0% 86 % 74 % 60 % 0% 25 % 42 % 73 % 33 % 33% 71% 36 % 11 % 88 % 14 4 % 4% 29 % 64% 20 0 % 10 0 % 0% 10 0 % 75 % 29 % Emerson St Emerson 57 % 10 0 % 38 %0%13 % 15 7 % 0%82 %0% 69% 67% 76% 27% 70% 32 % Pa l o Alt o Av 63% 83% 38% 22% 50% 21% 94% 38 % 78% 75% 7% 56% 100% 44% 100% 64% 92% 0% 12 5 % 10 0 % 17 % 25 % 12 5 % 10 0 % 20 % 75 % 12 5 % 0% 31 % 77 % 20 0 % 10 0 % 0% 10 0 % 75 % 29 % Alma St Alma39% 32 % Pa l o Alt o Av City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12 PM ‐ 2 PM 91% 10 0 % 0%0%0%0%0%0% 10 0 % 20 % 50 %0% 67 % 75 %0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy 200% 154% 0% 0% 0% 12% 25% 78% 217% 80%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy183% 220% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 36%Legend 75 % 46 % 17 5 % 17 1 % 12 5 % 0%0%0%20 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 28 0 % 44 % 20 % Ad d i s o n 47% 40 % 138% 92% 169% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 156% 0% Lin c o l n 0% 28 9 % 10 0 % 15 6 % 0%25 %0% 0% Ramona St Ramona 50% 188% 0% 0% 12% 133% 120% 150% 63% 42% Kin g s l e y 25% 89 % 67 % 16 0 % 30 0 % 0%0%0% 18 %0% 67 % 43 % 80 % 0%33% 138% 0% 0% 0% 114% 78% 150% 163% 44% 40% 17% Bryant St Bryant 45% Ha w t h o r n e Av 100% Ev e r e t t Av 200% Ly t t o n Av 0% Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% Ha m i l t o n Av 0% Fo r e s t Av 107% Ho m e r Av 87% Ch a n n i n g Av 129% 0%Pa l o Alt o Av 0% Po e St 77 % 27 % 95 % 0% 36% 0% 0%0%0% 15 6 % 89 % 20% 70% 50% 125% 164% 0% 0% 15 3 % 18 5 % 50 % 48 % 11 % 38 %0%85 % 0% 12% 33% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 15 % 71% 150% 133% 73% 0% 0% 0% 200% 80% 67% 0% 35% 0% 0% 24 % 10 5 % 12 2 % 0% 111% 185% 0% 0% 0% 123% 108% 57% 33% 13% 14 0 % 16 0 % 63 % 67 % 10 0 % 44 % 10 0 % 12 %0% 50% 8% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 29% 75% 73% 143% 17% 0% 0% 24% 114% 71% 71% 0% 0% 0% 50 % 53 % 0%33 % 29 % 38 % 0%0%0%0%22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 123% Ha m i l t o n Av 117% 43% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0% 31%0%0% 17% 64% 100% 200% 169% 0% 0% 35% 141% 67% 0% 0% 0% 21% 39 %0%40 % 91 % 12 9 % 15 4 % 13 8 % 13 3 % 71 %0% 33% 63%154% 19% 38% 69% 22% 75% 0%29 %0%25 % 22 % 12 2 % 12 2 % 67 % 24 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% 50%15%0% 0% 0% Me l v i l l e 0%57% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 21% 47% 133% 0%27%114% 129% 175% 50% 50% 14 % 22 %0%14 % 43 % 12 5 % 20 0 % 0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 46% 14% 47% 123%0% 0% 0% 52% Ke l l o g g 38% 60 % 11 8 % 10 7 % 12 0 % 10 0 % 10 5 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 50% Ad d i s o n 46% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 18 % 12% 27% 69% 138%0% 50 % 0%0%0% 0%0% 27% 0% 0% Pa l o Alt o A 10 0 % 12 0 % 83% 0% 17% 0% Fulton 38% 200% 83% 55%0% Fulton St 100% 0% 0% 67 % 0% 10 0 % 33 % 0%0%57 % 67 % 50 % 67 % 80 % 90 % 12 2 % 0%0% 29 % 0%0%0% 15 0 % 25 % 0% 5/19/2016 0% 457% 100% 77% 67% 0% 29% 50% 60% 0% 0%Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t Av 29% Ly t t o n Av e 200% 77%77% Un i v e r s i t y Av 93% Ha m i l t o n Av 31% 36% 55% 84% 133%88% 62%200% 75 % 70 % 11 4 % 22 2 % 0% 0% 60% 56% Ha w t h o r n e Av 25% Ev e r e t t Av 53% Ly t t o n Av 33 % 14 % 0%0%33 % 0% 20 0 % 12 5 % 57 % 0% 0% 69% 0%0% 183% 0%80% Kipling 71% 0%86 % 67 % 0% 147% Kipling St 106% 164% 31% 11 1 % 20 0 % 16 7 % 0%0% 17 % 20 % 25% 109% 95 % 12 0 % 83 %0% 10 0 % 50 % 57 % 83 %0%0%0% 21 %0%0% 20 % 16 8 % 13 % 0% 86 % 0%0% 0%0% 15 0 % 93 % 10 5 % 0% 143% 12 7 % 11 1 % 12 5 % 44 % 8% 24 % 64% 67 % 20 0 % 20 0 % 0%0% 29 % Emerson St Emerson 0% 10 0 % 0%40 % 17 5 % 11 4 % 17 5 % 18 %0% 0% 67% 76% 0% 40% 40 % Pa l o Alt o Av 88% 167% 123% 0% 0% 0% 94% 10 0 % 0% 88% 14% 22% 0% 0% 100% 64% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0% 10 0 % 20 % 50 %0% 67 % 75 % 46 % 67 % 20 0 % 20 0 % 0%0% 29 % Alma St Alma61% 40 % Pa l o Alt o Av City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 5 PM ‐ 7 PM 45% 0% 56% 22 5 % 50 % 17 % 25 % 38 % 10 0 % 20 % 50 % 63 %0% 75 %0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy 60% 85% 0% 0% 46% 0% 56% 78% 50% 60%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy42% 110% 0% 8% 29% 58% 17 8 % 43 % 36%Legend 50 % 15 % 50 % 57 % 63 % 80 % 10 0 % 60 % 10 0 % 0%38 % 90 % 88 %0%0%83 % 25 % 11 3 % 11 3 % 10 % 12 2 % 30 % Ad d i s o n 47% 80 % 44% 38% 115% 29% 0% 71% 0% 100% 63% 6% 23% Lin c o l n 20% 44 % 67 % 78 % 57 % 10 0 % 55 % 0% Ramona St Ramona 75% 94% 38% 0% 0% 13% 20% 33% 63% 42% Kin g s l e y 25% 61 % 33 % 80 % 50 % 70 % 10 0 % 17 1 % 55 %0% 12 2 % 43 % 14 0 % 70 % 50% 100% 7% 0% 20% 64% 61% 38% 56% 44% 60% 183% Bryant St Bryant 64% Ha w t h o r n e Av 79% Ev e r e t t Av 90% Ly t t o n Av 73% Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% Ha m i l t o n Av 75% Fo r e s t Av 87% Ho m e r Av 87% Ch a n n i n g Av 14% 50 %Pa l o Alt o Av 0% Po e St 54 % 47 % 68 % 171% 18% 88% 78 % 12 7 % 0%44 % 89 % 20% 55% 75% 75% 82% 0% 85% 0%31 % 63 % 14 % 39 % 48 % 25 % 85 % 14 4 % 0% 283% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 0% 47% 75% 44% 45% 33% 82% 30% 30% 0% 0% 31% 0% 0% 0% 29 % 53 % 61 % 0% 61% 85% 23% 93% 38% 38% 15% 43% 33% 44% 70 % 53 % 50 % 67 % 27 5 % 61 % 17 % 12 %0% 50% 0% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 29% 75% 55% 71% 117% 64% 0% 35% 29% 57% 35% 0% 0% 0% 25 % 33 % 0%33 % 29 % 38 % 67 % 73 % 0%0%22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 108% Ha m i l t o n Av 42% 29% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0% 31%1000%0% 17% 64% 50% 25% 92% 90% 92% 35% 6% 47% 0% 0% 0% 21% 39 % 82 %0%0%36 % 15 % 31 % 17 %0%0% 33% 13%54% 19% 25% 69% 22% 75% 0%29 %0%25 % 22 % 50 % 50 % 67 % 41 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% 50%62%0% 0% 0% Me l v i l l e 0%100% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 21% 47% 53% 90%27%14% 14% 13% 0% 50% 14 % 22 %0%14 % 43 % 25 % 12 2 % 0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 46% 14% 47% 8%0% 0% 0% 52% Ke l l o g g 38% 0%0%0%27 % 25 %0%40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 50% Ad d i s o n 0% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 18 % 12% 27% 69% 31%0% 50 % 0%0%0% 225%70% 0% 0% 30 % Pa l o Alt o A 10 0 % 12 0 % 0% 0% 0% 0% Fulton 38% 0% 67% 91%0% Fulton St 92% 0% 0% 67 % 0%67 % 16 7 % 43 % 27 % 14 % 67 % 50 % 17 % 80 % 90 %6%23 %0% 29 % 0%0%0% 20 0 % 0% 0% 5/19/2016 13% 29% 200% 0% 13% 8% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0%Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t Av 21% Ly t t o n Av e 20% 0%15% Un i v e r s i t y Av 47% Ha m i l t o n Av 23% 36% 55% 0% 11%19% 38%8% 38 % 17 % 0%11 % 0% 0% 60% 56% Ha w t h o r n e Av 25% Ev e r e t t Av 47% Ly t t o n Av 33 % 14 % 0%29 % 33 % 12 2 % 50 0 % 0%0% 0% 0% 69% 0%0% 108% 58%10% Kipling 14% 11 8 % 0% 10 0 % 0% 60% Kipling St 53% 100% 69% 11 % 56 % 50 % 67 % 25 % 17 % 25 % 25% 64% 42 % 47 % 83 % 44 % 10 0 % 38 % 57 % 83 % 71 % 10 0 % 86 % 47 %0% 42 % 0% 47 % 88 % 57 % 86 % 74 % 60 % 0% 38 % 33 % 60 % 19 % 28% 57% 55 % 33 % 50 % 10 0 % 0% 29 % 64% 33 % 75 % 75 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 29 % Emerson St Emerson 71 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 60 % 38 % 12 9 % 0%55 %0% 115% 67% 76% 27% 90% 48 % Pa l o Alt o Av 63% 67% 100% 28% 72% 36% 94% 0% 56% 56% 50% 89% 129% 31% 100% 64% 77% 0% 22 5 % 50 % 17 % 25 % 38 % 10 0 % 20 % 50 % 63 %0% 50 % 15 % 33 % 75 % 75 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 29 % Alma St Alma4% 48 % Pa l o Alt o Av Downtown RPP Parking Occupancy Collection Date: June 30, 2016 City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 8 AM - 10 AM 27% 63 % 0% 0%0% 33 % 63 % 10 0 % 38 % 20 % 25 %0% 33 % 63 % 0% - 49% Parking Occupancy 80%54%31%20%69%82%81%33%75%30%50% - 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% - 100%+ Parking Occupancy75%70%25%38%100%125% 89 % 86 % 14%Legend 38 % 38 % 75 % 43 % 38 % 30 % 63 %0% 70 % 25 % 25 % 40 % 63 % 67 % 10 0 % 0% 10 0 % 38 % 63 % 60 % 44 % 10 % Ad d i s o n 73% 40 % 69%54%23%57%69%50%71%33%19%33%23% Lin c o l n 40% 56 % 50 % 11 % 43 % 38 %0% 0% Ramona St Ramona25%56%25%83%35%93%73%58% 0%37% Kin g s l e y 0% 28 % 33 % 60 % 38 %0%83 % 86 % 45 % 75 % 56 % 43 % 20 % 60 % 17%77%21%69%60%57%33% 38%0%44%7%0% Bryant St Bryant64% Ha w t h o r n e A v 43% Ev e r e t t A v 40% Ly t t o n A v 45% Un i v e r s i t y A v 63% Ha m i l t o n A v 25% Fo r e s t A v 80% Ho m e r A v 53% Ch a n n i n g A v 0% 25 %Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 31 % 13 % 11 % 0%64% 75% 56 %9%33 % 78 % 56 % 20%85%100%38%55%80%85% 59 % 77 % 63 % 33 % 39 % 24 % 35 % #D I V / 0 ! 67 % 6%67% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 8% 59%100%44%36%67%35%10%120%20%58%75%12%21%17% 29 % 42 % 72 % 0% 56%85%123%40%138%69%62%64%13%19% 90 % 33 % 10 0 % 89 % 75 % 39 % 44 % 29 %0% 50% 4% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 14%63%64%57%33%45%54%76%64%79%24%0%0%0% 25 % 60 % 0% 17 %0% 13 % 33 % 73 %0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 0% Ha m i l t o n A v 50%50% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%23%200%0%17% 0%30%75%77%50%75%59%59%40%0%0%0% 21% 39 % 41 % 12 0 % 13 6 % 79 % 62 % 56 % 83 % 76 % 18 % 0%44%77% 50% 25%69%22%75% 57 %0%11 %0% 17 % 61 % 44 % 56 % 12 % Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%40%69%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%86% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 29%53%53%80%27%71%43%88%75% 50% 15 7 % 0%11 % 14 %0%0%11 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 23%36%40%0%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 15 % 35 % 33 %0%19 % 47 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 64% Ad d i s o n 8% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 64 % 6%40%15%0%0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%60%40%0% 0% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 80 % 25%0% 8%0% Fulton 13%70%58%91%0% Fulton St 25% 0% 0% 33 % 33 % 33 % 0%14 % 0%57 % 22 % 38 % 50 % 87 % 12 0 % 61 % 54 % 36 % 29 % 0%0%0% 15 0 % 25 % 0% 6/30/2016 0%114%17%62%33%8%36%25%30%13%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 10% 38%46% Un i v e r s i t y A v 47% Ha m i l t o n A v 46%36%0%32% 44%63%23%0% 25 %4% 14 3 % 33 % 0% 12 % 0%33% Ha w t h o r n e A v 58% Ev e r e t t A v 47% Ly t t o n A v 50 % 14 % 29 % 29 % 11 % 11 % 0% 38 % 43 % 0%0% 54% 0%0% 33%58%30% Kipling 21% 45 % 57 % 33 % 0% 47% Kipling St 24%45%46% 11 % 33 % 33 % 33 %0% 30 % 25 % 25%73% 68 % 53 % 67 % 33 % 12 9 % 50 % 29 % 83 % 14 %0% 18 6 % 89 % 53 % 42 % 70 % 32 % 25 % 71 % 14 % 84 % 50 % 17 % 25 % 10 0 % 93 % 62 % 100%93% 36 % 89 % 25 % 78 % 4% 29 % 91% 0% 75 % 50 % 50 % 10 0 % 0% Emerson St Emerson 86 % 12 9 % 10 0 % 60 % 63 % 86 % 11 3 % 45 % 75 % 85%33%47% 80%30% 48 % Pa l o A l t o A v 69%75%46%33%100%93%65% 63 % 0% 31%7%0%29%75%100%64%0%0% 0%0% 33 % 63 % 10 0 % 38 % 20 % 25 %0% 33 % 38 % 38 % 0% 75 % 50 % 50 % 10 0 % 0% Alma St Alma4% 48 % Pa l o A l t o A v City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12 PM - 2 PM 18% 10 0 % 33% 0%0% 67 % 63 % 10 0 % 88 % 40 % 88 % 10 0 % 67 % 50 % 0% - 49% Parking Occupancy 80%77%100%80%100%94%81%133%100%0%50% - 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% - 100%+ Parking Occupancy92%100%63%92%100%100% 10 0 % 10 0 % 14%Legend 25 % 62 % 75 % 11 4 % 63 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 40 % 11 0 % 63 % 25 % 40 % 50 % 83 % 10 0 % 17 % 75 % 50 % 25 % 12 0 % 44 % 40 % Ad d i s o n 67% 40 % 106%92%92%57%106%93%100%92%31%67%0% Lin c o l n 40% 67 % 67 % 78 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 38% Ramona St Ramona42%75%75%100%82%93%93%100% 0%26% Kin g s l e y 25% 22 % 33 % 80 % 38 % 80 % 83 % 86 % 82 % 50 % 56 % 43 % 40 % 40 % 28%100%86%106%60%100%50% 75%0%44%0%25% Bryant St Bryant18% Ha w t h o r n e A v 50% Ev e r e t t A v 100% Ly t t o n A v 45% Un i v e r s i t y A v 63% Ha m i l t o n A v 75% Fo r e s t A v 87% Ho m e r A v 80% Ch a n n i n g A v 0% 25 %Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 31 %0% 79 % 100%82% 75% 33 % 10 0 % 56 % 89 % 67 % 20%0%75%75%100%60%100% 76 % 10 0 % 63 % 52 % 56 % 33 % 25 % #D I V / 0 ! 0% 18%0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 8% 59%125%89%100%100%106%30%110%47%67%69%35%5%17% 53 % 32 % 50 % 0% 78%100%131%60%162%69%54%50%47%31% 14 0 % 87 % 50 % 33 % 25 % 33 % 94 % 12 %0% 50% 4% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 21%100%36%71%67%91%92%29%57%43%35%0%0%0% 19 % 60 % 29 % 17 %0% 13 % 83 % 10 0 % 0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 85% Ha m i l t o n A v 83%50% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%0%0%0%17% 14%30%75%100%60%83%82%47%47%0%0%0% 21% 83 % 41 % 90 % 82 % 71 % 92 % 69 % 83 % 59 % 12 % 107%69%62% 6% 69%69%22%75% 0%14 % 11 % 25 % 22 % 67 % 67 % 78 % 82 % Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%30%77%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%100% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 57%60%93%80%27%100%29%88%75% 50% 29 % 11 % 11 %0%57 % 75 % 78 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 31%57%67%100%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 75 % 47 % 47 % 67 % 10 6 % 21 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 43% Ad d i s o n 8% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 18 % 6%40%69%92%0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%50%27%0% 5% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 20 % 33%0% 33%0% Fulton 25%60%50%100%0% Fulton St 58% 0% 0% 17 % 50 % 17 % 0%57 % 0%43 % 11 % 25 % 39 % 27 % 80 % 56 % 77 % 57 % 29 % 0%0%0% 12 5 % 0% 0% 6/30/2016 0%57%33%8%33%0%14%8%20%13%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 8% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 70% 54%54% Un i v e r s i t y A v 53% Ha m i l t o n A v 46%36%18%26% 33%63%23%50% 63 % 22 % 43 % 22 % 0% 0% 20%44% Ha w t h o r n e A v 67% Ev e r e t t A v 80% Ly t t o n A v 67 %0%29 % 43 % 11 % 56 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 57 % 0%0% 38% 0%0% 92%92%50% Kipling 29% 10 0 % 57 % 50 % 0% 60% Kipling St 71%100%100% 56 % 67 % 50 % 67 % 15 0 % 52 % 25 % 38%91% 42 % 60 % 10 0 % 56 % 12 9 % 25 % 57 % 83 % 71 % 86 % 10 0 % 95 % 89 % 63 % 70 % 47 % 10 0 % 43 % 86 % 84 % 50 % 0%75 % 10 0 % 93 % 90 % 117%100% 73 % 78 % 63 % 56 % 8% 53 % 82% 0% 75 % 50 % 10 0 % 75 % 86 % Emerson St Emerson 10 0 % 12 9 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 75 % 10 0 % 11 3 % 82 % 50 % 77%33%47% 80%90% 64 % Pa l o A l t o A v 81%75%100%78%100%100%88% 10 0 % 33% 69%57%89%71%81%100%64%62%25% 0%0% 67 % 63 % 10 0 % 88 % 40 % 88 % 10 0 % 67 % 25 % 62 % 0% 75 % 50 % 10 0 % 75 % 86 % Alma St Alma13% 64 % Pa l o A l t o A v City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 5 PM - 7 PM 36% 38 % 0% 10 0 % 0% 10 0 % 75 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 40 % 50 % 38 % 56 % 38 % 0% - 49% Parking Occupancy 80%54%115%110%100%94%106%56%100%40%50% - 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% - 100%+ Parking Occupancy58%90%63%100%100%108% 89 % 12 9 % 0%Legend 44 % 38 % 38 % 10 0 % 38 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 50 % 11 0 % 50 % 50 % 10 0 % 75 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 50 % 10 0 % 63 % 25 % 30 % 67 % 40 % Ad d i s o n 67% 10 0 % 69%77%108%107%106%71%107%108%13%17%8% Lin c o l n 27% 67 % 50 % 67 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 0% Ramona St Ramona58%88%69%142%94%107%87%25% 0%16% Kin g s l e y 50% 39 % 17 % 80 % 25 % 90 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 9 % 10 0 % 78 % 43 % 20 % 70 % 39%115%93%106%320%43%22% 81%0%44%13%33% Bryant St Bryant50% Ha w t h o r n e A v 29% Ev e r e t t A v 50% Ly t t o n A v 73% Un i v e r s i t y A v 88% Ha m i l t o n A v 25% Fo r e s t A v 80% Ho m e r A v 67% Ch a n n i n g A v 0% 19 %Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 46 % 33 % 26 % 71%64% 75% 78 % 10 0 % 78 % 10 0 % 44 % 20%65%50%50%73%120%100% 65 % 69 % 38 % 29 %6%10 % 15 % #D I V / 0 ! 0% 6%83% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 8% 35%125%67%73%100%112%10%100%13%42%44%29%32%0% 35 % 32 % 50 % 0% 72%69%123%87%154%62%62%71%20%6% 15 0 % 60 % 50 % 11 1 % 25 % 39 % 67 % 12 %0% 50% 0% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 29%50%45%64%100%73%85%41%7%64%29%0%0%0% 13 % 27 % 14 % 17 %0% 38 %0% 73 %0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 54% Ha m i l t o n A v 67%50% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%15%0%0%17% 21%10%58%92%50%50%47%53%53%0%0%0% 21% 50 % 35 % 11 0 % 10 0 % 71 % 46 % 63 % 58 % 82 % 6% 0%31%69% 56% 19%69%22%75% 0%0%0%0% 6%44 % 17 % 56 % 29 % Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%40%46%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%71% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 57%27%47%50%27%7%36%38%75% 50% 0%0%0%14 % 43 %0%33 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 31%43%47%69%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 30 % 53 % 27 % 53 % 38 % 26 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 50% Ad d i s o n 15% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 27 % 24%27%38%23%0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%70%27%0% 5% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 0% 17%0% 17%0% Fulton 8%70%58%36%0% Fulton St 67% 0% 0% 33 % 50 % 33 % 17 % 14 % 0%43 % 78 % 38 % 33 % 80 %0%39 % 54 % 50 % 29 % 0%0%0% 10 0 % 63 % 0% 6/30/2016 0%114%17%15%33%17%50%17%40%13%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 12% Ev e r e t t A v 14% Ly t t o n A v e 60% 77%46% Un i v e r s i t y A v 47% Ha m i l t o n A v 23%27%0%11% 17%50%38%58% 0%22 % 57 % 22 % 0% 0% 0%56% Ha w t h o r n e A v 50% Ev e r e t t A v 60% Ly t t o n A v 50 % 14 % 43 % 71 % 11 % 67 % 50 % 13 % 10 0 % 0%0% 38% 0%0% 75%92%70% Kipling 36% 64 % 57 % 50 % 0% 60% Kipling St 65%64%92% 22 % 44 % 17 % 83 % 12 5 % 30 % 35 % 38%73% 74 % 53 % 83 % 44 % 15 7 % 25 % 14 % 50 % 71 % 10 0 % 71 % 63 % 42 % 26 % 90 % 21 % 38 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 84 % 11 0 % 50 % 75 % 11 7 % 20 % 67 % 111%79% 73 % 78 %0%89 % 17 % 35 % 100% 10 0 % 88 % 75 % 10 0 % 12 5 % 0% Emerson St Emerson 12 9 % 15 7 % 11 3 % 80 % 75 % 11 4 % 13 8 % 10 9 % 10 0 % 100%33%29% 107%30% 36 % Pa l o A l t o A v 50%42%85%61%94%129%100% 38 % 0% 50%50%78%100%69%100%64%0%0% 10 0 % 0% 10 0 % 75 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 40 % 50 % 38 % 56 % 44 % 38 % 10 0 % 88 % 75 % 10 0 % 12 5 % 0% Alma St Alma9% 36 % Pa l o A l t o A v City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12 PM - 2 PM 0%0%29% 0%10% 24 % Pa l o A l t o A v 13%50%8%0%6%0%0% 18 % 22 % 50 % 22 % 0% 6% 45% 0% 25 %0%0%0%0% Emerson St Emerson 0%0%0%20 % 50 % 57 % 38 %0%0% 0% 11 %0% 0%0% 5%0% 0%13 % 50 % 40 % 29 % 0%29% 0% 0%27% 26 % 20 % 0%0%0% 13 % 29 % 67 %0%0%0% 5%16 %5% 23% 0%0% 25%0%30% Kipling 14% 18 % 29 % 17 % 0% 27% Kipling St 0%27%0% 0%11 % 17 %0%0% 4% 38 % 13 %0%22 % 0% 0% 0%44% Ha w t h o r n e A v 42% Ev e r e t t A v 13% Ly t t o n A v 33 %0%29 % 43 % 11 % 0% 0% 13 % 21 % 0%0% 10%0%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 10% 31%31% Un i v e r s i t y A v 47% Ha m i l t o n A v 15%27%9%16% 33%25%23%25% 6/30/2016 0%57%0%8%20%0%14%0% 0% 0% 0%50 % 0%0%0%0%29 % 11 % 25 % 22 %7%10 %0%8%36 % 29 % 0%0%0% 25 %0% 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%0%7%0% 5% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 0% 8%0% 0%0% Fulton 21%40%25%45%0% Fulton St 25% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 0% Ad d i s o n 0% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 18 % 6%27%31%0%0% 44 % 8%50%13%0%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 40 % 24 % 13 %7%13 %0%40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 14 % 11 % 11 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 43%33%20%0%27%0%14%13%31% 6% 25%69%22%75% 0%14 %0%0% 22 % 28 % 22 % 0% 6% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%30%0%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%0%21% 0%0%40 % 0%29 % 0%31 % 50 % 12 % 0% 40%0%15%23% Ha m i l t o n A v 42%14% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%0%0%0%17% 7%10%33%31%0%8%6%12%20%0%0%0% 0% 17 %0% 13 %0%0%0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 0% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 21%0%27%43%8%18%0%12%36%14%24%0%0%0% 13 % 27 %0% 22%15%8%0%0%23%46%0%13%13% 70 % 53 % 25 % 11 %0% 17 % 33 %6%0% 12%0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 4% 18%50%44%9%7%0%0%60%7%8%13%12%0%17% 6%11 % 28 % 12 % 15 % 38 % 29 % 39 % 19 % 20 % #D I V / 0 ! 0%0%Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 8%0% 21 % 0%0% 0% 0%0%0%67 % 56 % 20%0%50%13%9%0%0%13%0%44%0%17% Bryant St Bryant9% Ha w t h o r n e A v 0% Ev e r e t t A v 20% Ly t t o n A v 0% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0% Ha m i l t o n A v 0% Fo r e s t A v 13% Ho m e r A v 27% Ch a n n i n g A v 0%0%26% Kin g s l e y 25% 6% 17 % 20 % 13 %0%0%0%0%0%44 % 43 % 40 % 20 % 6%38%0%0%20%50%33%19% Ramona St Ramona8%19%0%0%0%7%20%33% 11 % 10 % Ad d i s o n 33% 0% 6%23%15%0%0%0%0%0%0%11%0% Lin c o l n 33% 33 % 33 % 11 %0%0%0%0%0% 7%Legend 13 %8% 38 % 43 %0%0%0%0% 10 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 25 % 13 % 20 % 50 % 0% - 25% Parking Occupancy 7%15%0%0%0%0%6%0%42%0%25% - 50% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 50%+ Parking Occupancy17%50%0%0%7%0% 0% 50 % 11% 0%0%0% 13 %0%0%0%0%0% 33 % Alma St Alma0% 24 % Pa l o A l t o A v 0% 25 %0%0%0%0% 13 %8% 50 % 11% 6%0%0%0%0%100%64%0%8% 0%0%0% 13 %0%0%0%0%0% 33 % Resident Permits City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12 PM - 2 PM 0%8%18% 0%0% 12 % Pa l o A l t o A v 69%8%31%0%0%0%0% 27 %0%13 % 11 % 4% 12 % 18% 0%0% 13 %0%0% 14 % Emerson St Emerson 0%0%0%20 % 13 % 43 % 38 %9%0% 0% 5%0% 0%0% 0%0% 0%0% 33 %7%38 % 0%36% 0% 13%36% 0%0% 0%0%0% 0%0%0%0%0%0% 5%0%0% 0% 0%0% 8%0%0% Kipling 0% 0%14 %0% 0% 7% Kipling St 18%18%0% 0%11 %0%0%0% 17 % 0%0%14 %0% 0% 0% 0%0% Ha w t h o r n e A v 0% Ev e r e t t A v 40% Ly t t o n A v 0%0%0%0%0% 0% 10 0 % 25 % 14 % 0%0% 0%0%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 0% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 40% 0%0% Un i v e r s i t y A v 7% Ha m i l t o n A v 8%0%0%0% 0%25%0%0% 6/30/2016 0%0%0%0%7%0%0%0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 6%0%10 % 17 % 38 %0% 29 % 0%0%0% 0%0% 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%30%0%0% 0% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 0% 0%0% 0%0% Fulton 0%0%17%27%0% Fulton St 17% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 14% Ad d i s o n 0% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 0% 0%0%0%62%0% 44 % 0%0%20%69%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 25 %6%7%33 % 50 %0%40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 0%0%0%0%14 % 25 % 22 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 0%0%60%10%27%14%0%31%19% 0% 25%69%22%75% 0%0%0%13 % 0%6%11 % 0% 0% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%0%0%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%0%21% 0%0%10 % 18 % 7%15 % 6%8%0%0% 13%44%23%15% Ha m i l t o n A v 8%0% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%0%0%0%17% 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%24%7%0%0%0% 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 0% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 0%13%9%0%0%0%0%12%7%0%0%0%0%0% 0%0%0% 33%15%8%0%0%38%0%7%7%0% 10 %7%13 % 0%0% 6%17 %0%0% 0%0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 0% 41%0%22%9%0%0%0%40%7%25%50%0%0%0% 12 %0%0%24 % 31 % 13 % 0%6%5%0% #D I V / 0 ! 0%0%Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 0%0% 32 % 0%0% 0% 0%0%0%11 %0% 20%0%0%0%18%0%0%25%0%44%0%0% Bryant St Bryant5% Ha w t h o r n e A v 7% Ev e r e t t A v 20% Ly t t o n A v 0% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0% Ha m i l t o n A v 0% Fo r e s t A v 20% Ho m e r A v 20% Ch a n n i n g A v 0%0%0% Kin g s l e y 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%0%9%0%0%0%0% 0%0%15%0%0%0%36%6%6% Ramona St Ramona0%25%0%0%0%40%7%58% 0%10 % Ad d i s o n 0% 0% 75%15%23%0%0%0%7%0%0%28%0% Lin c o l n 7% 0%0%11 %0%0%0%0%0% 0%Legend 0%0% 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 25 % 13 % 50 %0%0% - 25% Parking Occupancy 7%15%0%0%0%0%0%0%42%0%25% - 50% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 50%+ Parking Occupancy42%10%0%0%0%0% 0% 25 % 11% 0%0%0%0% 13 %0%0%0%0%0% Alma St Alma4% 12 % Pa l o A l t o A v 0%0% 13 %0%0% 14 % 0%0% 25 % 11% 44%0%11%0%0%100%64%0%17% 0%0%0%0% 13 %0%0%0%0%0% Employee Permits City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12 PM - 2 PM 77%25%0% 80%80% Alma St Alma9% 20 % Pa l o A l t o A v 0%17%54%78%94%100%88% 27 % 56 %0%22 % 4% 35 % 18% 0% 38 % 38 % 10 0 % 75 % 71 % Emerson St Emerson 10 0 % 12 9 % 10 0 % 60 % 13 %0%38 % 73 % 50 % 70 % 32 % 10 0 % 43 % 86 % 74 % 50 % ## # # # 63 % 17 % 47 % 24 % 117%36% 25 % 25%27% 16 % 40 % 10 0 % 56 % 12 9 % 13 % 29 % 17 % 71 % 86 % 10 0 % 84 % 74 % 58 % 15% 0%0% 42%92%20% Kipling 14% 82 % 14 % 33 % 0% 27% Kipling St 53%36%100% 56 % 44 % 33 % 67 % 15 0 % 30 % 25 %9%29 %0% 0% 0% 20%0% Ha w t h o r n e A v 17% Ev e r e t t A v 20% Ly t t o n A v 33 %0%0%0%0% 56 % 0% 63 % 21 % 0%0% 10%13%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 20% 23%23% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0% Ha m i l t o n A v 23%9%9%11% 0%13%0%25% 6/30/2016 0%0%33%0%7%0%0%8% 0% 0% 17 % 0%17 % 0%57 % 0%14 % 0%0% 11 % 20 % 60 % 33 % 31 % 21 % 29 % 0%0%0% 10 0 % 0% 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%20%20%0% 0% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 20 % 25%0% 33%0% Fulton 4%20%8%27%0% Fulton St 17% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 29% Ad d i s o n 8% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 0% 0%7%31%31%0% 44 % 23%7%33%31%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 10 % 18 % 27 % 20 % 44 % 21 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 14 %0%0%0%43 % 50 % 56 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 7%27%13%70%27%71%14%44%25% 0% 19%69%22%75% 0%0%11 % 13 % 0%17 % 33 % 78 % 76 % Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%0%77%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%86%21% 83 % 41 % 40 % 64 % 36 % 62 % 31 % 25 % 47 % 12 % 53%25%23%46% Ha m i l t o n A v 33%36% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%0%0%0%17% 7%20%25%38%60%75%76%12%20%0%0%0% 29 %0%0%0% 83 % 91 %0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 4% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 0%88%0%29%58%73%92%6%14%29%12%0%0%0% 6%33 %0% 22%54%115%60%162%8%8%43%27%19% 60 % 27 % 13 % 22 % 25 % 11 % 44 %6%0% 6%0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 4% 0%75%22%55%93%106%30%10%33%33%0%24%5%0% 35 % 21 % 22 % 41 % 54 % 13 % 24 % 11 % 10 %5% #V A L U E ! 0%25 %Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 23 %0% 21 % 100%82% 75% 33 % 10 0 % 56 % 11 % 11 % 20%0%25%63%64%60%100%38%#VALUE!44%0%8% Bryant St Bryant5% Ha w t h o r n e A v 43% Ev e r e t t A v 50% Ly t t o n A v 45% Un i v e r s i t y A v 63% Ha m i l t o n A v 75% Fo r e s t A v 53% Ho m e r A v 33% Ch a n n i n g A v #VALUE!#VALUE!0% Kin g s l e y 0% 17 % 17 % 60 % 25 % 80 % 83 % 86 % 73 % 50 % 11 %0%0% 20 % 22%31%86%106%40%14%11%13% Ramona St Ramona33%13%75%100%82%47%67%8% 33 % 20 % Ad d i s o n 33% 40 % 25%54%31%57%106%93%93%92%31%28%0% Lin c o l n 0% 33 % 33 % 56 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 89 % 10 0 % 7%Legend 13 % 54 % 38 % 71 % 63 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 40 % 10 0 % 63 % 25 % 40 % 50 % 83 % 10 0 % 17 % 75 %0%0% 50 %0%0% - 25% Parking Occupancy 67%38%100%70%100%94%75%133%17%0%25% - 50% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 50%+ Parking Occupancy25%30%63%92%93%100% 18% 25 % 11% 19%57%78%71%81%100%64%62%0% 0%0% 67 % 50 % 88 % 88 % 40 % 88 % 10 0 % 33 % No Permits City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/11/2016 8:02 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Karen Machado <karen.machado@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Request to Pull Downtown RPP Report from Consent Calendar Dear City Council, I am writing to support citizens who live in and adjacent to the Downtown RPP district, I ask that Item 11 Update of Status of RPP be pulled off of the August 15 Consent Calendar. Citizens have serious concerns about the Downtown RPP and it is time for staff to listen to them and make substantive changes rather than continuing to inaccurately state that the Downtown RPP is a successful model for use in the rest of the city. I ask the council to pull the consent calendar with the follow conditions: 1. to adopt the staff proposed Resolution (Attachment A), expanding the boundary of the Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 eligibility area originally established by Resolution 9577 2. to direct staff to schedule RPP for Council discussion within the next 30 days with emphasis on discussing 5 issues below and give staff direction to address other citizen concerns and report back to Council not later than Dec 15. Thank you for your attention to my request. Best regards, Karen Machado 363 Stanford Ave Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/11/2016 8:42 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Chi-Kwan Yen <chikwanyen@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Regarding:Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 update" (Item 11*) Dear city council members, As a resident in Crescent Park, I request that this item be pulled from the consent calendar for the 08/15/2016 to allow for further considerations and discussion. Chi-kwan Yen Guinda and Hamilton City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2016 4:55 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net> Sent:Friday, August 12, 2016 3:09 PM To:Council, City Cc:Norman Beamer Subject:Aug 15 City Council Meeting-- Downtown Residential Parking Program (Item 11 Consent Calendar) Hello City Council Members, I respectfully request that City Council take the following two actions regarding Item 11* on the 8/15/16 Consent Calendar: 1) Pull Item 11 for discussion at a future council meeting with the exception of the following item 2). 2) Approve Attachment A from Item 11 to add the two blocks in Crescent Park (500 Hale and 800 Palo Alto Ave.) to the Downtown RPP district. *Item 11 on the Consent Calendar: Acceptance of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 Status Update and Adoption of a Resolution 3 August 15, 2016 Amending the Eligibility Area for the Program as Directed by the City Council Thank you, Mary Dimit University Ave. and Guinda St. in Crescent Park City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2016 4:55 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Malcolm Roy Beasley <beasley@stanford.edu> Sent:Friday, August 12, 2016 9:19 AM To:Council, City Cc:Malcolm Roy Beasley Subject:Pull RPP report off the consent calendar I support the request to pull the report off the consent calendar. There are too many unresolved issues in RPP for which staff needs instruction from the Council. Mac Beasley DTN Resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2016 4:55 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Jan Merryweather <jan@hamilton.com> Sent:Friday, August 12, 2016 8:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Remove RPP from Consent Calendar (please) Dear Council Leaders, I am writing as a resident of Downtown North, and request that Item 11 Update of Status of RPP be pulled OFF of the August 15 Consent Calendar. Thank you for your consideration. Jan Merryweather (477 Everett Ave, Palo Alto 94301) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2016 4:55 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2016 5:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:RPP Dear Council Members: Please take the RPP off the consent calendar for the upcoming Council meeting on Monday, 8/15. This is an issue of great concern for many residents. It deserves to receive more attention and discussion and should not be assented to as it currently stands. Beth Rosenthal, Ph.D. Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2016 4:55 PM 5 Carnahan, David From:J. Robert Taylor <btaylor@taylorproperties.com> Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:RPP I request that the "Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 Status Update" (Item 11*) be pulled from their consent calendar at this Monday's (8/15/16) City Council meeting so it can be discussed more fully at a future council meeting. J. Robert Taylor 480 Marlowe St City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2016 4:55 PM 6 Carnahan, David From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2016 3:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Downtown RPPP on 8/1516 consent calendar Please pull the RPPP for downtown, item 11, off the consent calendar. Although staff repeatedly says this is a successful program that can be used for the rest of the City, a closer inspection clearly indicates otherwise. Staff has indicated using an 85% level of parking in neighborhoods is acceptable therefore turning neighborhoods into commercial parking lots. Is this what council intended? The boundary for the RPPP is huge. It is clear staff intends to park as many cars as needed in neighborhoods, in order to accommodate all the vehicles generated from their serially approved under parked projects. Is this the council's intention? TDMs to date are mere fantasy. Council should ask staff for a current list of all the city's TDMs and how staff is monitoring the program's effectiveness citywide. The Council may find no such records exist or they will be woefully inadequate. Council should also inquire how staff enforces the agreed upon provisions of TDMs. It must be recalled that numerous projects have been approved by staff because of the supposed effectiveness of TDMs. There are many questions about the downtown RPPPP. Clearly the downtown RPPP should be pulled form the consent calendar. Thank You Paul Machado City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2016 4:55 PM 8 Carnahan, David From:Linda Anderson <andersonlinda911@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2016 9:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:RPP-Consent Calendar Please pull RPP from the consent calendar to allow the Council to discuss residents' concerns. Thank you, Linda Anderson 401 Webster St. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/15/2016 8:11 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Deanna Dickman <deannadickman@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 14, 2016 7:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:RPP Please pull the Parking Permit program from the consent calendar. Improvements to the program need to be made and the Council needs to hear resident concerns. Thank you. Deanna Dickman 940 Bryant Street Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/15/2016 8:14 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:45 AM To:Janine Bishar; Irv Brenner; Emanuela Todaro; Dante Malagrino; Debbie Wolter; Deri McCrea; Vincent Leung; Vita Gorbunova; Marion Odell; Ana Carvalho; Sara Jablon Moked; Sara Woodham; Linda Anderson; Joe Baldwin; Joe Hirsch; Furman, Sheri; Cheryl Lilienstein; Diana Alvarez Kaba; Tim Knuth; Kathy Gmail; Lauren Burton; Doug Greene; Bruce Heister; Nancy Adler; Richard Alexander; Maureen Brennan; Paul Karol; Murray Newlands; Yvonne Gu; Theresa Davis; Mark Nanevicz; Mark Weiss; Ben Lerner; John Erving; Kristine Erving; Sally-Ann Rudd; Ronjon Nag; D. Michael Griffin; Malcolm Beasley; Sara Woodham; Ross Bright; Joan Donovan; David Cronwall; Jan Merryweather; Ted Davids; Suzanne Keehn Cc:Council, City Subject:Fw: Request to pull RPP Report off the consent calendar Attachments:Attachment A COPA Parked Vehicle Map May 19, 2016.pdf; Attachment B Original Parking Zones with Capacity and Non-Resident Permit Limits.pdf; Attachment C Residents Updated Map for Zones 8 and 9.pdf; Attachment D Non-Resident Permit Parking Loads on Zones.pdf Neighbors in DTN and DTS need your help. Our permit parking program must be improved. Below is an important, detailed request sent to City Council for their action. The Council does not have to take action unless residents speak up. You can help! with very little effort! #1 Send an email to city council city.council@cityofpaloalto.org and ask Council to pull permit parking off of the consent calendar. This allow the Council to discuss residents' concerns. Here are the three major reasons that RPP needs improvement. Resolution to improve RPP is urgent and must not be delayed Quality standard of 80% is long overdue Mal-distribution of parked vehicles has not been recognized or resolved. Too many streets are saturated with parked vehicles during the workday. #2 If possible, please attend the Council meeting on Monday, Aug 15. We need "bodies" in Council Chambers to show support. You will not have to say anything, just stand up when requested. Arrive at 620pm and you should be able to go home by 640 or 700pm. Thanks! Email me if you have questions. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/15/2016 8:15 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:David H. Weibel <Weibel@smwlaw.com> Sent:Friday, August 12, 2016 2:41 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; City Attorney; Gitelman, Hillary; Catherine C. Engberg; Laura D. Beaton Subject:Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 - 8/15/16 City Council Meeting Attachments:Ltr to Palo Alto City Council with exhibits - 8-12-16.PDF Council Members: Please see attached a letter to the Council with exhibits from Laura Beaton of this office. Please let me know if you have any difficulty accessing the attached file. Thank you, David Weibel Legal Secretary Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4421 v: 415/552-7272 x. 234 f: 415/552-5816 www.smwlaw.com Please consider the environment before printing this e‐mail or attachments. 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com CATHERINE C. ENGBERG Attorney engberg@smwlaw.com August 12, 2016 Via Electronic Mail City Council of the City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 Status Update – August 15, 2016 City Council Meeting, Consent Calendar Dear Council Members: This firm represents Neilson Buchanan regarding the City of Palo Alto’s implementation of Phase 2 of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District pilot program. We have provided comments throughout development and implementation of the RPP Program, and we provide comments here on the RPP Phase 2 Status Update that the Council is scheduled to consider at its August 15 meeting. Specifically, we outline here the continued shortcomings of the existing Program, which are highlighted by the Phase 2 Status Update, and we encourage the City Council to direct staff to make improvements to the Downtown RPP Program to ensure it complies with the State’s Vehicle Code. As we explained in our February 1, 2016 letter to the City Council, attached as Exhibit A, the Vehicle Code allows cities to adopt preferential parking programs to allow residents and merchants and their guests permitted parking on adjacent streets. Veh. Code § 22507(a); see also February 19, 2016 letter to City Council, attached as Exhibit B. The Code allows a city to issue parking permits to members of other groups only as long as use of those permits “will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area.” Id. § 22507(b) (emphasis added). This narrow grant of local control allows a city to protect its residents’ and merchants’ ability to park near their homes and establishments. City Council of the City of Palo Alto August 12, 2016 Page 2 To comply with the Vehicle Code, the City must ensure that the Downtown RPP does not adversely impact residents’ and merchants’ abilities to park reasonably near their homes and businesses. In order to do this, the City must adequately monitor implementation of the Downtown RPP and adapt it management as required to avoid adverse impacts to residential neighborhood parking conditions. Accordingly, we offer the following recommendations to the City to ensure the Downtown RPP Program operates in accordance with state law. 1. The City must measure impacts to neighborhoods by a more conservative standard. We disagree that it is appropriate to gauge acceptable parking saturation of residential neighborhoods based on 85% occupancy, as the City does here. Staff Report at 5. The 85% occupancy level is generally used as the benchmark for whether an area of parking is “saturated” or at “practical capacity”—that is, when parking is not easily found, resulting in driver frustration and excess traffic as drivers “cruise” for parking. At 85% “practical capacity,” parking is essentially full. The City should not use the highest cutoff for when lack of parking makes conditions measurably worse as the benchmark for appropriate levels of parking in residential neighborhoods. Instead, the City should adopt a more conservative 80% occupancy level mid-day as the measure of whether parking conditions in the Downtown residential neighborhoods are acceptable. When parking occupancy on residential streets get as high as 85% and parking cannot easily be found by the neighborhood’s residents, parking conditions are certainly “adversely affected,” in violation of Vehicle Code section 22507(b). 2. The City needs more data to support its conclusion that parking conditions closest to Downtown have improved. As the Staff Report notes, Phase 2 introduced employee parking zones, which are designed to distribute non-resident parking more equitably throughout the residential neighborhoods surrounding Downtown. Staff Report at 4. The Staff Report claims that “[i]mprovements in the streets immediately adjacent to the Downtown core and SOFA areas are apparent, indicating that . . . vehicles are not clustering on the streets nearest to the Downtown core and SOFA with as much frequency.” Staff Report at 5. The data provided in the Staff Report bely this claim. Attachment E to the Staff Report provides results of Downtown parking surveys conducted before and after Phase 2 was implemented. First, as can be seen in the survey for 12 – 2 p.m. on March 24, 2016, before Phase 2 was implemented, the residential blocks closest to the City Council of the City of Palo Alto August 12, 2016 Page 3 Downtown commercial core almost all have a parking saturation of over 85% (marked in red), while streets farther away are much less saturated (marked in yellow and green). Next, the Staff Report provides data from when Phase 2 was in effect. For example, for the same time period (12 – 2 p.m.) on May 19, 2016, with Phase 2 in effect, parking conditions in the neighborhoods around Downtown have actually gotten worse. While the Downtown commercial core and SOFA were only lightly parked1 (mostly green), the residential neighborhoods on all sides of the Downtown commercial core are more saturated with parking than they were in the March 24 survey, before the City implemented Phase 2. The survey data indicate that the impact of allowing employee parking in the RPP is that employees are no longer parking in Downtown—with its enforced two-hour street-parking limit that requires employees to move their cars multiple times per day—and instead they are purchasing permits and parking in the residential neighborhoods, to those neighborhoods’ detriment. The survey data from 12 – 2 p.m. on June 30, 2016 shows slightly better parking conditions in the neighborhoods—and significantly more parking saturation in the Downtown commercial core—than the May survey. However, June 30 was the Thursday before a long holiday weekend (Fourth of July), when many people were likely taking off work and traveling, and is unlikely to serve as an accurate representation of parking conditions in and around Downtown generally. Further, it is our understanding that extensive sewer repair work is being conducted in RPP Zones 5 – 8, resulting in temporary parking prohibitions on some streets, which may further distort the accuracy of these recent parking surveys. In light of these inconsistencies in the survey data and factors undermining the likelihood that the surveys are representative of actual conditions, the City should conduct further surveys before making any conclusions about any “improvements” resulting from Phase 2. Notably, the Staff Report provides no explanation of why conditions might be so different on the May and June dates. Nor does the Staff Report attempt to explain the degraded conditions observed on May 19. With such disparity, a single day’s data cannot alone serve to establish the effectiveness of Phase 2. The City Council should direct staff to conduct further parking occupancy surveys, including on 1 The Status Update’s comment that “[h]igh occupancies [of parking] were noted throughout” the Downtown core during the surveys conflicts with the data from May 19, which shows Downtown’s streets virtually devoid of parked cars. See Staff Report, Attachment E. City Council of the City of Palo Alto August 12, 2016 Page 4 different days of the week (not just Thursdays), and when there are no parking disturbances like sewer construction, to determine whether the RPP is adversely affecting parking conditions in Downtown residential neighborhoods. In any case, both the May and June data show that many of the residential streets nearest the Downtown commercial core have shown little improvement since the City implemented Phase 2. The blocks closest to the commercial area—like Kipling, Waverley, Bryant, Ramona, and High between Everett and Lytton—remain saturated with parking on both dates, despite the RPP’s promise to better distribute parking throughout the neighborhoods. 3. The RPP’s boundaries cannot continue to expand beyond areas “adjacent” to the Downtown commercial core. The City proposes to expand the Downtown RPP Program eligibility area to incorporate streets in Crescent Park, instead of considering a residents-only RPP for that area, which is far afield of Downtown. As we explained in our February 1, 2016 letter (pages 3-4), the size of the Downtown RPP is far beyond what the Vehicle Code contemplates. The employee permits allowed under the RPP allow employees to park as far as one mile away from the Downtown commercial core, which is not “adjacent” to Downtown, where the employees work. See Veh. Code § 22507(a) (allowing permit parking for those living or working adjacent to streets under RPP). Specifically, the Vehicle Code’s adjacency requirement allows those who live or work “in the impacted area to park anywhere within the area.” Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 804, 811 (emphases added). But, as the City’s own surveys show, both before and after Phase 2 was implemented, many of the areas included in the Downtown RPP—especially zones 8 and 9—are apparently not impacted by Downtown’s parking problems, having very low parking occupancy throughout the day. Those neighborhoods have not been impacted by parking difficulties in the first place, and the Vehicle Code’s RPP provision does not intend that such neighborhoods be used as a relief valve for parking in impacted areas by directing employees to park there. 4. The City must implement a comprehensive program to manage parking. The Staff Report provides no discussion of any other measures the City is taking to mitigate parking impacts to the neighborhoods and manage parking demand. For example, as Mr. Buchanan has noted to the City, valet parking at Downtown parking garages has been discontinued or never began. The Downtown RPP employee-permit program cannot be the dominant source of parking for Downtown workers, at the expense of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The City Council should request that staff City Council of the City of Palo Alto August 12, 2016 Page 5 augment the Downtown RPP Status Update to explain other measures that the City is taking to alleviate parking impacts on Downtown neighborhoods. And in particular, the City must ensure that the Transportation Management Association is adequately funded, so it can continue to encourage transportation options that will avoid exacerbating parking problems. Further, we reiterate here our point in our February 1 letter that the RPP Program would be more in-line with the Vehicle Code’s requirements if it allowed a business’s employees access to RPP permits only after the business shows that it has taken other measures to reduce its employees’ parking demand. See Exhibit A at 10. 5. The City must adhere to the annual permit reduction requirements. We request that the City Council ask staff to provide an update on whether the City remain on-track to reduce the number of employee permits issued each year by 200. Specifically, what efforts has the City made to accommodate or reduce parking demand around Downtown, which will pave the way for a reduction in use of the residential neighborhoods as employee parking lots? 6. Implementation of Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP demonstrates that the RPP is not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. As noted in the Staff Report, the City’s Comprehensive Plan requires that the City “[p]rotect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts.” Staff Report at 6 (quoting Comprehensive Plan Policy T-47). The Comprehensive Plan further instructs that the City should “[d]iscourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods.” Comprehensive Plan Program T-53. As it stands, the Downtown RPP is not doing what the Comprehensive Plan requires. Instead of protecting residential areas from businesses’ parking impacts, as the Comprehensive Plan and Vehicle Code require, the Downtown RPP is exporting Downtown’s parking woes to residential neighborhoods. * * * City Council of the City of Palo Alto August 12, 2016 Page 6 Finally, the City continues to lack support for its conclusion that the Downtown RPP Program qualifies for a categorical exemption under CEQA. As we explained in our February 1, 2016 letter, the exemptions the City claims, see Staff Report at 6, do not apply in a situation like the one here, where the City is increasing non- resident parking in the residential neighborhoods, via an inherently unusual program. See Exhibit A. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Catherine C. Engberg Laura D. Beaton Encls. cc: City Clerk (city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org) Molly S. Stump, City Attorney (city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org) Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director (hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org) 809870.2 EXHIBIT A 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com CATHERINE C. ENGBERG Attorney engberg@smwlaw.com February 1, 2016 Via Electronic Mail City Council of the City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Ordinance and Resolution for Citywide and Downtown RPP February 1, 2016 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12 Dear Council Members: This firm represents Neilson Buchanan and the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association regarding the City of Palo Alto’s proposal for implementing Phase 2 of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District pilot program. Our clients’ concerns regarding Phase 2 are representative of those of a larger coalition of residents. Our clients and other residents are generally supportive of the City’s efforts to create a workable preferential parking program for the neighborhoods surrounding Downtown. However, the City should ensure that Phase 2 complies with state law and protects residents of the neighborhoods from suffering adverse parking conditions created by the business permitting program. Notably, the proposed Phase 2 would bring Downtown business parking into neighborhoods that have never experienced non- residential parking demands. Mr. Buchanan and the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association urge the City Council to restructure Phase 2, as outlined below, to ensure the Downtown RPP protects residents from adverse parking conditions, as required by California Vehicle Code section 22507. I. Executive Summary We recommend the following changes to Phase 2 to protect residents in Downtown neighborhoods, while ensuring the City’s compliance with Vehicle Code section 22507 and the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.: Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 2 (1) Limit employee-permit parking to neighborhoods closer to the Downtown commercial core. East of Guinda Street and south of Lincoln Avenue should be resident parking only because they are not “adjacent to” the Downtown commercial core. See Veh. Code § 22507(a). (2) Explicitly provide that the number of available employee permits will be reduced by 200 permits, or at least 10%, annually. (3) Define monitoring and adaptive management requirements for Phase 2 to ensure there is no “adverse” impact—especially mal-distribution and saturation—on parking conditions for residents and merchants. See Veh. Code § 22507(b). (4) Eliminate or place strict eligibility controls on daily permits and scratcher permits available to businesses. (5) Require that at least half of the employee-parking permits be distributed to merchant employees. (6) Require businesses to take affirmative measures, including funding, to reduce (i.e., mitigate) their parking demand. By adopting these changes to Phase 2, the City Council will ensure that the Downtown RPP complies with state law and will take a major step toward a parking solution that works for all of Palo Alto. II. The Vehicle Code Provides a Narrow Grant of Authority to Implement the RPP Program. City streets are regulated by the State of California, but the Legislature has carved out an exception to allow local control over parking. At issue here, the Vehicle Code provides that: • Cities may adopt preferential parking programs that designate “certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges are given to residents and merchants adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their guests[.]” Veh. Code § 22507(a) (emphasis added). Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 3 • Parking permits may also be issued to “members of . . . designated groups,” like school personnel, but only so long as use of those permits “will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area.” Id. § 22507(b) (emphasis added). The clear intent of this narrow grant of local control is to protect residents’ and merchants’ ability to park near their homes and establishments. The City’s proposal, however, fails to require “adjacency” under subsection (a) and further fails to protect residents from “adverse effects” under subsection (b). III. The RPP Program Would Authorize Non-Merchant Employees to Park in Far Flung Areas That Are Not Adjacent to the Downtown Commercial Core, in Violation of the Vehicle Code. The RPP Program would issue up to 2,000 parking permits plus unlimited daily permits to non-merchant employees of businesses in the area—more permits, even, than for which there was demand during Phase 1 of the program.1 These employee permits would allow parking in one of approximately 10 zones of the residential neighborhoods surrounding Downtown, up to one mile from the Downtown commercial core.2 A one-mile zone is not “adjacent” to the downtown. Rather, the Vehicle Code requires at least “general adjacency.” Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 804, 811 (adjacency requirement permits those “in the impacted area to park anywhere within the area”) (emphasis added). The Code does not authorize the City to distribute the burdens of non-merchant employee parking beyond the immediate Downtown area. Yet the City’s program would issue permits to those who have no residence or business within the zone—or even nearby. As a result, the program will almost certainly increase parking problems for residents in the outer boundaries of the zone. 1 According to a December 14, 2015 City Council Staff Report, the City issued 1,495 employee permits during Phase 1. 2 The number of employee permits issued during Phase 1 also spurred “petitions” to expand the RPP District to include other streets. However, the City failed to make clear to petitioning residents that they had the option to adopt a residents-only RPP like the College Terrace program. Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 4 The City fails to support its conclusion that the Downtown RPP program qualifies for a categorical exemption under CEQA. CEQA exempts certain changes to existing facilities only if the change “involv[es] negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing” before the project. CEQA Guidelines § 15301. This exemption simply does not apply to the situation here, where the City proposes to increase non-resident, Downtown employee parking in the neighborhoods east of Guinda Street and south of Lincoln Avenue. It is now well-recognized that providing parking—particularly excess parking—causes a host of environmental impacts, such as increased traffic and the attendant environmental impacts like air pollution, noise, and traffic hazards. See, e.g., Senate Bill 743 § 1(b)(1) (recognizing that providing parking causes environmental impacts). And even if the exemption did apply to this program, the unusual circumstances of the proposed RPP program would necessitate CEQA review. See CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c). The proposed RPP is by its nature unusual because it preferences parking by businesses—thereby increasing use of parking in some neighborhoods—as opposed to reducing use of parking in residential neighborhoods, as most RPPs do. Because the project itself is unusual and could have significant environmental impacts, it is excepted from CEQA’s exemptions that may have otherwise applied. See Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105. IV. There is No Evidence That the Proposed Program Would Avoid “Adverse Impacts” on Parking for Residents and Merchants. The RPP program is further flawed because there is no evidence that its employee-parking policies will not “adversely affect” parking conditions for residents and merchants. Vehicle Code section 22507(b) allows local governments to authorize preferential parking permits to “designated groups” only if doing so would not adversely affect parking for residents or merchants in the area. Assuming arguendo that downtown businesses qualify as “designated groups”—and whether employees of large, office-based companies falls into the eligible exceptions contemplated by the statute is questionable— the City’s plan to issue 2,000 employee parking permits plus unlimited daily permits (which businesses could provide to anyone to park in the residential neighborhoods) fails to comply with the Vehicle Code’s conditional grant of authority. Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 5 A. “Theoretical Impact” of the Program Lacks Evidentiary Basis In support of the proposal, the City claims that the “theoretical impact” from Downtown employees parking in any particular parking zone “would be around 15% to 24% of the total number of spots available on the street.” Feb. 1, 2016 Staff Report at 4. City staff reached this conclusion because “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 [employee] permits sold,” and the employee permits available in each zone will constitute 30% to 40% of available on-street parking space. Id. However, the Staff Report lacks sufficient data to back up these conclusions. First, the parking occupancy and permit distribution data upon which the City relies was collected on only two dates, October 22 and November 5, 2015—both Thursdays. This is an insufficient basis for concluding that 2,000 employee permits plus unlimited daily permits would not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area. The City cannot extrapolate from two Thursdays’ worth of data early in the preferential parking program’s existence to predict employee parking patterns in the Downtown RPP District. Indeed, as Mr. Buchanan has previously noted, the laws of stochastic demand guarantee that on any given day, parking demand in a zone will vary widely. An appropriate basis for determining adverse impact would include occupancy and permit distribution data from, at a minimum, each of the five weekdays at different times of day. As it stands, the data on which the City relies fails to account for any difference in employee parking across different days of the week. B. Failure to Consider Worst-Case Conditions In analyzing adverse impacts, the City must consider what parking occupancy and distribution would look like on heavy-use days. For example, the City should characterize the impact to residential parking on days when a high percentage of permitted employees park in the RPP District, including days when all 2,000 permits are in use. Maximum permit use is possible and grows more likely as more commercial developments crop up in Downtown.3 Throughout Phase 1, the City failed to provide 3 The Feb. 1, 2016 Staff Report also implies that because fewer than 2,000 employee parking permits were sold during Phase 1, the percentage of permits in use at any given time will be even lower than staff’s estimates. However, the Staff Report provides no support for this illogical conclusion that issuing more permits will not result in an increase in daily use of permits. Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 6 data and projections on future parking demand. Phase 2 suffers the same shortcoming, as it provides no requirements for collecting data and estimating future demand. C. Failure to Analyze Zone-By-Zone Data The City’s analysis in the Staff Report for the February 1, 2016 meeting is also lacking because it assumes that the employee-permit occupancy will be the same across all parking zones and that the effects will be the same across all zones, without any data to support these assumptions. Even if the same number of employee permits are issued for each zone, it does not carry that use patterns will be the same. For example, employees holding permits for zones close to their workplaces may use their permits more frequently than employees holding permits for zones farther from their workplaces. Also, there may be other factors affecting parking conditions in different zones, including proximity of businesses drawing short-term non-permit parkers and the need to accommodate schools. For these reasons, the City should evaluate whether employee permits would adversely affect parking for conditions on a zone-by-zone basis, and it should do so based on real data, not speculation. D. Failure to Analyze Cumulative Impacts Yet another major omission from the data on which the City relies is any information about the expected use of parking resources by other permitted parkers, which is an essential factor for determining what impact on parking conditions employee- permit parking would have. The City does not quantify expected parking use by holders of residential permits, residential guest permits (limit of two per household), residential daily permits (limit of 50 per household), or use for non-permit two-hour parking. Most egregiously, the City fails to make any mention of the impact of providing unlimited daily permits to Downtown businesses for use by employees, guests, clients, or anyone else a business sees fit to allow to park in any zone in the Downtown RPP District. The City must analyze and disclose these impacts before instituting a preferential permit program that stands to adversely affect parking conditions for area residents and merchants. See Veh. Code § 22507(b). V. Minimum Recommendations for Phase 2 In light of the foregoing legal deficiencies, we recommend the following changes to Phase 2. With these changes in place, Phase 2 will comply with state law and ensure that adequate parking is maintained for the residents of neighborhoods surrounding Downtown. While these are the minimum revisions to Phase 2 necessary to Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 7 ensure its compliance with state law, our clients may identify further improvements to the Downtown RPP District program, especially after Phase 2 takes effect and its impacts are observed. A. Limit Employee Parking to Neighborhoods Adjacent to Downtown For the neighborhoods east of Guinda Street and south of Lincoln Avenue, which are not adjacent to Downtown, the City should adopt a residents-only RPP district, similar to the one currently existing in College Terrace. The College Terrace program restricts parking permits to residents of the neighborhood. See Palo Alto Municipal Code § 10.46.060. B. Require At Least 10% Reduction in Employee Permits Annually The City Council’s resolution to implement Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP District pilot program should explicitly provide for the reduction of the number of employee permits available over time. City staff’s recommendation to the City Council in the December 14, 2015 Staff Report was to cap employee permits at 2,000 for the first year, and reduce the number of available permits by 200 each year until no employee permits are available. Dec. 14, 2015 Staff Report at 7-8. However, a plan for reducing the number of employee permits available is curiously absent from the current proposal, as outlined in the Staff Report for the February 1, 2016 City Council meeting. A concrete plan for reducing the employee permits offered each year should be included in the Resolution authorizing Phase 2. C. Provide For Ongoing Monitoring and Adaptive Management In light of the paucity of data supporting the City’s proposal to issue 2,000 employee-parking permits plus unlimited daily permits as part of Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP District pilot program, the City should develop a monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management program, supported by the City Auditor, to inform administration of the employee-parking program. This will allow the City to ensure that the employee-permit parking is not “adversely” impacting resident and merchant parking. And if the City finds that employee parking is adversely affecting parking conditions, the adaptive management program should require the City to take corrective action, such as limiting daily permits issued to Downtown businesses. The proposed Resolution implementing Phase 2 hints at the need for a monitoring and adaptive management program, but fails to define it. The proposed Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 8 Resolution would require that the City “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.” Feb. 1, 2016 Staff Report, Attachment B at 4 (emphasis added). However, the proposed Resolution fails to provide any explanation of what this would entail. The RPP Administrative Guidelines, intended to provide additional detail on RPP program implementation, supply little additional help. The Administrative Guidelines provide that “[d]uring the course of District initiation, the City will conduct parking occupancy studies.” Feb. 1, 2016 Staff Report, Attachment C § L. But like the proposed Resolution, the Guidelines provide scant direction on the nature of these studies, the studies’ frequency, or the actions that should be taken in response to the studies’ conclusions. In the CEQA context, courts uniformly reject such studies as deferred mitigation. See, e.g., Communities for a Better Env’t v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92. Also, the Guidelines can be changed by City staff, without public input, and are thus completely unenforceable, in further violation of CEQA. See Lotus v. Dep’t of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 656-57. The City Council should revise the proposed Resolution implementing Phase 2 to include, at a minimum, monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management standards, including: • identification of data points to be gathered (e.g., number of each type of permit issued, occupancy rate, permit distribution, etc.); • guidelines for occupancy and permit distribution surveys, including the requirement that all permit types be counted; • minimum frequency requirements for occupancy and permit distribution surveys; • easy-to-understand graphical maps depicting parking patterns of all vehicles in the neighborhoods; • a three-year plan to adopt technology to optimize parking efficiency and lower enforcement and administrative costs; • requirement for reporting survey data to the public; and Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 9 • specific standards for triggering a change in the number of employee permits issued to avoid adverse impact on residents (e.g., exceeding a certain maximum occupancy rate for all types of employee permits). The iterative process for issuing permits, which was mentioned only fleetingly in the proposed Resolution, is the crux of a program that will ensure that issuing the employee permits will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants, as Vehicle Code section 22507 requires. Accordingly, robust standards for monitoring and adaptive management should be adopted by the City Council now. Further, Phase 2 will be successful only if the Council and City Staff commit to provide necessary staff time and resources to gather the data necessary to ensure the program does not harm Downtown neighborhood residents. The resolution should explicitly require this. In the interest of facilitating collection of accurate data on Downtown parking patterns, Downtown residents have devised a low-cost system for documenting parking occupancy and permit distribution. The developers of this system would be willing to help the City collect data on Phase 2 parking during February and March 2016. D. Limit the Number of Daily Permits Available to Businesses, And Limit Availability to Only Employees Who Work in Downtown To achieve the City’s goals of reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips into Downtown and to avoid adverse impacts on parking conditions for residents and merchants, the Downtown RPP District employee-permit program should limit the number of daily permits available to businesses. While residents in the District are limited to purchasing 50 daily permits annually, inexplicably, businesses are allowed to purchase an unlimited number of daily permits, each for a small fee. If the limited number of available employee permits sells out, this gaping loophole in the program would allow a business with the necessary means to buy daily permits to provide parking for its entire workforce—even for employees who do not actually work in Downtown— completely undermining the purpose of the RPP. That a business would do this to circumvent the program’s limit on employee parking in the District is not unfounded speculation—indeed, at the January 6, 2016, RPP Program meeting, stakeholders reported that Palantir is doing exactly this. See also CNBC, The CIA-backed start-up that’s taking over Palo Alto (Jan. 12, 2016), http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/12/the-cia- backed-start-up-thats-taking-over-palo-alto.html (reporting that Palantir employees “who drive in [to Palantir’s offices in downtown Palo Alto] get complimentary parking permits”). Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 10 This lack of control and City oversight regarding use of the daily permits promises to undermine any chance the City has of ensuring parking conditions for residents and merchants are not adversely affected, as state law requires. E. Require Businesses to Take Measures to Reduce Parking Demand For the neighborhoods closer to Downtown, the RPP District program would better serve residents and the intent of Vehicle Code section 22507 if it allowed a business to access parking permits only after the business established that it had taken other measures to reduce its employees’ demand for parking. The City proposes to issue permits to employees of any business, regardless of that business’s ability to alleviate its own parking impact. A Downtown business may be able to reduce its employees’ parking demand by providing them with incentives to use commuter shuttles, mass transit, carpooling, car sharing, bicycles, or telecommuting. The City should require Downtown businesses to pursue and fund such measures before the City allows their employees access to parking permits. F. Preference Merchant Employees’ Applications for Permits. Additionally, the Downtown RPP District employee-permit program should be revised to preference merchant employees over employees of other, non-merchant businesses. The current draft conflicts with Vehicle Code section 22507(b), which requires that allowing permits for other groups must not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants. Merchants’ ability to park in the District could be adversely impacted if employees of other businesses acquire available permits, but merchants’ employees do not and find themselves unable to park near where they work. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Catherine C. Engberg Laura D. Beaton cc: City Clerk (city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org) Molly S. Stump, City Attorney (city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org) Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director (hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org) EXHIBIT B 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com CATHERINE C. ENGBERG Attorney engberg@smwlaw.com February 19, 2016 Via Electronic Mail City Council of the City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Updated Resolution for Citywide and Downtown RPP February 23, 2016 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 2 Dear Council Members: This firm represents Neilson Buchanan and the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association regarding the City of Palo Alto’s proposal for implementing Phase 2 of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District pilot program. Our clients commend the City Council’s decision at its February 1 meeting to instruct City Staff to revise the proposed RPP resolution to better protect Downtown neighborhood residents from businesses’ parking impacts. However, the revised RPP resolution does not fully satisfy the Council’s directives. We also urge the City Council to adopt additional refinements as described in our letter dated February 1, 2016 to ensure that the Downtown RPP program complies with state law and does not adversely affect parking conditions for Downtown neighborhood residents. See Veh. Code § 22507(b). By adopting the changes we outline below to Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP pilot program, the City Council will ensure that the Downtown RPP program complies with state law and take a major step toward a parking solution that works for all of Palo Alto. I. The proposed resolution should provide for the annual reduction of available employee permits by at least 200 permits. The City Council made the right call when it instructed City Staff to revise the proposed Downtown RPP resolution to provide that available annual employee permits would be reduced by 200 per year for ten years. However, the proposed revision Palo Alto City Council February 19, 2016 Page 2 to the resolution fails to require reduction of at least 200 permits annually. Instead, the proposed resolution requires that the City “decreas[e] annual employee permits by approximately 200 permits per year, based on parking occupancy analysis and mode split analysis.” Feb. 23, 2016 Staff Report, Attachment A at 4 (emphasis added). This language is too vague. The purpose of the annual reduction of employee permits is to guarantee that no employee permits will be available for parking in the Downtown RPP within 10 years. The annual reduction is especially important to Downtown neighborhood residents because, as we noted in our February 1 letter to the City Council, the City lacks evidence that its decision to issue 2,000 employee permits would not adversely affect parking conditions in the Downtown neighborhoods. A firm commitment to reduce available employee permits by 200 annually provides the necessary backstop to ensure that adverse impacts will be reduced over time. Accordingly, the proposed resolution should be changed to make explicit that the City will decrease annual employee permits by at least 200 permits per year. II. The City should ensure that daily and five-day “scratcher” employee permits do not contribute to adverse effects on parking conditions. The City Council also directed City Staff to “[r]eturn to the Council with a program to meter non-resident hang tags, daily scratchers, and five day scratchers distributed by zones in both streets and parking garages.” In response, City Staff proposed the following revisions to the Downtown RPP resolution: (1) daily and five-day “scratcher” permits will be available to individual employees only, not to businesses; (2) employees will be limited to purchasing four daily scratcher permits or one five-day scratcher permit per month; and (3) the scratcher permits will be zone-specific and sold randomly. While these changes are a step in the right direction—the ban on businesses purchasing daily permits is especially necessary—they do not satisfy the City Council’s directive, and they will not protect against adverse effects on parking conditions for Downtown neighborhood residents. First, the daily and five-day scratcher permits should count toward the 2,000 annual employee permit cap. As we explained in our February 1 letter, the City lacks evidence to establish that issuing 2,000 employee parking permits would not adversely affect parking conditions for residents. The City likewise lacks evidence that issuing an unknown number of daily and five-day permits would not adversely affect residents’ parking conditions. Facing these unknowns and having no idea of how many scratcher employee permits would actually be issued, at the very least, the City should Palo Alto City Council February 19, 2016 Page 3 cap all employee parking permits at the equivalent of 2,000 annual permits. This will ensure that, on average, no more than 2,000 employee permits will be in use daily. Further, the revised resolution fails to comply with the City Council’s directive that daily permits be distributed across zones and parking garages. Currently, the revised proposed resolution provides that “[d]aily and five-day employee scratchers will be zone-specific and will be sold randomly.” Feb. 23, 2016 Staff Report, Attachment A at 5. To satisfy the City Council’s instructions, this provision must be changed to expressly provide that daily and five-day employee scratchers be distributed across the Downtown RPP zones and Downtown parking garages III. The proposed Downtown RPP program fails to ensure that parking conditions for neighborhood residents will not be adversely affected. Vehicle Code section 22507(b) allows local governments to “also authorize preferential parking permits for members of . . . designated groups,” but only if doing so “will not adversely affect parking for residents or merchants in the area.” As we explained in our February 1 letter, the City has not established that issuing 2,000 employee parking permits—let alone issuing daily and five-day employee permits on top of that—will not adversely affect neighborhood parking conditions for residents. At the February 1 City Council meeting, there was discussion regarding whether distributing permits to Downtown business employees would or would not adversely affect parking conditions for surrounding residents. Specifically, staff concluded that parking conditions with the Downtown RPP program, including employee permits, will be better for residents than what would exist with no program at all, and thus, residential parking conditions will not be adversely affected. This is not how Vehicle Code section 22507 works. Section 22507 can be best understood as a three-step process. First, a city may establish parking restrictions, such as restrictions on the types of vehicles that may park in an area or time limits on parking. Veh. Code § 22507(a). Second, after establishing such parking restrictions, a city may designate preferential parking districts where residents and merchants may acquire permits to park near their home or business, notwithstanding the parking restrictions. Id. Third and finally, a city may “also authorize parking permits [in preferential parking districts] for members of organizations, professions, or other designated groups, including, but not limited to, school personnel,” but only after the city finds that “use of the permits will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area.” Veh. Code § 22507(b) (emphasis Palo Alto City Council February 19, 2016 Page 4 added). The use of the word “also” makes plain that providing permits to other groups is something done only after the RPP is established for residents and merchants. Accordingly, the baseline against which adverse effects on parking conditions must be measured is parking conditions in the RPP district before any permits are issued to any groups other than the neighborhood’s residents and merchants. The Legislature’s intent in authorizing cities to, in some cases, issue RPP permits to other groups was circumscribed. The Legislature added subsection (b) to section 22507 because it believed that local authorities should be able to accommodate the special needs of certain non-resident groups who need to park in RPP districts. Specifically, the amendment contemplated the parking needs of schoolteachers: The Legislature finds and declares that local jurisdictions should be given the authority to allow all school personnel to park on public streets adjacent to public schools in order to help alleviate the overcrowding of on-campus parking facilities due to the increase in personnel and the resulting demand for classroom space attributable to the state's class size reduction program. Sen. Bill No. 626 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) § 1, attached as Exhibit 1. The Legislature never intended for this narrow exception to the limit on permits to residents and merchants to open the door for cities to give up the right to park in RPPs to any group, in any circumstance. For these reasons, the City of Palo Alto cannot rely on any net improvement in parking conditions around Downtown to conclude that there is no adverse effect on existing substandard conditions from permitted employee parking. For a true apples-to-apples comparison, the City must compare conditions in the Downtown RPP district with only resident and merchant permits to conditions with 2,000 employee permits plus daily and five-day employee scratchers. Additionally, the City should include in the proposed resolution specific provisions for a monitoring and reporting program, like the one outlined in our February 1 letter to the City Council, pages 7 - 9. This program should include a timeline for reports on the Downtown RPP pilot program’s efficacy and impacts. Specifically, City Staff’s first report to the Council on the pilot program’s impact on parking conditions in the Downtown neighborhoods should be due 60 days after the proposed resolution is passed and the second report due at 120 days. If the monitoring shows any adverse effect on what residents’ parking conditions would be without the employee permits, the pilot program must be modified to eliminate the adverse effect. Monitoring and adaptive Palo Alto City Council February 19, 2016 Page 5 management is necessary because if there are adverse effects on residents’ parking, the program providing employee parking in residential neighborhoods should be changed accordingly—not allowed to carry on despite its negative impact on residents.1 IV. No employee permits should be sold for Zones 9 and 10, which are not adjacent to Downtown. Finally, the City Council directed City Staff to revise the resolution to provide that, “initially,” no employee permits would be sold outside of the Phase 1 boundaries. The revised RPP resolution does not do this. Instead, the staff report states that, in response to the City Council’s direction, “no daily permits will be made available for zones 9 and 10” and annual “reductions [of 200 available employee permits] will occur in the outer zones first.” Feb. 23, 2016 Staff Report at 8 (emphasis added). The Council wisely restricted employee parking permits from the neighborhoods south of Lincoln Avenue and east of Guinda Street. As we explained in our February 1 letter, the streets in these neighborhoods, including Crescent Park, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered “adjacent” to Downtown business locations. While the limited case law on section 22507 has held that the word “adjacent” should be interpreted to mean “general adjacency,” (see Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 804, 811), the word cannot be rendered meaningless. In Hermosa Beach, the court recognized the limits of adjacency, noting that “general adjacency” meant allowing “residents in the impacted area to park anywhere within that area.” Id. (emphases added). In fact, the case prohibits the City from extending its permit program to a non-adjacent neighborhood—such as Crescent Park— that is not currently impacted by downtown employee parking at all. Id. at 807. Likewise, many California cities have adhered to section 22507’s limited definition of “adjacency” by establishing reasonable restrictions on where a permit holder may park within the parking district, such as within 500 feet (Pasadena, see Exhibit 2, attached) or two blocks (Santa Monica, see Exhibit 3, attached) of permittee’s residence or business. Though the details of these ordinances have been tailored for each city’s specific needs, the efforts to comply with section 22507’s adjacency requirement by limiting where a permittee can park are clear. 1 The RPP Administrative Guidelines similarly fail to provide for adequate monitoring and adaptive management, as explained in our February 1 letter. Palo Alto City Council February 19, 2016 Page 6 The adjacency requirement likewise applies to permits issued to “other designated groups” under subsection 22507(b). Senate Bill 626, which amended section 22507 to add subsection (b), explained that the purpose of allowing cities to expand RPP permit eligibility to groups other than residents and merchants was so cities could “allow all school personnel to park on public streets adjacent to public schools.” Sen. Bill 626 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) § 1, attached as Exhibit 1. The intent was never to allow cities to repurpose residential neighborhood streets as a pay-to-park lot for a commercial business core. The revised resolution does not implement the Council’s directive to keep all employee parking out of Zones 9 and 10. First, the proposed resolution does not set any limit on the zones for which employee permits—daily or annual—will be sold. See Feb. 23 Staff Report, Attachment A at 5. And the commitment in the Staff Report states only that “[d]aily permits will not be available for Zones 9 and 10.” Feb. 23 Staff Report at 3. It says nothing of such limits on annual employee permits. “Sell no employee decals outside of the Phase 1 boundaries” means no employee decals—not just no daily employee permits. The City should revise the proposed resolution to provide that no annual or daily employee permits will be sold in Zones 9 and 10 during Phase 2. This will comply with the City Council’s instructions and also ensure that the Downtown RPP program will not violate the Vehicle Code, which does not authorize the City to distribute the burdens of employee parking beyond the immediate Downtown area, to neighborhoods like Crescent Park, which are not even arguably adjacent to the Downtown core. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Catherine C. Engberg Laura D. Beaton cc: City Clerk (city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org) Molly S. Stump, City Attorney (city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org) Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director (hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org) 757961.1 EXHIBIT 1 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS—PREFERENTIAL PARKING..., 1997 Cal. Legis. Serv.... © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.1 1997 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 343 (S.B. 626) (WEST) CALIFORNIA 1997 LEGISLATIVE SERVICE 1997 Portion of 1997-98 Regular Session Additions are indicated by <<+ Text +>>; deletions by <<- * * * ->>. Changes in tables are made but not highlighted. CHAPTER 343 S.B. No. 626 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS—PREFERENTIAL PARKING PERMITS—QUALIFICATIONS AN ACT to amend Section 22507 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. [Approved by Governor August 25, 1997.] [Filed with Secretary of State August 25, 1997.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 626, Karnette. Vehicles: parking: local authorities. Existing law authorizes local authorities to prohibit or restrict the stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles on certain streets or highways, or portions thereof, during all or certain hours of the day. A local authority may also designate certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges are given to residents and merchants adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their guests, under which the residents and merchants may be issued a permit or permits to exempt them from the specified prohibition or restriction. This bill would authorize local authorities to authorize preferential parking permits for members of organizations, professions, or other designated groups to park on specified streets if the local authority determines that the use of the permits will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that local jurisdictions should be given the authority to allow all school personnel to park on public streets adjacent to public schools in order to help alleviate the overcrowding of on-campus parking facilities due to the increase in personnel and the resulting demand for classroom space attributable to the state's class size reduction program. SEC. 2. Section 22507 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: << CA VEHICLE § 22507 >> 22507. <<+(a)+>> Local authorities may, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit or restrict the stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles, including, but not limited to, vehicles <<+that+>> are six feet or more in height (including any load thereon) within 100 feet of any intersection, on certain streets or highways, or portions thereof, during all or certain hours of the day. The ordinance or resolution may include a designation of certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges are given to residents and merchants adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their guests, under which the residents and merchants may be issued a permit or permits <<+that+>> exempt them from the prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or resolution. With the exception of alleys, <<-* * *->><<+the+>> ordinance or resolution shall <<+not+>> apply until signs or markings giving adequate notice thereof have been placed. A local ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this section may contain provisions <<+ that+>> are reasonable and necessary to ensure the effectiveness of a preferential parking program. STREETS AND HIGHWAYS—PREFERENTIAL PARKING..., 1997 Cal. Legis. Serv.... © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2 <<+(b) An ordinance or resolution adopted under this section may also authorize preferential parking permits for members of organizations, professions, or other designated groups to park on specified streets if the local authority determines that the use of the permits will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area.+>> CA LEGIS 343 (1997) End of Document © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. EXHIBIT 2 2/18/2016 Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances https://www.municode.com/library/ca/pasadena/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT10VETR_CH10.42DAPA_10.42.060PALI 1/1 A. B. 1. 2. 3. C. 10.42.060 - Parking limitations. No vehicle shall be parked, pursuant to a permit issued under this chapter, on any street except within a 500-foot radius of a permittee's place of residence designated on the permit. No permit shall be valid under the following circumstances: On any street where parking is prohibited either by red curb or posted parking prohibitions during the hours such parking prohibitions are in effect; In any green, yellow, blue or white painted curb zone; or On any street in front of or abutting any property except property improved exclusively for residential use. "Residential use" means either single-family or multiple family dwellings, but shall not include business, industrial or commercial properties. No more than 2 nighttime and 2 daytime on-street parking permits shall be issued to one residence at any time except for hardship as determined by the director of public works and transportation in his discretion. (Ord. 6587 § 1 (part), 1994; Ord. 6125 § 1, 1985) EXHIBIT 3 2/18/2016 Two Block Rule - Planning & Community Development - City of Santa Monica https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Permits/Two-Block-Rule/1/1 Home About Us Permits Zoning Transportation Plans & Projects Code Compliance Boards & Commissions City of Santa Monica © 2016 Planning and Community Development Department Website produced by the City of Santa Monica Web Development Division Facebook Twitter City Home Contact Us 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 planning@smgov.net Hours of Operation City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Search the PCD Site ABOUT US PERMITS ZONING TRANSPORTATION PLANS & PROJECTS CODE COMPLIANCE BOARDS & COMMISSIONS Permits A-Z List of Permits Apply for Permits ePermits Records Request Applications & Forms Plan Check What is Plan Check? Documents & Submittal Requirements Pre-submittal Review ePlans Timeline & Status Inspections Inspection Process Building Inspection Checklists Schedule an Inspection Codes, Standards, Requirements Santa Monica Municipal Code County and State Requirements California Building Codes Building Design Limitations Additional Resources A-Z List of Permits Applications & Forms Department Publications Terms, Definitions, & Links Two-Block Rule Your residential and visitor preferential parking permits are designed to allow you and your guests to park near your home. Occasionally there may be no parking spaces on your block. For this reason, the City allows you and your visitors to park within two blocks of your address. The Traffic Services Division of the Police Department defines this area by the number of blocks away from the “hundred” block on which you live. Every time you cross an intersection, turn a corner or change hundred blocks, you have moved to another block. In the example below, consider your block of residence to be “X”: the first block adjacent to yours is the “one” block and the second is the “two” block. You can only park on your own block and blocks numbered “1” and “2.” Please be aware that you can only use your permit to park on a street designated for preferential parking that is also within your numbered zone (and within two blocks of your residence). Your zone is indicated by the large number preceding the R or V on your preferential parking permit. North of the 10 Freeway, the major boundaries between zones are Wilshire Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard. South of the 10 Freeway, the major boundaries are Lincoln Boulevard and Cloverfield Boulevard/23rd Street. Map of preferential parking zones and permitted streets The Police Department has found that most offenses take place around Santa Monica College. Therefore, preferential parking permit holders should take special care to follow the two-block rule around this area. Use your best judgment; if you think you’ve parked more than two blocks away, you probably have. If you are parked more than two blocks away, your vehicle may be cited and you may have to pay a fine. For enforcement questions, contact the Santa Monica Police Department’s Traffic Services Division at 310-458-8466. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/15/2016 5:18 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:David <dkwoh@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 15, 2016 5:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Requests pertaining to tonight's Council Meeting Dear City Council, I am a resident of Crescent Park and my home address is 1140 Lincoln Ave, Palo Alto. For quite some time, I have been much troubled by the vast increase of offices in the downtown area without a corresponding increase in parking space. How could this oversight be allowed to happen? And it will take 10 years to remedy this situation? I am 73 years old and 10 years means a lot to me than to the younger folks. The present situation and time table are simply unacceptable. One consequence of this oversight is that the office workers are now coming into our neighborhood for freebie parking. Though my home address is not within the RPP program yet, I am beginning to see cars parked on my street, in front of our house, which do not belong to people living in this neighborhood. This encroachment is more than simple inconvenience. It is literally an invasion of our neighborhood. Our once quiet and peaceful residential neighborhood is on the way to become a public parking lot for the downtown office workers. The additional traffic creates hazards and inconveniences to us, grownups and children alike. Per tonight’s Council Meeting, I would like you to know that I support adding the two CP blocks (500 Hale and 800 Palo Alto Ave. to the Downtown RP, as residents of those blocks have requested. I also request that the remainder of Item 11 about the RPP to be pulled from the consent calendar for discussion at a future council meeting. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. David Kwoh City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/15/2016 5:00 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 15, 2016 4:54 PM To:Council, City Cc:Vincent Leung; Stump, Molly Subject:Aug 15 Council Meeting: RPP and 411/437 Lytton In order to conserve Council time tonight I want to enter the following issues into the public record. #1 There is an alarmingly high accident rate on Middlefield at Hawthorne and Everett Streets. The traffic studies for 411/437 do not adequately address traffic and accidents. As traffic on University and Lytton increases, there will be greater cut through non-resident traffic within DTN and on Kipling. #2 Downtown RPP administrative rules do not restrict tenants and visitors from non-resident permit eligibility at 411/437 Lytton. This lack of oversight creates incentive to park on residential. This is unnecessary competition for limited supply of non-resident permits with other commercial property tenants, visitors and customers. The proposed project at 411-437 Lytton provides significant on-site parking and city policy must address full incentives and utilization of on-site parking. #3 Narrow streets such as High, Ramona, Palo Alto Avenue and Kipling are not accommodating safe, convenient traffic flow. The increased use of larger trucks such as Amazon, FedEx and UPS delivery throughout each working days is in conflict with city planning for RPP and projects such as 411/437 Lytton. 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 | 8/10/2016 12:48 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:33 AM To:Council, City Cc:Richard Brand; Michael Hodos; Gabrielle Layton; John Guislin; Elaine Uang; Malcolm Beasley; Norman H. Beamer; Mary Dimit; Gitelman, Hillary; Atkinson, Sue-Ellen Subject:Request to pull RPP Report off the consent calendar Attachments:Attachment A COPA Parked Vehicle Map May 19, 2016.pdf; Attachment B Original Parking Zones with Capacity and Non-Resident Permit Limits.pdf; Attachment C Residents Updated Map for Zones 8 and 9.pdf; Attachment D Non-Resident Permit Parking Loads on Zones.pdf Dear City Council, On behalf of citizens who live in and adjacent to the Downtown RPP district, I ask that Item 11 Update of Status of RPP be pulled off of the August 15 Consent Calendar. I ask the council to pull the consent calendar with the follow conditions: 1. to adopt the staff proposed Resolution (Attachment A), expanding the boundary of the Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 eligibility area originally established by Resolution 9577 2. to direct staff to schedule RPP for Council discussion within the next 30 days with emphasis on discussing 5 issues below and give staff direction to address other citizen concerns and report back to Council not later than Dec 15. #1 RPP cannot be successful without a quality metric. Citizens strongly recommend the best quality standard for any resident street face should be total parked vehicle impact not greater than 80% midday for any working day. Staff has presented standard as 85% which reflects parking levels appropriate for commercial parking lots and garages. There is no forecast of demand for non- resident vehicle parking in the RPP district or commercial core. Analysis is impractical without understanding scenarios of parking demand. #2 The decade long mal-distribution of non-resident vehicles has not been solved. Please review Attachments B, C and D depicting parking loads on each zone. Parked vehicle density on too many residential street faces has not improved and there is no mechanism to proactively manage mal- distribution within zones. #3 The RPP parking "district" still does not have set boundaries, and probably will be expanded again and again as public awareness grows. The current sewer replacement in Downtown South and Professorville distorts impact and residents cannot analyze impact. District is simply excessive in size at the one square mile level. Furthermore, no city data has been presented for Zone 10 which is major section of Crescent Park. Residents estimate that as many as 100-200 more non-resident vehicles will eventually seek non-resident permits when boundaries are expanded to limit the game of parking just outside RPP boundaries. There will be significant negative impact on Zones 9 and City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/10/2016 12:48 PM 2 10. Significant portions of Zones 8, 9 and 10 are pending probable annexation when residents awaken to spillover parking by workers who currently decline opportunities to purchase permits. #4 Programs to mitigate and contain demand for non-resident permits are not funded. Valet parking at Bryant St garage has been abandoned. Valet parking at Cower Webster never commenced. Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) is floundering and unfunded. The TMA is years away from having meaningful, positive impact. Residents' effort to preclude "fully parked" developments (such as 411-437 Lytton) from RPP eligibility have not been acted upon by staff or Council. Staff report does not acknowledge estimated 100-200 non-resident vehicle parked outside current permit parking zones or the vehicles being moved every 2 hours. #5 The city has chosen to use primitive technology for enforcement in the RPP district. This approach reduced enforcement capability and generates more errors, overlooked violations and, more likely, disputed tickets. There is double standard for technology between commercial core and residential neighborhoods. There is almost no ability to effectively manage 2-hr parking limits and vehicles which float between color and residential zones every few hours. Tolerance of the double standard parking enforcement is not in the best interests of downtown workers, businesses and residents. Here is a list of 12 other persistent, unresolved issues to be addressed by Staff and Council. City Council can table these issues for further staff action until late 2016. a. Planning department does not have effective management tools to forecast parking demand that spills out of the commercial core parking capacity. b. There is no restriction for new downtown development to be eligible for non-resident permits. For example, tenants, customers, guests, et al 411-437 Lytton proposed development are eligible for unlimited non-resident and 2-hr parking in residential neighborhoods. This project fully satisfies city on-site parking requirements and should not be competing for declining non-resident parking capacity. c. At this time it is apparent that 2000 parking permit limit was a crude estimate of actual need for non-resident parking. Early in 2017 Council can examine a lower threshold and faster reduction of non-resident permits. d. As residents consistently advised staff, there is significant incentive for non-resident workers to game the system and move vehicles every 2-3 hours with the commercial core's color zones and inside RPP's ten zones. A remedy for this mis-use of parking capacity should be found not later than late 2016. e. Phase 2 encountered an operational problem that must be remedied by April 1, 2017. The permit system issued a large number of paper dashboard print-out permits with no expiration dates. This enables residents and workers to use the paper permit plus the window stickers/hang tags. Essentially some residents and workers have two parking permits for the price of one. There is no practical way to limit use of both permits by multiple vehicles. f. There are dual standard for the window/bumper sticker. Stickers in use within the commercial core have license plate number written on the stickers. This prevents fraud and abuse. In the case of RPP worker and resident bumper stickers, there is no "tie-in" to a special vehicle. RPP bumper stickers can be used by any vehicle. Too many window/bumper stickers are not permanently fixed to vehicles. Therefore, they are transferrable and function outside the intended controls. g. Within 12-months it is likely that paid parking program will be implemented for short-term parking inside the commercial core. This program will have major impact on parking demand within City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/10/2016 12:48 PM 3 residential neighborhoods. Staff and resident must collaborate on pricing policy so that parking is not shift from the commercial core to the residential neighborhoods. h. Integrity of Crescent Park neighborhood has been disrupted with layout of Zones 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Residential streets north of Guinda should be folded into Zone 10 to preserve traditional neighborhood boundaries Attachments: A. COPA Parked Vehicle Map May 19 2016 B. Original Parking Zones with Parking Capacity and Non-Resident Permit Limits C. Resients' Updated Map for Zones 8 and 9 D. Residents' Worksheet Demonstrating Non-resident Vehicle Loads on RPP Zones In conclusion, RPP was launched with very public statement for collaborative problem solving. Chop Keenan proposed this collaboration and City Council and resident supported collaboration. The business/resident stakeholder process has fulfilled its role, but now Council needs the benefits of a staff report with active residents' dialogue with Council. Delaying dialogue with residents until early 2017 will result in a very sub-optimal solution for a viable and "permanent" RPP. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 5/19/2016 12 PM - 2 PM - ~ j i ~ - :.'! - Alm;ii Downtown ~PP Parking Zones . - , ... . . 576 ; .. : . :-; . ii•;.: --, '1;=~_ =:::z:=~ 'l ~ t.'"4 £ ~ •1 "' •/I '""' "' -~ i=o··~!;t -... = SJff. '(. Cnur-chill Ave I~ "'.:•, -:-~ .. "-<1. ..., .~':. ,; ... <.-,.,· .;-... Z>{. I:'l:l·.-mrC'mi ... r.= DCrid: fu::oc:c:d ~r-PXl!C. :::~ ~ai> . .a PAtt.l(tN~ SPAces -·-__ ---8-UJi-a--PE.1.M /t l.IMITS fott. No11.us10ENJ'tj ~-""' . "'• _,;.S~liii; ~,..., ' ~"e j p.\'t<?... J ' ' '?a\o ,,..~ - . .,..-Poe St "' ..... ,.... ' l).-ipi:a-1M•-•""'li.IQ.&:t13_ ... p. """ ~-. :'r,,-\ = 3 a;! : ..... ,,, •• /~ \ : Ruthven Ave ~ ; \ .,.~ i 0 • \ .... _,..,," ' • Vl • .. :------11aW'ihorne'A've----------·--···-·--w"ta ... , ~~~ l> • Downtow.2RPP istric~ r''' -1--------------------~·-··•A•••••ft••···------~ ' ~ , m 3 '?:/ ~ verett Ave ~ ~ !f \ ~ .. ~ 0 ~ tr i" VI ; 3 '< 1 -0 fb 0-. t )> 3 II> I./) .. Ill ::3 .. :::J Ill :::J l 0 QI Ul Ul ~ I.I) I c. Q.. ii .......... ..,~---~J-. .r:t.--~il:.:ytton--Ave-... -~---' ... I Vl ..+ "~ QI fJl I <D = (!) ,... 0 ~ ~ 4 I ~ ?A i ~ ;+° • 0 ~ I 0.. 0 !(;) a. .,, c OFA m 3 Cl) ~ 0 :::J !4' l1l University Ave i ~ 1 !::. I ..+ r :::J I I Q_ ! aJ I Ill I '< I Ul Hamilton Ave t•••'"iY••••-••••••-c .... I :::J I Vl I ..+ I a: :----~--------i,·---·-"F'oresl'"A"Ve••• ~ : ~ 5 ~ : ~ ~ I ii° ::0 i-------------~------J.i9.~~~-------.-......--'=~-~ I Vl A · I I OJ ..+ -· 6 I I -. "Q._ I I '< -· I I II> ::I I I :::J <0 rl...-· A I •••••~•-·•--••••••••~tUUOQ.n.\te~-----•••••••••••• I Ul r ! -()7 ~ I ---.......... 4ddiaoa.A."8.:---~........ ~ Melville Ave Kellogg Ave Churchill Ave Coleridge Ave CD .... '< II> ::s -Vl ..+ Lincoln Ave Kellogg Ave ~ . . ) . PAll.O TO :c DJ ;"' Vl' - Forest Ave Downtown RPP DDtrict O Approved Eligibility Area Zone Total Space Capacity Non- Resident Permit Limit Non- Resident Permits Issued* Issued/ Limit Ratio (D/C) Issued/ Capacity Ratio (D/B) Number of street faces 80+% saturated with resident and non- resident vehicles on May 19 2016 Total Street Faces Currently in Zone** % of street faces over 80% saturated (G/H) See Note 1 1 257 75 75 100%29%28 30 93% 2 360 120 119 99%33%18 26 69% 3 730 225 234 104%32%4 40 10% 4 576 190 209 110%36%14 49 29% 5 534 175 201 115%38%11 48 23% 6 294 100 104 104%35%13 24 54% 7 372 135 142 105%38%8 24 33% 8***583 365 231 63%40%7 59 12% 9****24 245 1 0%4%0 2 0% 10*****tbd 370 19 5%tbd tbd tbd TOTAL 3730 2000 1335 67%36%103 302 34% * as of August 1 **subject to verification with city staff ***Zone 8 originally had 1030 parking space capacity. It has been reduced to 583 until other street faces opt in. **** Zone 9 originally had 701 parking space capacity. It has been reduced to 24 until other street faces opt in. Original Zone 9 has 701 parking space capacity of 701 ***** Zone 10 boundaries are not stable or fixed. Residents could not analyze this zone. Note 1: Does not describe mal-distribution problem. Negative impact is concentrated inequitably. For information: Contact N. Buchanan cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Sources: Previous Public and Private Information from City Staff City of Palo Alto Survey on May 19, 2016 12-2pm Attachment D Worksheet Non- Resident Vehicle Loads on RPP Zones May 19, 2016 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: HILLARY GITELMAN, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: AUGUST 15, 2016 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 11- Acceptance of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program Phase 2 status update and adoption of a resolution amending the eligibility area for the program as directed by City Council. This memo offers some brief responses to the issues and questions raised in some of the public comments regarding the Downtown RPP Program, starting with some background information: The Downtown RPP program is the product of significant community engagement and hard work, particularly on the part of the stakeholder group that was empaneled to assist staff and the Council with the program design. The program is currently in Phase Two of a trial period, which is scheduled to end in March 2017. After some initial hiccups, staff believes the pilot program is working relatively well, and the City will be able to declare it a success and adopt the program on a permanent basis in early 2017, possibly with minor adjustments. This evening’s agenda item was intended as a status report, consistent with Council’s February 2016 request for “review.” It should be noted that since the Council’s request was made, the Council requested inclusion of additional streets in Crescent Park, which necessitated preparation of the resolution provided. Also, since the February request, the Council requested that staff initiate two new RPP districts (Evergreen Park and Southgate), adding significantly to the workload of a small staff with current vacancies. Metrics & Parking Demand. The RPP program design establishes a maximum number of non-residential permits by zone, and rather than forecasting demand, it calls for reducing the overall number of non- residential permits from a maximum of 2,000 to zero over a ten year period. The current maximums per zone were established with the goal of preventing saturation greater than 85% on any block face and the parking occupancy data from June 30, 2016 demonstrates this goal has been achieved on a majority of block faces. As the number of employee permits is reduced over time, and as minor improvements in permit distribution are made, this will improve. With the zone structure, some “bunching” of parking on streets closest to the downtown core within each zone was inevitable, and it was quite pronounced early in Phase Two before enforcement was in full swing. The occupancy counts show less of this in May and June than in March, and when the Council 11 2 of 2 considers making the program permanent, they could reconsider the zonal boundaries or assignment of employee/employer permits to block faces if desired. District Boundaries. As the Downtown RPP program continues, we may continue to see streets within the eligibility area established by City Council resolution “opt in” to the program, and we may see additional requests for expansion of the eligibility area. These requests can be evaluated and accommodated as appropriate when they occur. Data for Zone 10 will be collected and analyzed in future data collection efforts. Phase Two Enforcement: Enforcement staff has been working on implementing handheld devices for use in the field, and was delayed by unforeseen setbacks. The handheld technology now in use by the City’s parking enforcement contractor, Serco, has proven effective as noted in a recent email from Richard Brand: “Had Serco enforcement officers out on both Bryant and Addison today. So I asked if the new wireless hand held devices are now working. He said they are saving them (Serco) a lot of time which can only help with RPP enforcement. Thx to all for getting this technology functional for RPP enforcement” (August 10, 2016). Enforcement officers are citing cars with improper permits and are taking steps to contact individual permit holders with the assistance of customer service to obtain proper permits when necessary. Enforcement officers are also leaving warnings on vehicles with permits that are not properly displayed/affixed, and are then citing vehicles. Concurrent Efforts to Address Parking Supply and Demand. The City has made a substantial financial commitment to the Downtown RPP program, to valet parking in downtown garages (currently active at High Street, Bryant Street, and soon at the Cowper/Webster garages), and to initiation of the Transportation Management Association (TMA). The City has also changed its zoning rules to ensure that “bonus” square footage is fully parked, and has been requiring applicants to meet code requirements for parking. The City is also in the midst of conducting a major study of parking in the downtown core and the surrounding area, which will include an evaluation of paid parking and other parking management options. While it is premature to assume that paid parking will necessarily be the result, if that’s the case, there will be ample time for input on pricing policies, collection systems, and other aspects of the program. In the context of the ongoing parking management study, consultants are gathering data on parkers who move their cars every two hours in the downtown core, and finding it to be a surprisingly small part of the overall picture. _______________________ Hillary Gitelman Director Planning and Community Environment