Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-02 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL December 1, 2014 Regular Meeting Council Chambers 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 6:00-7:00 PM 1.CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY/LEGAL COUNSEL Potential Litigation Relating to the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Construction Significant Exposure to Litigation: 1 Potential Case Potential Initiation of Litigation: 1 Potential Case Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9 Special Orders of the Day 7:00-7:10 PM 2.Proclamation for Marion Mandell, Vice-President of Oaxaca, Mexico Neighbors Abroad of Palo Alto Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 1 December 1, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Items 13 and 14 Continued to December 02, 2014 City Manager Comments 7:10-7:20 PM Oral Communications 7:20-7:35 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 7:35-7:40 PM October 6, 2014 October 20, 2014 October 27, 2014 November 3, 2014 Consent Calendar 7:40-7:45 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3.Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution No. 9299 4.Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2014 5.Affirm Director of Planning and Community Environment’s IndividualReview Approval of a New Two-Story Home located at 1066 Metro Circle 6.Palo Alto Shuttle and Rideshare Program for the Future (Staff Requests Item be Continued to February 2, 2015) 7.Approval of and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute Two Professional Services Contracts with Columbia Telecommunications dba CTC Technology & Energy for Consulting Services for (1) a Fiber- to-the-Premise Master Plan in the Amount of $144,944 and (2) a Complementary Wireless Network Plan in the Amount of $131,650; and Adoption of Budget Amendment Ordinance for FY 2015 to Provide Appropriation in the Amount of $276,594 from Fiber Optics Fund 2 December 1, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 8.Adoption of a Resolution Suspending City Policy Against Requiring Prevailing Wage, Unless and Until SB 7 is Enjoined or Invalidated 9.Approval of a Contract with Susan Narduli in the Amount of $174,477 for the Development, Design, Fabrication and Installation of an Interactive New Media Artwork to be Installed in the Lobby of City Hall 10.SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Repealing the Prohibition on Human Habitation of Vehicles (Ordinance No. 5206, codified as Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.06.010) (First Reading: November 17, 2014 PASSED: 7-1 Klein no, Holman absent) 11.Approval of a Junior Museum and Zoo Environmental Review Services Funding Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, Inc.; Approval of a Contract with David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. In an Amount not to Exceed $114,565 for the Rinconada Park Master Plan and Junior Museum & Zoo Environmental Assessment; and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2015 to Provide an Additional Appropriation in the Amount of $114,565 for the Rinconada Park Master Plan and Design Project (CIP PE-12003) Partially Offset with a Contribution in the Amount of $57,283 from the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, Inc. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:45-8:30 PM 12.Approval of the Proposed Grocery Store Tenant (College Terrace Market) Within PC 5069 (College Terrace Centre) Based on the Finding that the Proposed Grocery Tenant Would Likely be Comparable in Quality of Products and Services as JJ&F as it Existed and Operated on December 7, 2009 at 2180 El Camino Real (Continued from November 17, 2014) 8:30-9:15 PM 13.PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Citywide Framework for Establishment of Neighborhood-Specific Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts 9:15-10:00 PM 14.PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program in the Downtown Neighborhoods 3 December 1, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 10:00-10:15 PM Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Closed Session 10:15-11:15 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 16. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen, Sandra Blanch, Walter Rossmann, Khashayar “Cash” Alaee ) Unrepresented Employee Group: Management, Professional and Confidential Employees Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6 17. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Representatives: Sherry Lund, CAO Committee (Chair Person, Council Members) Unrepresented Employees: James Keene, City Manager, Molly Stump, City Attorney Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6 Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 4 December 1, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Finance Committee Meeting December 2, 2014 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report for First Quarter Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Status Report Developer Impact Fees - Early Memo Independent Police Auditor's First Report- 2014 Public Letters to Council SET 1 SET 2 SET 3 5 December 1, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. November 24, 2014 - Set 1 Novem,ber 24, 2014 - Set 2 December 01, 2014 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5304) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/1/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: City-wide RPP Ordinance Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Citywide Framework for Establishment of Neighborhood-Specific Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council conduct a First Reading and adopt the attached Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Ordinance (Attachment C) adding Chapter 10.50 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Establishing a Citywide Framework for Establishment of Neighborhood-Specific Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts. Executive Summary At the City Council’s direction, City Staff has been working with community stakeholders over the last nine months to develop (1) a city-wide ordinance which would establish a framework or procedures for individual neighborhoods to become RPP Districts, and (2) a resolution outlining the design of the first proposed RPP District. The proposed ordinance outlines the general process for a neighborhood to become an RPP district and requires the adoption of neighborhood-specific resolutions to establish RPP program characteristics, with the expectation that these will vary somewhat from neighborhood to neighborhood. In addition, the ordinance calls for adoption of administrative guidelines to define details of the neighborhood petition process, permit eligibility requirements and other administrative details. The focus of this staff report is on the City-wide ordinance; a discussion of the accompanying Downtown resolution can be found in staff report 5305, heard this same evening. If the City Council votes to adopt the proposed ordinance (first reading), it would be placed on the consent agenda for a second reading on December 15, 2014 and (if adopted at that time), would become effective 31 days later. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background On January 27, 2014, in response to increasing concern that non-resident parking in residential neighborhoods was negatively impacting neighborhood quality of life, City Council directed staff to develop both (1) a City-wide ordinance establishing uniform procedures for establishment of RPP districts, and (2) an RPP program design for the first “priority” neighborhood, which ultimately was identified as the Downtown neighborhoods. In parallel with the development of the Downtown program, Staff began work on the ordinance which would detail the process by which all individual neighborhoods could pursue parking restrictions (RPP programs) within their neighborhoods. During this process, input on the ordinance was received from residential constituents in the Downtown and many other neighborhoods. Parking and TDM Initiatives RPP discussions have taken place in the context of a series of City-sponsored initiatives aimed at reducing traffic demand and more effectively managing parking supply. The initiatives respond to several related imperatives: improving the effective use of existing parking resources, increasing parking supply, decreasing traffic congestion and improving mobility in and around commercial centers. In addition, improvement of the quality of life in residential areas has emerged as a top concern in many neighborhoods, especially those close to Downtown, where intrusion of employee parking continues to increase. Figure 1 provides an update on the parking- and transportation-related initiatives underway since the beginning of 2014 to address the aforementioned issues. The programs fall into three categories: Parking Supply initiatives, Parking Management initiatives, and Transportation Demand Management initiatives. The establishment of RPP districts, or areas where non- resident parking is regulated, can be viewed as a parking management strategy, as these programs can help better manage parking supply and incentivize commuting behavior shifts away from single-occupant-vehicles. Parking Supply initiatives help maximize the use of existing parking supply as well as create additional parking, and Transportation Demand Management initiatives help reduce the overall demand for parking and traffic by incentivizing alternative modes of transportation. All of these programs work together to create an effective parking strategy. Figure 1: Palo Alto’s Parking Strategy Summary Program Status Parking Management Strategies Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) This staff report provides an overview of the RPP Ordinance. Discussion of the proposed RPP Downtown Resolution can be found in staff report 5305. Parking Technology The City will solicit bids for Parking Access and Revenue Controls and Parking Guidance Systems for garages and lots in November of 2014. This technology will allow for improved permit control, the implementation of paid parking and City of Palo Alto Page 3 improved information on parking occupancy. In addition, the City is exploring technology that tracks parking occupancy and turnover in parking lots and garages. Garage Branding / Signage The City has released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for improved wayfinding signage and branding for all of the parking garages. Improved signage will help motorists locate parking facilities more easily and reduce time spent looking for parking, in conjunction with Parking Guidance Systems. The City will also upgrade its parking website as part of the implementation of online permit sales for RPP to provide a more effective parking resource for residents and visitors. Transportation Demand Management Strategies City Employee “TDM” Programs The City piloted a program with Caltrain at the beginning of 2014 to help encourage Downtown City employees to use Caltrain. As part of the program, the City provided all regularly-benefited City employees with a free Caltrain Go Pass in exchange for giving up a parking permit in the Civic Center garage. The City is continuing the pilot program with modifications for 2015. The City also started a pilot program with TwoGo, SAP’s ridesharing mobile phone app, to see whether the mobile platform would encourage riders and drivers heading to Downtown businesses would be able to use technology to find each other and share rides. Zipcar The City kicked off a partnership with Zipcar in August, and the carshare company has provided ten vehicles at lots and garages in Downtown Palo Alto. The goal of the Zipcar program is to provide an alternative to vehicle ownership for residents and a viable alternative for commuters during the day. Stanford also provides a number of Zipcar locations on campus, as do many other peninsula cities, so members can enjoy convenient access to vehicles across the region. Current Zipcar utilization is between 10% and 26% overall, with certain cars being used more than 40% of the time, and the City is working with Zipcar to improve utilization. Bicycle Projects The city is currently in the design phase of 24 new bicycle boulevard projects, which are planned for construction in 2015 through 2018. Bicycle boulevards are streets which are prioritized for bicycle use by giving advisory warnings to motorists, traffic calming measures and directional signage. Providing bicycle boulevard streets helps cyclists ride to work or play in an easier and safer way. Free Shuttle The City has three active shuttle routes which are provided free of charge to residents and visitors to Palo Alto. The first City of Palo Alto Page 4 phase of a shuttle expansion program was implemented in July with the initiation of a route to East Palo Alto, and a phase 2 expansion will increase frequency of service on the existing Crosstown route, and (contingent on private funding partnership) add a new route connecting the Palo Alto Caltrain Station with the Shoreline business park. Parking Supply Satellite (Remote) Parking The City is analyzing the potential for a “satellite” parking lot for commuters that could be accessed by a free shuttle service to Downtown. The location is on Embarcadero Road east of Highway 101, and could potentially accommodate up to 132 spaces. Garage Valet Parking The City initiated its first “Valet-Assist” parking program at the Lot R, the garage on Alma and High Street, in early 2014. The program has two valet attendants who direct motorists to park in drive aisles once the garage becomes full. The program can help accommodate up to 42 additional vehicles in the garage, which allows the City to increase the number of permits that can be sold at the garage. The valet program has been parking between 10 and 20 cars on average at Lot R and has allowed City staff to increase the number of permits sold at Lot R from 230 to over 330. Expanding the valet assist program to two other garages could be accomplished via a contract amendment early in 2015 if desired. New Garages City Staff is developing the scope of work and evaluation criteria for an RFP to design a new parking garage at Lot D to increase Downtown’s parking supply. Other Parking Permit Programs in Palo Alto Palo Alto’s only other RPP ordinance is the College Terrace RPP program, adopted by City Council in 2009. The College Terrace RPP District was created due to concern about Stanford staff and students parking in this neighborhood, and later parking by Facebook’s employees from 1601 California Avenue. As a condition of approval for Stanford's 2000 General Use Permit, seed money was provided to the City to support a Residential Parking Permit Program in this neighborhood, and permits have been sold for $40 annually since 2009. The RPP program in College Terrace covers most of the neighborhood; however, individual blocks can opt out of the program by providing a petition with 51% of the addresses on the block in favor. College Terrace residents have shown continued support for the program, which has effectively reduced non-resident parking and traffic in that neighborhood. The College Terrace RPP program allows one residential parking permit to be purchased for each vehicle of a household owner, and up to two reusable guest permits for housekeepers, caretakers and other frequent visitors. Guest passes are provided per household rather than City of Palo Alto Page 5 per vehicle ownership, and are designed to hang from the rear view mirror. The program enforcement period is Monday-Friday, between 8:00am and 5:00pm. No business or employee permits are made available; only residents may purchase permits. The staff report outlining adoption of the College Terrace ordinance can be found in Attachment A. Another parking permit program exists in the Crescent Park neighborhood, enacted by resolution in August of 2013 for an original period of 12 months. This trial parking program was developed in response to concern that parking from non-Crescent Park residents was severely impacting Crescent Park residents’ ability to park in front of their own homes. Technically not a true RPP program, which regulates neighborhood parking by restricting non-resident parking, the Crescent Park program restricts parking from 2:00am to 5:00am to residents of the Crescent Park neighborhood only. Permits for the program hang from the rearview mirror, and are available for a cost of $100 annually. Staff recently recommended extending the trial program for an additional 12 months (the staff report can be found in Attachment B), and this recommendation was approved. Both the Crescent Park and College Terrace programs had unique development and outreach processes, and the implementation of a City-wide ordinance is meant to help standardize the development of future RPP programs. If the City-wide ordinance is approved, the College Terrace program would continue unchanged. However at a later date, the City could rescind the College Terrace ordinance and replace it with a resolution as envisioned by the city-wide ordinance. Incorporating the College Terrace program into the citywide program would allow for more uniform enforcement. The 2014 RPP Downtown Stakeholder Process The objective of an RPP program is to preserve neighborhood quality of life by ensuring adequate parking for residents. However, in some neighborhoods of the City, existing businesses and employees rely on street parking to supplement parking lots and garages. Because of this, the stakeholder committee selected by staff to provide input on the resolution and the city-wide ordinance included business and employee constituents as well as residents. A summary of the stakeholder discussions, which mostly focused on the Downtown resolution, is found in staff report 5305. Summary of Key Issues Initially staff had proposed to create a City-wide ordinance that would serve as an umbrella document for resolutions specific to any neighborhood that would address all of the particular characteristics of an RPP program for that neighborhood. Preliminary feedback from the stakeholders on the draft ordinance suggested that it was too complex, and also that different neighborhoods might have unique circumstances that didn’t lend themselves well to uniform, city-wide criteria. For this reason, Staff has suggested simplifying the framework into the following three components: 1. A simplified City-wide ordinance, which establishes the criteria and procedures for how City of Palo Alto Page 6 a neighborhood can establish an RPP District; 2. A neighborhood-specific resolution, which outlines the characteristics of a particular neighborhood program, including cost of permits, number of permits issued, whether or not permits would be issued to employees, hours of enforcement, program boundaries, etc. and; 3. Administrative regulations (to be developed after adoption of the Citywide ordinance), which would outline criteria for the required response rate for RPP implementation, requirements for how occupancy surveys and petitions are conducted, and other detailed criteria and procedures. As proposed by Staff, the City-wide ordinance, included in Attachment C, outlines a high-level process by which a neighborhood may petition to become an RPP District. The ordinance outlines the following: 1. Qualitative Criteria which must be met for a neighborhood to qualify as an RPP District. While some residents felt that the ordinance should contain quantitative thresholds in this section, some wanted the ordinance to have inherent flexibility to address neighborhoods that had different characteristics. For example, while a 70% parking occupancy level might be appropriate for a neighborhood close to a commercial center, it might be less appropriate for a neighborhood in a more suburban location. 2. The neighborhood petition process, including community outreach. The petition process involves a neighborhood coming forward with a recommendation for a District in its entirety (not on a street by street basis), along with a petition showing resident support for District implementation and other supporting data such as narratives or photographs. The Planning department would create a standard application for residents to use for the petition process. Once the applications were submitted, City Staff would make a recommendation to the Planning Commission on the RPP District that should be prioritized for development that calendar year. Once the District had been decided, City Staff would conduct occupancy studies in accordance with criteria outlined in the administrative regulations, and community outreach to the residents and non-resident stakeholders. The resolution and program design for the neighborhood would be created as part of the outreach process. 3. The adoption of an RPP District, including the adoption of a district-specific resolution. This section outlines that, if approved by the Planning Commission and Council, a new RPP District might have a trial period of up to two years. 4. The administration of RPP Districts, including fees. 5. Allowance of contract enforcement of RPP Districts. Staff noted that enforcement costs for RPP Districts could be significant, and recommend allowing for contract (non-city employee) enforcement if appropriate. Program details for each neighborhood would be outlined in individual neighborhood resolutions. With respect to the percentage of support needed from a neighborhood to petition for or opt out of an existing RPP District, the ordinance authorizes staff to adopt administrative City of Palo Alto Page 7 guidelines, which Staff will develop early on in 2015. The reason this petition process was deferred to the administrative guidelines is that the RPP stakeholder group was divided on the appropriate petition threshold. Both staff and the RPP stakeholder group believe it is important to have flexibility on this issue to address particular neighborhood needs.. The RPP stakeholder group was divided on this particular issue; a straw vote was conducted where a 50+1% majority received 5 votes, a 55% majority received 2 votes, and 65% received 1 vote. The City of Menlo Park, Berkeley and San Francisco all reference a 51% vote for a District to be considered by Council, while other cities, including Santa Monica, require 66% support from at least 50% of the households on the block. Planning and Transportation Commission Feedback The PTC reviewed the draft ordinance on November 12, 2014 and directed staff to modify the ordinance to allow the City Council to initiate an RPP District as an alternative to having a neighborhood come forward to propose one. This change and a few minor edits since the PTC hearing on November 12, 2014 are shown in tracked changes in Attachment C. Timeline If approved by Council at a second reading on December 15, 2014, the ordinance would go into effect 31 days later, allowing for the implementation of the Downtown RPP Resolution. Policy Implications The City-wide ordinance is consistent with the three-pronged approach aimed at addressing traffic and parking demand, and is also consistent with the following comprehensive plan goals: 1. Goal T-8, Program T-49: Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto 2. Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts Resource Impact The proposed ordinance would not in and of itself require an expenditure of City resources. The ordinance provides a framework for initiation and adoption of neighborhood-specific programs, each of which would require staff time to analyze, conduct neighborhood outreach, and prepare for hearings at the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council. Adoption and implementation of individual neighborhood programs would also require investments in the City’s permit, enforcement, and citation processes. These investments will be identified as part of the adoption of neighborhood specific programs. Environmental Review Adoption of a citywide ordinace establishing an RPP district in downtown Palo Alto is both exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a City of Palo Alto Page 8 significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. Attachments:  Attachment: Attachment A: City Manager Report dated July 6, 2009 (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment B: City Council Report dated October 6, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment C: Ordinance Residential Parking Program (RPP) (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment D: Planning and Transportation Commission Draft Excerpt Verbatim Minutes of November 12, 2014 (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 4997) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Update Title: Approval of Resolution Extending the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Boundares and Program Trial for Additional 12 Months From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing staff to continue the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program trial until September 2015, and to expand the boundaries of the program. Executive Summary On August 12, 2013, Council approved the implementation of a No Overnight Parking program on select streets within the Crescent Park neighborhood. The program was developed to address concerns and complaints that non- residents were parking within the Crescent Park neighborhood, resulting in noise, litter and blocked driveways. Crescent Park residents petitioned and the City implemented a No Overnight Parking program requiring residents to display a valid City of Palo Alto parking permit on their vehicles between the hours of 2:00am and 5:00am. Only residents of streets within the program boundaries are eligible to purchase permits. Residents are allowed up to two annual permits per household at a cost of $100 each. The original staff report can be found in Attachment A. The program has proved successful at addressing resident concerns and an extension of the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking trial program is warranted. Background Table 1 lists the streets which were originally declared eligible for the program based on the initial Council direction, and indicates at the writing of this report whether or not the street has chosen to opt into the program. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Table 1 Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Trial Program Participating Streets Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status Edgewood Drive between Southwood and Patricia Opted In September 2013 Newell Road between Edgewood and Dana Opted in September 2013 Phillips Road Opted in September 2013 Madison Way Opted in September 2013 Hamilton Ave between Island and Alester Opted in September 2013 Jefferson Drive Opted in September 2013 Southwood Court Opted In November 2013 Crescent Drive Opted in November 2013 Dana Avenue, Ashby to Alester Opted in November 2013 East Crescent Drive Opted In December 2013 Center Drive Opted in June 2014 Island Drive Opted in April 2014 Kings Lane Opted in April 2014 Newell Road, Dana to Pitman Opted in November 2013 Pitman Avenue, 1432 to 1494 Pitman Petition Received; Surveys Distributed Southwood Drive from Hamilton to Edgewood Petition Distributed West Crescent No Petition Request Dana Avenue from Ashby to Center No Petition Request Ashby Drive No Petition Request Pitman Avenue from 1494 to Center No Petition Request Hamilton Avenue from Center to West and Crescent No Petition Request Louisa Court No Petition Request Hamilton Avenue from Island Drive to West Crescent No Petition Request University Avenue between East Crescent and Lincoln Avenue Pending Approval Hamilton Avenue between Lincoln and West Crescent Pending Approval Center Drive from Hamilton to Channing Avenue Pending Approval Newell Road from Alester/Dana to Channing Avenue Pending Approval Arcadia Place Pending Approval Newell Place Pending Approval City of Palo Alto Page 3 Lincoln Avenue between University and Hamilton Pending Approval Attachment B is a presentation which staff gave to the Crescent Park Annual Neighborhood Association in June. The presentation includes a summary of parking occupancy on participating streets in the program both before and after implementation. In most cases the program has drastically reduced parking occupancy on the streets on which it has been implemented, and has received favorable feedback from the Crescent Park residents. Enforcement of the streets is based primarily on resident-request but the Police Department does provide random enforcement. An estimated 275 parking citations have been issued since the implementation of the program. During initial implementation of the program, as blocks have opted into the program, parking occupancy on adjacent streets increased. This has meant that the program has grown as more residents organized and requested inclusion. Figure 1 shows the streets that are currently part of the program, the streets which have been approved for the program since last fall, and the streets which staff is recommending eligibility into the program for the upcoming year, based on resident requests. Figure 1 Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program Current Participation and Proposed Program Eligibility City of Palo Alto Page 4 By adding additional street blocks into the program eligibility, residents of those streets are given the opportunity to organize and solicit participation by the City. The process that residents must follow includes: 1) Residents submit a petition signed by at least one member of at least 50% of the parcels on the street (City staff prepares the petition for residents); 2) The City issues a postal survey to verify participation/interest of all residents and a 70% support rate of responses returned is required for approval; 3) Following validation of majority support, City staff implements signs and residents are notified of eligility to purchase parking permits at City Hall. The additional street segments recommended for eligibility into the Crescent Park No Overnight trial parking program include:  University Avenue between East Crecent and Lincoln Avenue  Hamilton Avenue between Lincoln Avenue and West Crescent  Center Drive between Southwood Drive-Hamilton Avenue to Channing Avenue  Newell Road between Pitman Avenue-Louisa Court to Channing Avenue  Arcadia Place  Newell Place University Avenue in particular has experienced noticable parking impacts in recent months. University Avenue eligibility into the program will allow a resident champion to begin the petition and postal survey process for inclusion of the street. Staff is also pursuing sight distance improvements at intersections along Crescent Drive. Adding streets to the overnight parking restrictions requires a modification of the existing Crescent Park resolution, which summarizes the street names which are eligible for the program. The updated resolution has been provided in Attachment C for the Council’s consideration. Resource Impact The Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program currently receives no on-going targeted enforcement, the program is complaint driven. In addition, because the program enforcement period is during the early morning hours, the parking control officer program does not actively enforce the area, enforcement is by uniformed police officers as needed. The limited target enforcement minimizing the programs operations costs. The Revenue Collections Department manages permit sales at a cost of $100.00 per permit. During the first year trial of the program the city sold 222 permits over the trial period realizing about $20,000 in revenues to offset the limited enforcement and permit management costs. Permits were sold at various times of the year and permits purchased after the initial 6-months of the program were sold at a prorated basis. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Environmental Review Extension of existing parking restrictions and the additoin of streets to the program are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Here it can be seen with certainty that the minor changes proposed will not have a significant impact and CEQA does not apply. (Public Resources Code 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)). Attachments:  Attachment A: City Council Report dated August 5, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment B: Update on Crescent Park dated June 25, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment C: Resolution Expanding NOP in Crescent Park (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 3969) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/5/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Resolution Title: Adoption of a Resolution Allowing the Implementation of a One-Year Trial No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Program on Streets within the Crescent Park Neighborhood From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution authorizing staff to implement a one-year trial for No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) program within certain street blocks of the Crescent Park Neighborhood. Background Citizens from the Crescent Park Neighborhood reached out to the City earlier this year requesting that the City implement parking restrictions within their neighborhood in order to limit parking intrusion from outside the neighborhood. This request was based on complaints involving overcrowded streets, blocking of driveways, noise and litter caused by overnight street parking. Following the initial request, the City implemented full-time, “No Parking” restrictions along Newell Road between Edgewood Drive and the Newell Road Bridge. Traffic calming improvements to improve pedestrian safety at Newell Road and Edgewood Drive and Newell Road and Hamilton Avenue were also implemented. These improvements included crosswalk improvements and all-way stop intersection controls. The Crescent Park citizens requested additional parking restrictions, initially along Edgewood Drive and worked with staff to develop and circulate petitions for No Overnight Parking (2AM- 5AM) for the following roadway segments, to manage the expected limits of parking intrusion:  Edgewood Drive: Southwood Drive to Jefferson Drive  Phillips Road: Edgewood Drive to Madison Way City of Palo Alto Page 2  Hamilton Avenue: Island Drive to Madison Way  Dana Avenue: Half-Block sections north and south of Newell Road  Newell Road: Dana Avenue to Edgewood Drive Following receipt of the petitions in June, staff released a follow-up post card survey to validate resident interest from each separate street block. These surveys were released throughout the month of July. Please note that the additional street block segments of Edgewood Drive between Southwood Drive and Island Drive were added to the post card survey following a petition received after the release of the initial post card surveys. The following additional street blocks have requested or submitted petitions for the No Overnight Parking restrictions but postal surveys have not yet been administered:  Edgewood Drive: Jefferson Drive to Patricia Lane  Hamilton Avenue: Center Drive-Southwood Drive to Island Drive  Hamilton Avenue: Madison Way to Alester Avenue  Madison Way: Hamilton Avenue to Jefferson Drive  Jefferson Drive: Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive City staff required a minimum 70% support response from each street block to forward the restrictions to the Council for consideration. 70% has been the standard positive response rate used in Palo Alto for traffic calming programs. These restrictions would apply to resident vehicles, not just non-residents, and would be enforced by the Police Department. Overnight guest permits will be made available for residents that require parking for their guests at a cost of $5.00 per permit per night. Even with the guest permits, standard parking restrictions governed by the California Vehicle Code and Palo Alto Municipal Code continue to apply including a 72-hour parking restriction to avoid the storage of vehicles within the public right- of-way. The City has continued to accept responses to the post card survey through the month of July leading to the council meeting where this resolution will be considered. Table 1 below provides the findings of the post card survey through July 30th: Table 1 Crescent Park Neighborhood Post Card Survey Response No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Considerations City of Palo Alto Page 3 No. Street Block Segment No. of Households No. of Survey Responses (Yes and No) % Positive Support from Responses 1 Edgewood Drive Southwood Dr to Island Dr 7 5 100% 2 Edgewood Drive Island Dr to Newell Rd 20 18 94% 3 Edgewood Drive Newell Rd to Jefferson Dr 18 15 80% 4 Phillips Road Edgewood Rd to Madison Wy 9 9 89% 5 Hamilton Avenue Island Dr to Newell Rd 28 20 70% 6 Hamilton Avenue Newell Rd to Madison Wy 14 10 70% 7 Dana Avenue North of Newell Rd 14 10 30% 8 Dana Avenue South of Newell Road 16 13 54% 9 Newell Road Edgewood Dr to Hamilton Av 3 3 100% 10 Newell Road Hamilton Av to Dana Av 4 4 100% The post card survey shows that a majority of residents living on street blocks along Newell Road and towards the easterly limits of Crescent Park are in support of the No Overnight Parking Restrictions with only both blocks of Dana Avenue not currently in support of the restrictions. Staff recommends implementation of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) for the streets that have positive support (70%+) for the restrictions to be implemented as a Phase 1 deployment City of Palo Alto Page 4 by September. Streets that opt to add in later can be deployed immediately upon receipt of a new petition and administration of another post card survey as a Phase 2 deployment. Under the current proposal, street blocks that did not have strong support for immediate implementation of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) restrictions could opt in later. This recommendation is consistent with the conversations staff has had with neighborhood leaders. Therefore, staff requests authorization to implement additional restrictions in the future as part of this resolution including the blocks of: Edgewood Drive between Jefferson Drive and Patricia Lane; Hamilton Avenue: Center Drive-Southwood Drive to Island Drive; Hamilton Avenue between Madison Way and Alester Avenue; Madison Way: Hamilton Avenue to Jefferson Drive; and Jefferson Drive: Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive, if supported by residents, for which a post card survey will be released following approval of the proposed resolution. Attachment A includes the Resolution. Attachment B describes the proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 No Parking (2AM-5AM) considerations. Attachment C includes a sample of the post card survey released by the City. It is important to note that this is a proposed as a one-year pilot program. Staff will continue to work with neighborhood residents, as well as adjacent neighborhoods and communities to ensure that the program is being implemented as effectively as possible. Furthermore, staff will evaluate the ultimate request from many neighborhood residents for a Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program. Finally, staff will continue to work with City of East Palo Alto staff and nearby apartment owners on addressing the parking supply issue that is resulting in the need for this parking restriction trial. The City held a community meeting July 30th to present the above findings to residents. Residents noted that the proposed No Overnight Parking restrictions were not an ideal solution and that Residential Parking Permit (RPP) was a preferred alternative but that the proposal was a good step forward while solutions for RPP options are discussed further with the community. Residents from streets on Hamilton Avenue near Center Drive-Southwood Drive and on Madison Way and Jefferson Drive requested inclusion in the future Phase 2 program. Policy Implications The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010 – Restrictions Established – Signs Designating allows the installation of parking restrictions by time-of-day following a city council ordinance or resolution. Vehicles that are cited for parking in areas where time restrictions have been established are cited by the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.40.020 (b) – Signs or Curb Markings to Indicated No Stopping and Parking Regulations. The California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22507.5 – Local Regulations allows the issuance of City of Palo Alto Page 5 Day Permits for parking through parking restricted periods of the day for residents and their guests. Resource Impact The design and construction of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) are estimated to cost approximateyl $12,000 and will be funded through the existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – PL12000 (Parking & Transportation Improvements) project. The Revenue Collections Department will make available for purchase Overnight Guest Permits for specific use by the Crescent Park Neighborhood on a limited basis at a cost of $5.00 per permit. Permits are good one night only and a limited amount of permits will be available. Timeline The City recommends implementation of the signage restrictions through the remainder of August followed by a 2-week warning period for vehicles that continue to park during the new No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) period with citations being issued on an as-needed basis by mid-September. City staff expects to meet with neighborhood residents at the six-month mark and again near the end of the one-year trial to assess te effectiveness of the program and at the year end to coniser recommendation for continuation or discontinuation of the program. Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution for Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (PDF)  Attachment B: Crescent Park - No Overnight Parking Survey Findings (PDF)  Attachment C: Sample Crescent Park Postal Survey (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 1 130729 jb 0131119 Resolution No. _______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Implementing No Overnight Parking Restrictions around the Crescent Park Neighborhood as a One Year Trial Program R E C I T A L S A. Some of the residents of Crescent Park have requested No Overnight Parking Restrictions (2AM – 5AM) to minimize the impacts of parking intrusion on individual blocks. The following street block segments have been identified by staff as appropriate areas for the restrictions, pending resident support through a post card survey: No. Street Street Block Segment No Parking Restriction Period Post Card Survey Support 1 Edgewood Drive Southwood Drive to Island Drive 2AM – 5AM 100% 2 Edgewood Drive Island Drive to Newell Road 2AM – 5AM 94% 3 Edgewood Drive Newell Road to Jefferson Dr 2AM – 5AM 80% 4 Edgewood Drive Jefferson Drive to Patricia Lane 2AM – 5AM Pending 5 Phillips Road Edgewood Drive to Madison Way 2AM – 5AM 89% 6 Hamilton Avenue Island Drive to Newell Road 2AM – 5AM 70% 7 Hamilton Avenue Newell Road to Madison Way 2AM – 5AM 70% 8 Hamilton Avenue Madison Way to Alester Avenue 2AM – 5AM Pending 9 Hamilton Avenue Center Drive-Southwood Drive to Island Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending 10 Jefferson Drive Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending 11 Dana Avenue North of Newell Road Half Way to Ashby Drive 2AM – 5AM 30% 12 Dana Avenue South of Newell Road Half Way to Alester Avenue 2AM – 5AM 54% 13 Madison Way Hamilton Avenue to Jefferson Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending 14 Newell Road Edgewood Drive to Hamilton Avenue 2AM – 5AM 100% 15 Newell Road Hamilton Avenue to Dana Avenue 2AM – 5AM 100% B. The Post Card surveys administered by the City in July 2013 show a majority of the streets being supportive of the implementation of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) restrictions. C. The current results of the survey are depicted in Exhibit A which is attached and incorporated by reference. Phase 1 streets have expressed support for the proposed overnight parking restriction and Phase 2 streets have been identified by staff as potential candidates for such regulations pending resident support. NOT YET APPROVED 2 130729 jb 0131119 D. The City Council finds that there is a parking intrusion problem in parts of the Crescent Park neighborhood and desires to implement a pilot one year program to attempt to mitigate this problem. E. The California Vehicle Code Section 22507.5 authorizes the City to enact, by ordinance or resolution, parking restrictions on public streets between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. and further authorizes the City to provide for a system of permits for the purpose of exempting from the prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or resolution, disabled persons, residents, and guests of residents of residential areas. F. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010 allows for the implementation of parking restrictions. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council authorizes staff to implement No Overnight Parking Restrictions on all of the street block segments identified in Recital A and labeled as Phase 1 and Phase 2 in Exhibit A as petitions by residents are received. No Overnight (2AM – 5AM) Parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block upon receipt and verification of a minimum 70% support from surveys received. SECTION 2: Vehicles displaying overnight residential parking permits for the designated streets shall be exempt from the posted parking restriction. SECTION 3: The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. // // // // // // // // NOT YET APPROVED 3 130729 jb 0131119 SECTION 4: This program shall expire within one year of adoption unless extended by City Council. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment SCALE: NONE 10-o 10-a> +-' c a> () Channing Av Legend: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Survey Findings Phase 1 -Community Support Received Phase 2 -Community Support Pending Last Update: 7-31-13 SCALE: NONE 10-o 10-a> +-' c a> () Channing Av Legend: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Survey Findings Phase 1 -Community Support Received Phase 2 -Community Support Pending Last Update: 7-31-13       June 17, 2013                                                            Dear Edgewood Drive Resident,    The City received a petition requesting the installation of No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM)  restrictions for the areas designed on the map on the other side of this notice within the  Crescent Park Neighborhood.  The City is supportive of implementing parking considerations  requested by residents as long as the improvements are supported by a majority of residents.    In order for the City to implement the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM)  Restrictions a 70% positive response rate for each street block from surveys returns is required.   The restrictions will be implemented on a block‐by‐block basis for streets where the 70%  support threshold is received. The City Council will also need to approve a resolution  implementing the parking restriction.  Street blocks that do not have the 70% positive response  now, or that that did not originally request the parking restrictions, can request them at a later  date following the receipt of a petition circulated by residents.     This survey notice is intended to validate support for No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM)  restrictions identified in the petition for the block of Edgewood Drive between Island Drive and  Newell Road.    Please indicate your preference for the No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM) restrictions by  completing and returning this survey in the self‐addressed stamped envelope provided.  The  City will accept survey responses through Friday, July 5th and present the results of the survey  process at a community meeting tentatively scheduled the week of July 22nd; a separate  community meeting notice card will be issued prior to the meeting with meeting location and  time information.    If you live on a street that you believe does not need restrictions at this time we encourage you  to complete the survey and return it as support will be evaluated based on returned surveys  only.  In addition, you may feel restrictions are appropriate after being implemented on an  adjacent street and the City restrictions can be implemented later following receipt of a  petition.    If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City of Palo Alto – Transportation  Division at (650) 329‐2442 or by email at transportation@cityofpaloalto.org.     Crescent Park Neighborhood  No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5PM) Restrictions  Survey                                             XXXX Edgewood Drive    Please mark your preference to only one of the options below:    □   We support the implementation of No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM) restrictions along  Edgewood Drive between Island Drive and Newell Road.  We understand that resident and non‐ resident vehicles parked on the street during this time period will be subject to citations during  the time restriction period.  □   We do not support the implementation of No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM) restrictions along  Edgewood Drive between Island Drive and Newell Road.    Comments:              Please return survey by July 5, 2013 to: City of Palo Alto    Transportation Division    250 Hamilton Avenue    Palo Alto, CA  94301  Survey for No Overnight  Parking (2AM to 5AM)  Restrictions on Edgewood  Drive, Island Drive to Newell  Road.  1 Update on the Crescent Park No  Over Night Parking (NOP) Program Crescent Park Neighborhood Association June 25, 2014 2 Agenda Program Boundaries – Then and Now Occupancy Studies Wrap Up and Questions 3 Program Background Original program boundaries – August 2013 4 Program Background Current Program Boundaries (Center in Process) June 2014 5 Parking Occupancy Studies Name of Street Before NOP  Program  (8/21/13) After NOP  Program  (1/22/14) Parking Reduction, % Edgewood 87 19 79% Hamilton (Newell to Island) 22 11 50% Newell (to Dana) 13 1 99% Phillips 16 3 82% Madison 6 4 67% Jefferson141214% Hamilton (Newell  to Alester) 22 10 50% 6 Parking Occupancy Studies,  Cont. Name of Street Before NOP  Program (8/21/13) After NOP  Program (5/8/14)  / (6/11/14) Parking Reduction, % Crescent N/A 3 N/A E. Crescent N/A 8 N/A Dana –Newell to  Ashby 19 16 16% Dana –Newell to  Alester 21 23 +10% Kings Lane 19 7 63% Island Drive 22 8 64% 7 Summary and Other Notes In general CP streets are significantly less parked  where the NOP program is active Petition Completed for Center Dr (University to  Hamilton) – Installation Pending Request for NOP on Pitman Av Several residents have expressed interest in  including parts of University within the program  boundaries. Residents must put hangtag permits on rearview  mirrors, or may face citations 8 Recommendations Continue program for another year to allow  for development of a Citywide Residential  Preferential Parking (RPP) Policy to be  completed. Consideration 1:  University Avenue – Permanent No Parking on South Side of  Street with NOP on North? Consideration 2:Expand NOP to Channing  Avenue and Lincoln Av (see map) 9 Option: Year  2 CP NOP Limits Not Yet Approved Resolution No. ________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expanding No Overnight Parking Restrictions around the Crescent Park Neighborhood as a One Year Trial Program R E C I T A L S A. On August 12, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution 9367 establishing a trial program prohibiting overnight parking from 2AM to 5AM on certain blocks in Crescent Park. On September 23, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9373A expanding the overnight ban to additional streets in the Crescent Park neighborhood and implementing a process for further extensions. B. Since adoption of the Resolution neighbors and staff have identified additional blocks that should be included in this trial program. The current streets and street segments that have been identified for inclusion in the trial program are depicted on Exhibit A attached and incorporated and described below: No. Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status 1 Edgewood Drive between Southwood and Patricia Opted In September 2013 2 Newell Road between Edgewood and Dana Opted in September 2013 3 Phillips Road Opted in September 2013 4 Madison Way Opted in September 2013 5 Hamilton Ave between Island and Alester Opted in September 2013 6 Jefferson Drive Opted in September 2013 7 Southwood Court Opted In November 2013 8 Crescent Drive Opted in November 2013 9 Dana Avenue, Ashby to Alester Opted in November 2013 10 East Crescent Drive Opted In December 2013 11 Center Drive Opted in June 2014 12 Island Drive Opted in April 2014 13 Kings Lane Opted in April 2014 14 Newell Road, Dana to Pitman Opted in November 2013 15 Pitman Avenue, 1432 to 1494 Pitman Petition Received; Surveys Distributed 16 Southwood Drive from Hamilton to Edgewood Petition Distributed 17 West Crescent No Petition Request 18 Dana Avenue from Ashby to Center No Petition Request 19 Ashby Drive No Petition Request 20 Pitman Avenue from 1494 to Center No Petition Request 140923 jb 0131260 1 Not Yet Approved 21 Hamilton Avenue from Center to West and Crescent No Petition Request 22 Louisa Court No Petition Request 23 Hamilton Avenue from Island Drive to West Crescent No Petition Request 24 University Avenue between East Crescent and Lincoln Avenue Pending Approval 25 Hamilton Avenue between Lincoln and West Crescent Pending Approval 26 Center Drive from Hamilton to Channing Avenue Pending Approval 27 Newell Road from Alester/Dana to Channing Avenue Pending Approval 28 Arcadia Place Pending Approval 29 Newell Place Pending Approval 30 Lincoln Avenue between University and Hamilton Pending Approval C. The City Council finds that there is a parking intrusion problem in parts of the Crescent Park neighborhood and desires to implement an additional one year pilot program to attempt to mitigate this problem. D. The California Vehicle Code Section 22507.5 authorizes the City to enact, by ordinance or resolution, parking restrictions on public streets between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. and further authorizes the City to provide for a system of permits for the purpose of exempting from the prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or resolution, disabled persons, residents, and guests of residents of residential areas. E. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010 allows for the implementation of parking restrictions. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1: Resolutions 9367 and 9373A are hereby repealed and superseded by this Resolution. SECTION 2: Restricted Parking Area. The City Council authorizes staff to retain the existing No Overnight Parking restrictions on the streets listed under Recital B that have opted in as indicated in Recital B. In addition, the City Council authorizes staff to allow additional streets listed under Recital B to be eligible for inclusion in the program upon successful completion of the process outlined in Section 3. SECTION 3: Petitions. No Overnight (2AM – 5AM) Parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block upon receipt of the following: 140923 jb 0131260 2 Not Yet Approved 1.City-issued petition showing signatures from at least 50% of the block, and; 2.70% support from City-issued surveys to verify SECTION 4: Posting of Signs. No Overnight (2AM – 5AM) Parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block. SECTION 5: Permits. The City shall provide overnight guest permits for residents that require parking for their guests at a cost not to exceed $5.00 per permit per night. A prepaid parking permit will be made available for use by residents and their guests at a cost of $100 per permit. Two (2) pre-paid permits will be available per household. SECTION 6: Exemption. Vehicles displaying overnight residential parking permits for the designated streets shall be exempt from the posted parking restriction. SECTION 7: CEQA. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. SECTION 8: This program shall be reviewed in 12 months to determine if it should continue. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment 140923 jb 0131260 3 Exhibit A Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferential Parking Districts) and Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor) The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferred Parking Districts) is hereby added to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICTS Sections: 10.50.010 Purpose 10.50.020 Definitions 10.50.030 RFP Designation Criteria 10.50.040 Initiation by City Council 10.50.050 Initiation by Neighborhood Petition 10.50.060 Establishment of Residential Preferential Parking Districts 10.50.070 Administration of Districts 10.50.080 Annexation of New Areas to Existing Districts 10.50.090 Modification or Termination of Districts 10.50.100 Violations and Penalties 10.50.010 Purpose. Residential preferential parking districts are intended to restore and enhance the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby businesses and institutional uses. The procedures and standards in this chapter are intended to provide flexibility so that the city council may adopt, after consultation with residents and neighboring businesses and institutions, parking programs that appropriately address each neighborhood’s unique characteristics. Residential preferential parking districts should be designed to accommodate non-residential parking when this can be done while meeting the parking availability standards determined by the city to be appropriate for the district in question. Residential preferential parking programs may be designed to reduce non-residential parking over time to give non-residential parkers time to find other modes of transportation or parking locations. 10.50.020 Definitions. The following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: 140826 jb 0131250A 1 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved a) “Director” shall mean the director of planning and community environment. b) “Dwelling unit” shall mean a self-contained house, apartment, stock cooperative unit, or condominium unit occupied by a single household exclusively for residential purposes. These residential purposes may include lawful home occupations. c) “Employee permit” shall mean a permit issued forto an employee working at a business located within an RPP District. d) “Guest permit” shall mean a permit issued to a Resident on an annual basis for use by a person visiting a residence in an RPP District or for workers providing services such as caregiving, gardening, repair maintenance and construction, to the Resident. The number of Guest permits issued to Residents shall be specified in administrative regulations adopted by the Director. e) “Non-resident vehicle” shall mean a vehicle operated by a person whose destination is not to a residence within the Residential Preferential Parking District. f) “Resident” shall mean a natural person living in a dwelling unit in an RPP District. g) “Residential Preferential Parking District” or “RPP District” shall mean a geographical area in which the city council has established a preferential parking permit system pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 22507. h) “Visitor permit” shall mean a temporary 24-hour permit issued to a Resident for use by a person visiting a residence in an RPP District. 10.50.030 RPP Designation Criteria The council may designate an area as a Residential Preferential Parking District based upon the following criteria: (1) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents; (2) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly; (3) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life; (4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical. 10.50.040 Initiation by City Council The city council may, by motion or resolution, initiate consideration of a RPP District by directing staff to undertake the analysis and outreach process set forth in Section 10.50.050(d) and (e). 10.50.050 Initiation by Neighborhood Petition Residents may request the formation of an RRP District in their neighborhood. The request shall be made, and considered, in the following manner: 140826 jb 0131250A 2 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved (a) Form of Application. (1) The director shall establish a standard form for the application for the formation of a new RPP District, as well as a list of submittal requirements for use by interested residents. These requirements shall include a narrative describing the nature and perceived source of non-residential parking impact, as well as suggested district boundaries. The director shall also approve a standard form for use in demonstrating resident support for the application. (2) Residents shall initiate a request for establishment of an RPP District by neighborhood petition by completing the official application form. (3) Residents are encouraged to consult with the employers and employees thought to be the source of the parking impact as they develop their proposals. (b) Timing and Review of Applications. Each calendar year, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall review all applications received prior to March 31st of that year to determine whether the RPP District criteria established in this Chapter are met. (c) Prioritization of Applications. Applications determined by the Director to meet the criteria in paragraph (b) above shall be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission. The commission shall review the requests and recommend to the director which proposal or proposals should be given priority for review and possible implementation in the current calendar year. In making its recommendations, the commission shall consider the severity of non-residential parking impact, the demonstrated level of neighborhood support, and the staff resources needed to process requests. (d) Staff Review of Applications and Community Outreach. Once an application has been selected for council consideration during the current calendar year, staff shall promptly review the application, gather additional information and conduct a community outreach program. At a minimum the review process shall include the following: (1) The City shall complete parking occupancy studies to quantify the nature of the problem identified in the petition. Data shall be collected when schools in the Palo Alto Unified School District and Stanford University are in session, unless these institutions are irrelevant to the problem to be addressed. (2) Upon completion of the consultation and outreach process, the city attorney shall prepare a draft resolution containing the proposed boundaries and hours of enforcement. Staff shall undertake a survey of resident support within the RPP District. The results of this survey shall be included in and reported to the planning and transportation commission and the city council. (e) Planning and Transportation Commission Review. Staff shall bring the proposed RPP District to the planning & transportation commission no later than 140826 jb 0131250A 3 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved September of the calendar year in which consideration began. The commission shall review the draft resolution at a noticed public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council regarding the RPP District. This recommendation may include proposed modifications of the boundaries. The commission’s recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council no later than September 30th. 10.50.060 Establishment of Residential Preferential Parking Districts (a) Adoption of Resolution Establishing District. Following the completion of the procedures described in Section 10.50.050, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on a proposed resolution to establish the residential preferential parking district. The resolution may specify a trial period of up to twoone years. Any such trial period shall begin running after the signs have been posted and permits issued. The council may adopt, modify, or reject the proposed resolution. (b) Resolution. The resolution shall specify: (1) The findings that the criteria set forth in Section 10.05.030 have been met. (2) The term of the trial period, if applicable. (3) The boundaries and name of the residential preferential parking district. The boundary map may also define areas which will become subject to the regulations of the residential preferential parking district in the future if the council approves a resident petition for annexation as provided in Section 10.50.080 below. (4) Hours and days of enforcement of parking regulations and other restrictions that shall be in effect for non-permit holders, such as two-hour parking limits, overnight parking limits, or “no re-parking” zones. (5) The number of permits, if any, to be issued to merchants or other non-residential users, which number may be scheduled to reduce over time. (6) Such other matters as the Council may deem necessary and desirable. (c) Permanent Adoption. Before the expiration of the trial period, if applicable, the city council shall hold a noticed public hearing and determine whether the RPP District should be made permanent as originally adopted, modified or terminated. The council’s action shall be in the form of a resolution. 10.50.070 Administration of Districts (a) Issuance and Fees. (1) No permit will be issued to any applicant until that applicant has paid all of his or her outstanding parking citations, including all civil penalties and related fees. (2) A residential parking permit may be issued for a motor vehicle if the following requirements are met: A. The applicant demonstrates that he or she is currently a resident of the area for which the permit is to be issued. B. The applicant demonstrates that he or she has ownership or continuing custody of the motor vehicle for which the permit is to be issued. 140826 jb 0131250A 4 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved C. Any motor vehicle to be issued a permit must have a vehicle registration indicating registration within the area for which the permit is to be issued. (3) Visitor or guest parking permits may be issued for those vehicles or to those individuals or households that qualify for those permits under the resolution establishing the RPD District. (4) EmployeeNon-resident parking permits may be issued to those individuals and for those vehicles that qualify for such permits under the resolution establishing the RPP District. (b) No Guarantee of Availability of Parking. A parking permit shall not guarantee or reserve to the permit holder an on-street parking space within the designated residential preferential parking zone. (c) Restrictions and Conditions. Each permit issued pursuant to this Section shall be subject to each and every condition and restriction set forth in this Chapter and as provided for in the resolution establishing the specific RPP District, as may be amended from time to time. The issuance of such permit shall not be construed to waive compliance with any other applicable parking law, regulation or ordinance. (d) Exemptions. The following vehicles are exempt from RPP District parking restrictions in this Chapter: (1) A vehicle owned or operated by a public or private utility, when used in the course of business. (2) A vehicle owned or operated by a governmental agency, when used in the course of official government business. (3) A vehicle for which an authorized emergency vehicle permit has been issued by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, when used in the course of business. (4) A vehicle parked or standing while actively delivering materials or freight. (5) A vehicle displaying an authorized exemption permit issued by the City of Palo Alto. (6) A vehicle displaying a State of California or military-issued disabled person placard or license plates. (7) A vehicle parked for the purpose of attending or participating in an event taking place at a school within the Palo Alto Unified School District, provided that the vehicle is parked within two blocks of the school, the school has requested and received approval from the City at least fourteen days before the event date, and the school distributes notices to all addresses within a two‐block radius of the school. Exempt parking pursuant to this subsection is available for no more than five events per school year for each school. (8) All vehicles are exempt from parking restrictions pursuant to this Chapter on the following holidays: January 1, July 4, Thanksgiving Day, and December 25. (e) Authority of Staff 140826 jb 0131250A 5 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved a. The director is authorized to adopt administrative regulations that are consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. b. The Police Department or private parking enforcement contractor as approved by the Chief of Police shall have the authority to enforce the administrative regulations established pursuant to this Chapter. 10.50.080 Annexation of New Areas to Existing Districts Residents of any block may petition the director for annexation into a contiguous RPP District. The petition shall be on forms provided by the department. If the petition meets the criteria established in administrative regulations adopted by the director, a resolution annexing it to the RPP District shall be prepared by the city attorney and submitted to the city council, together with the director’s recommendation on the proposed annexation. The city council may approve, deny, or modify the annexation. 10.50.090 Modification or Termination of Districts (a) Opting out. After final adoption of an RPP District, Residents may file an application with the director to opt out of the RPP District. The minimum number of blocks and percentage of units supporting the opt-out shall be specified by the director in the administrative guidelines. Applications for opting out shall be made in the form and manner prescribed by the director and shall be acted up on by the director. Any opt out application shall be filed within ninety (90) days after council adoption of the resolution establishing the RPP District. (b) Dissolution. The city council following a noticed public hearing may adopt a resolution dissolving the RPP District: (1) Upon receipt and verification of a petition signed by 50% or more of all the households within an approved RPP District boundary, or (2) Upon findings by the City Council that the criteria for designating the RPP District are no longer satisfied. 10.50.100 Violations and Penalties (a) No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle adjacent to any curb in a residential preferential parking zone in violation of any posted or noticed prohibition or restriction, unless the person has a valid and current residential preferential parking permit, visitor permit, guest permit or employee permit for that vehicle, or is otherwise exempt. Violations of this sub-section shall be punishable by a civil penalty under Chapter 10.60.010. (b) No person shall sell, rent, or lease, or cause to be sold, rented, or leased for any value or consideration any RPP District parking permit, visitor permit or guest permit. Upon violation of this subsection, all permits issued to for the benefit of the dwelling unit or business establishment for which the sold, rented, or leased permit was authorized shall be void. Violation of this sub-section (b) shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 140826 jb 0131250A 6 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved (c) No person shall buy or otherwise acquire for value or use any RPP District parking permit, guest permit or visitor permit except as provided for in this chapter. Violation of this sub-section (c) shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. SECTION 2. Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: 10.04.086 Parking Enforcement Contractor “Parking Enforcement Contractor” means any duly qualified company that the City has entered into a contract with and that has been approved by the Chief of Police to provide enforcement of Chapter 10.50 relating to Palo Alto Municipal Code infractions only in parking zones. Enforcement includes both the issuance and processing of citations for RPP District parking violations. SECTION 3. Section 10.08.015 (Authority of Parking Enforcement Contractor) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: 10.08.015 Authority of Parking Enforcement Contractor The City may enter into a contract with a duly qualified company, approved by the Chief of Police, to provide enforcement of Chapter 10.50 relating to RPP District parking violations (as permissible by the Palo Alto Municipal Code). SECTION 4. Section 10.60.010 (Parking violations punishable as civil penalties) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 10.60.010 Parking Violations Punishable as Civil Penalties Except as otherwise provided, violations of any provision of Chapters 10.36, 10.40, 10.44, 10.46, and 10.47, and 10.50 of this Title 10 (hereinafter referred to as a “parking violation”) shall be punishable by a civil penalty (hereinafter referred to as a “parking penalty”). These parking penalties, together with any late payment penalties, administrative fees, and other related charges shall be established by ordinance or resolution of the city council. SECTION 5. CEQA. This ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. 140826 jb 0131250A 7 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ Interim City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment 140826 jb 0131250A 8 November 17, 2014 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 November 12, 2014 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Public Hearing (Item will start at approximately 7:30 PM)7 RPP Recommendation to Council: The Commission will be asked to recommend that the City Council8 adopt a City-Wide Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Ordinance establishing a framework for9 implementation of area specific Residential Parking. For more information contact Jessica Sullivan at10 Jessica.sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org11 12 Chair Michael: Everybody’s coming back to their seats. Let’s see, these aren’t numbered. Do you know13 how this works? Maybe you can figure it out. Ok. So let me introduce the public hearing on the parking14 and on the published agenda this is broken down into two items. First is the Citywide Residential15 Preferential Parking (RPP) Ordinance and then the next item is the Downtown ordinance. And I’m going16 to ask our Senior Assistant City Attorney for clarification shortly, but the Commission along with the17 Council has a conflict of interest policy, which is if any Commissioner has an economic interest within 50018 feet of a topic that we are taking action on then they may be required to abstain from consideration of19 that Motion and actually leave the room. And one of our Commissioners, Commissioner Rosenblum lives20 in the Downtown area so when we get to the Downtown topic Commissioner Rosenblum will adhere to21 our policy and he will leave the meeting. That requires that the first part of the discussion will focus on22 the Citywide Parking Ordinance and when we have comments from staff, the Commission, and the public23 it would be, it would help us stay in compliance with our conflict of interest rules if first we focus as much24 as possible on the citywide issues and reserving the Downtown specific concerns to after Commissioner25 Rosenblum departs. And maybe Cara Silver could you, did I get that right?26 27 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Sure, thank you Chair and Commission. So the State Fair28 Political Practices Commission has some adopted conflict of interest rules and that’s what the Chair is29 referring to and under those rules if a Member of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) has30 a real property interest that is within 500 feet of an action that the Commission is acting on then there is31 a presumption that there is a conflict of interest and accordingly since Commissioner Rosenblum owns32 real property in the Downtown area that is the subject of the second action that you’re going to be33 hearing this evening he will be recusing himself from that action; however, he can participate in the first34 action, which is the citywide development of a preferential parking program. There is an exception to the35 conflict of interest rules that apply to regulations that while they may impact a Commissioner individually36 in their financial interest that impact has similar impact on the public generally and so he will be able to37 participate in the first item. So I think what we would like to do in order to facilitate an efficient meeting38 we would like to encourage speakers to if they would like to speak on the first item then they should39 direct their remarks on the first item, which is the general framework for the preferential parking program40 and then if they have discussion items on the Downtown resolution in particular defer those items until41 the second item so there’s not duplicative speaking.42 43 Commissioner Alcheck: Can I ask a quick question on this topic? If, if Commissioner Rosenblum was44 interested in contributing to this conversation as a resident could he exit the dais and participate as a45 speaker?46 47 Ms. Silver: No, he would still be conflicted from that decision.48 49 Commissioner Alcheck: And does that conflict continue if he was interested in [unintelligible yell in50 background], if he was interested in participating in the process at City Council is he still restricted as a51 general member of the public?52 53 Ms. Silver: With respect to the Downtown issue, yes. He cannot participate at all in that decision.54 55 ATTACHMENT D 2 Commissioner Alcheck: Thank you. 1 2 Chair Michael: Hopefully this is a reflection of the absolute commitment by the PTC to be ethical and 3 above board. So I appreciate your forbearance with our struggling to understand exactly where to draw 4 the line between citywide and Downtown and with that let’s turn this to staff for a presentation on the 5 proposed Citywide RPP Ordinance and do we hear from Director Gitelman or Jessica Sullivan our Parking 6 Manager? 7 8 Jessica Sullivan, Parking Manager: Good evening Chair Michael and Members of the Commission. It’s 9 great to see everybody tonight. So as we just discussed the first item we’re talking about is the overview 10 of the proposed Citywide Ordinance for RPP districts. So I’m just going to kind of quickly go just a very 11 small presentation just sort of on where this, where this all came from, where we’ve ended up, and then 12 just give you a quick overview of how we’re proposing this Ordinance to work as well as the content of 13 the Ordinance. 14 15 So as many of you have heard me talk about many times this, the whole RPP discussion is really a crucial 16 part of our multi-pronged approach to addressing our parking and transportation challenges in Palo Alto. 17 So you can see here we’ve got parking management with the RPP program being a crucial component of 18 parking management looking at our existing parking supplies and figuring out how we can really 19 maximize them and use them strategically. So the staff report obviously is not about all these other 20 things, but I think it’s important to mention them in the context of the RPP discussion. We’re moving 21 forward with parking technology, garage branding and signage, and several other, several other 22 measures related to management of parking supply. Transportation demand reduction is another crucial 23 component. I know we’ll come back to you soon with some updates on that. Development of our 24 Transportation Management Association (TMA), increasing our shuttle service and looking at other 25 routes, city employee commute programs, our Zipcar program, and then parking supply measures 26 ultimately managing and increasing the parking supply that we have available to us. So again, part of 27 the big picture strategy that we’ve been really working hard on for the last year. 28 29 So when Council directed us in January to kind of embark on this parallel process including both a 30 citywide ordinance to address RPP districts across the City as well as a development of a priority district 31 program, which ended up being the Downtown, staff has sort of taken this, this direction and made a 32 sort of modification of it. So we’re proposing that the Citywide Ordinance outlines the criteria that need 33 to be met in order for our neighborhood to become an RPP district and to be vetted against that. The 34 neighborhood specific resolution, which we’ll hear about in the second item tonight for downtown, which 35 would outline neighborhood specific design criteria so the idea being that different permit programs 36 within the City could potentially have different characteristics. Things like cost of permits might be 37 different, hours of enforcement, things like that. 38 39 And a third piece, which we sort of added in working with the attorneys office is this piece of 40 administrative regulations. One of the things that we notice as we worked through drafts of the 41 Ordinance and the resolution was that there’s a lot of detail and sort of parking policy requirements and 42 how we do occupancy studies and who’s eligible for permits and why and so we made a recommendation 43 that that sort of information be put in a document that we’re calling the administrative regulations. So 44 it’s not substantive to the program design, but it would be developed as part of the proposed program if 45 we move forward in 2015. 46 47 So I’ll quickly go through the Ordinance as it’s proposed and as it’s laid out in the staff, staff report. I 48 think the one of the most important things about the Ordinance is it lays out the criteria that have to be 49 met in order for a neighborhood to move forward with a petition process to become an RPP district. And 50 I’ve sort of paraphrased them here in this slide, this is not how they’re worded exactly in the Ordinance, 51 but you all have a copy of that in the staff report. So basically the first one is just that nonresident 52 vehicles ultimately interfere with the use of parking by neighborhood residents who live within that 53 neighborhood. That the interference itself is frequent, and that this nonresident vehicle parking disrupts 54 neighborhood quality of life, which is also another way of saying that shortage of parking spaces could 55 3 result noise, traffic, those types of things. And the last one is that other strategies are not feasible or 1 practical. So these are the criteria that we came up with for the Ordinance to lay out. 2 3 The Ordinance then goes into a description of the neighborhood petition process that a neighborhood 4 would need to move forward with assuming that they satisfy the criteria outlaid in the Ordinance. So 5 basically and this is quite similar to the process that most cities go through when they create RPP 6 districts. The residents need to complete an application and a petition which is submitted to the Planning 7 Department. The Planning Department reviews the application and in this case we would review the 8 application to make sure that the criteria are in fact met as outlined in the Ordinance. The Planning 9 Director would review all the applications and make sure the criteria are met and make a 10 recommendation to the Planning Commission for the neighborhood that seemed to be the most 11 appropriate to move forward with then the Planning Commission would review the application and 12 ultimately make the recommendation for staff to move forward with, with developing the program. So 13 then this is where staff conducts the community outreach that’s really necessary to develop this type of a 14 program so including not only reaching out to residents in the impacted area, but also to the potential 15 cause of the parking intrusion to the neighborhood. This is also where we would conduct occupancy 16 studies of the neighborhood to determine the level of impact. 17 18 We’ve actually included a sort of time stipulation in the Ordinance stating that we, the Director would 19 review all the applications by March 31st of that year and then that staff would bring the draft resolution 20 to the Planning Commission by September of that year and then ultimately the Planning Commission 21 review the petition application, the occupancy data, and then make the final recommendation to Council. 22 So the adoption of the resolution is also laid out in the Ordinance as what content needs to be inside the 23 resolution and I’m not going to go too much into that because we’re going to talk about the resolution 24 later, but the Ordinance specifies that the resolution can have a trial period of up to one year and also 25 that parts of, parts of neighborhoods that are not in the district at first can annex themselves into an 26 existing RPP district and also that a district can terminate itself by the same petition process. The other 27 thing the Ordinance outlines is the allowance for contract enforcement for the enforcement of the 28 proposed district. Right now we don’t have a municipal code that allows us to contract out for 29 enforcement. The Police Department does all of our enforcement and looking at potential costs of 30 enforcing programs like this we’ve decided that contract enforcement may be a good option for us. So 31 that’s a quick summary of the Ordinance and our recommendation is that the PTC recommend adoption 32 of the Ordinance by City Council. Thank you. 33 34 Chair Michael: Ok, so I think we’ll go to the public now and we have a number of speaker cards. By the 35 way if anybody has come into the room and would like to speak and hasn’t had a chance to fill out a 36 speaker card we would love to hear from you. And we have two new Commissioners who joined the PTC 37 this meeting, Commissioner Downing and Fine. And they asked if we always have so many people at our 38 PTC meetings and I said oh yes, every meeting and I think this is wonderful. We like to provide a forum 39 for engagement with the public and definitely want to hear your input on this topic, which is very 40 important to the community. So with that, ok, ok. 41 42 And I was just reminded by Commissioner Alcheck that if anybody came into the room after we 43 introduced our ethical rules about conflict of interest we’re trying to confine the focus in this first part of 44 the discussion on the Citywide Ordinance and then after Commissioner Rosenblum who lives Downtown 45 leaves the room then we can turn to the Downtown issues on the final topic. So with that we’re going to 46 give each speaker three minutes. If you happen to be here as a representative of a group that hopefully 47 is indicated on your card and we’ll give you more time as noted on the card. So Commissioner 48 Rosenblum has given me the first speaker, it’s going to be Malcolm Beasley and to queue up you’ll be 49 followed by Mary Dimet, if I’ve got that right, but welcome. 50 51 Malcolm Beasley: Thank you. Members of the PTC I appreciate the opportunity to address you this 52 evening regarding the proposed citywide ordinance and the Downtown RPP resolution. My name is Mac 53 Beasley and I’m a 40 year resident of Downtown North. I’ve studied the report submitted by staff that 54 you are considering and I have some observations that I’d like to share with you. There are many 55 moving parts in adopting a workable RPP program and it’s easy to get lost in the details essential though 56 4 they may be. It’s therefore helpful to be clear on the bigger picture. In that spirit I offer two strongly 1 felt suggestions. 2 3 I present one, that demand for parking is a moving target. It’s only going to get worse with the new 4 construction already approved in the pipeline and the increased employee density being introduced into 5 existing buildings. Therefore, it is essential to compare quantitatively any proposed approaches to 6 increased supply, better yet the aggregate of all such approaches against the demand projected forward 7 in time. The approaches presented in the report so far deal only with the problem as it exists today. I’m 8 not suggesting that staff doesn’t understand the issue I’m raising. It is at best a first step. The reality is 9 that parking will surely get worse and we must openly face up to that reality if we are to deal with it in a 10 firm way. Therefore, I urge you to insist that going forward staff be instructed to make dynamic 11 projections to the degree that it’s possible to do so. 12 13 Two, excessive parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods is inconsistent with the Comprehensive 14 Plan. You know that and it is stated in the Comprehensive Plan “protect residential areas from parking 15 impacts of nearby business districts.” That’s from, quoted from the report. I firmly believe as many in 16 this room know that this goal cannot be honored in a fair transparent way without some metric to gage 17 intrusion. Such a metric might also serve as a criterion that would qualify a neighborhood to seek an 18 RPP. According to the staff report developing such a criterion is one of the essential components of the 19 Ordinance. According to my reading of the staff report the stakeholder group came to the consensus 20 that the 20 percent nonresident parking is reasonable, but that is for the Council to decide and if they 21 don’t in my frank opinion they are not meeting their responsibilities as the stewards of the 22 Comprehensive Plan. I urge you to take the position that the Ordinance should introduce a quantitative 23 i.e. measurable acceptable level of intrusion even if it cannot be met in the short term. Thank you. 24 25 Chair Michael: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mary Dimet to be followed by Mark Nanevicz. 26 27 Mary Dimet: [Speaking off microphone – unintelligible]. 28 29 Chair Michael: Consider it done. The next speaker is Mark Nanevicz to be followed by (interrupted) 30 31 Mark Nanevicz: [Speaking off microphone – unintelligible]. 32 33 Chair Michael: So noted. That’s Mark Nanevicz. So… 34 35 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: So next is Norman Bermmer. 36 37 Chair Michael: Mr. Bermmer? Item 3? Three minutes. 38 39 Norman Bermmer: I probably should have checked four as well, but I’ll keep my remarks general. 40 41 Chair Michael: You can please come back and speak again if you’d like. 42 43 Mr. Bermmer: I think I can cover it here. So I would urge the Commission to recommend adoption of the 44 RPP Ordinance and the other associated actions. I agree with the previous speaker that there should be 45 a quantitative standard in the Ordinance, 20 percent sounds like it’s a reasonable amount. In other 46 words no more than 20 percent of the available parking spaces in any given neighborhood should be 47 dedicated to nonresident parking otherwise you’re going to just fill up the area with parking and that will 48 defeat the purpose of the program. 49 50 The other thing from the standpoint of a Crescent Park resident, which I am, I think some folks are 51 concerned that if you enact a district it will then just spread the problem out and that’s why the provision 52 in the ordinance that allows adjacent blocks to opt in is very important. So I just wanted to stress that’s 53 an important aspect of the overall system. Thank you. 54 55 Chair Michael: Thank you. And then the next speaker is Doria Summa on Item 3. 56 5 1 Doria Summa: Good evening Chair, Commissioners, and welcome new Commissioners. I’m Doria 2 Summa, I’m a resident of College Terrace and I wanted to just talk to you a little bit after a long struggle 3 permit parking was implemented in September of 2009 in College Terrace. It’s been very successful ever 4 since and the Ordinance allows for I’ll read you part of it besides residential parking this is who it allows 5 to park “a residential parking permit may be issued for any vehicle owned, leased, or any person who is 6 employed by or a representative of a neighborhood serving establishment located within the particular 7 residential permit parking area. Each employee or representative of a neighborhood serving 8 establishment will be allowed to obtain one permit for each vehicle they own or lease subject to the 9 following criteria which shall be used to establish the eligibility of a neighborhood serving establishment 10 and the maximum number of permits.” And I think it’s important to know that neighborhood serving 11 establishment is defined as the following: “Neighborhood serving establishment means all libraries, 12 schools, daycare centers, and nonprofit public service organizations.” And of course in addition to that 13 there’s two hour parking for everybody for short term parking whether they are business people or 14 residents. Thank you. 15 16 Chair Michael: Thank you. I’d like the minutes to reflect that Commissioner Tanaka is now here and in 17 attendance. The next speaker is Richard Brand for Item 3 to be followed by Judy Beasler. 18 19 Richard Brand: Good evening Commissioners and welcome to the new, two new Commissioners. I think 20 you’ve got a good, good staff support here and I think it’s going to be a good session. My name is 21 Richard Brand, I live at 281 Addison. I was one of the 11 stakeholder members of the staff’s RPP 22 Commission. And I want to first of all offer kudos to the staff work that did Jessica Sullivan did an 23 outstanding job in the midst of a lot of controversy and although we didn’t come to blows she managed 24 to keep things under control and I think what you’ve seen in her report again we have two items here 25 and I’ll talk later about the local one that affects my area in Professorville, but I think that the PTC owes 26 them a real kudos for the work they did and Director Gitelman came in at the last meeting because she 27 was no longer opted out because of legal issues. I think Jim Keene who’s not here did a good job and I 28 think all of us felt the same way we actually offer them a round of applause. So first of all I want to say 29 that. 30 31 Secondly this is a Citywide Ordinance is proposed here in this Item 3 and I have family, my daughter, 32 son-in-law and family live down on Martin in Crescent Park. I can park anywhere when I go see them. I 33 mean the curbs are empty. It’s just not like where I live in Professorville and Downtown North so I can 34 understand how some residents will say why are we doing this? It really is a local issue and this is not 35 unique to Palo Alto. Other cities have this same thing and I think other residents need to understand 36 that. The nice thing and the good thing about this is that not everybody has to sign up, but we need to 37 have a framework to make this work and I think what we’ve got here is a good framework. So I support 38 this Ordinance, again I worked on it. 39 40 And I also support on the third slide that Ms. Sullivan proposed. It’s a three legged stool. Not only do 41 we need a permit process, we need additional parking management ways to solve the problem and make 42 everybody happy. And so I urge this Commission to really work on that. So I think that maybe our two 43 Council Members are going to Austin for their conference. Maybe they ought to, we ought to focus them 44 to go in and talk about parking because this is not unique to Palo Alto. Other cities have this problem 45 and other cities have solved it and I think our staff is working on that and again I appreciate the work 46 that we did and I support the staff. Thank you and I hope you do too. 47 48 Chair Michael: So thank you very much and we certainly do support the staff. Judy Beasler is the next 49 speaker to be followed by Tommy Derrids. 50 51 Judy Beasler: Hello, I would like to thank you also for considering this problem. I’m an absolute novice at 52 this and I’m late to the notion of the permit process, but I’m learning quickly that you put lots of thought 53 into that. I’m here with the notice of one of the Downtown area people so I think quite possibly this isn’t 54 my time to speak, but I could speak to it citywide on one issue and that is I’m a local realtor and there 55 are instances when people there’s no place to park to visit or show properties of the local homeowners 56 6 when they’re moving. Oh, I moved a bit. Is that better? Ok. So that situation for me personally my 1 experience is definitely no parking around Palo Alto for that kind of activity, which is short term, it’s not a 2 long term park, but you can’t get near a space. 3 4 Chair Michael: Thank you. Next speaker is Tommy Derrids. Now is this on Item 3? You’ve indicated 5 Downtown or do you want to… are you going to talk about the citywide? Ok, good. And to be followed 6 by Linda Anderson. 7 8 Tommy Derrids: I may need some lenience from your Chairperson in terms of time. I would like all the 9 people who are here from Evergreen Park and Ventura who are supportive all this to stand rather than 10 come up here and talk for a long time. So (interrupted) 11 12 Chair Michael: If you’re here on behalf of a large group you can have more than three minutes if 13 [unintelligible] that’s our rules. 14 15 Mr. Derrids: Ok, I appreciate that, but I, I don’t want to be here till midnight and you don’t want to be 16 here till midnight so [unintelligible] try to push it through as rapidly as I can. So I want to start by 17 adding on to what Richard said. I think he understated things. This process for this thing coming 18 together has been coordinated, pushed, directed like herding a group of cats Jessica Sullivan moved 19 through this thing in a way that many of us thought she would not be able to do. She’s had conflicts 20 within the Planning Department, conflicts within people in town; it cannot be overstated what her 21 contribution is to what’s in front of you tonight. So it’s important that we say it. 22 23 So it’s been a long time getting here. We’ve been in front of the Council a number of times around a lot 24 of issues so I’m glad to be standing here supporting this Ordinance with a modification. I want to 25 present something to you that I think needs to be added to it, but it’s really quite a simple question that’s 26 before you. Is there any intrusion in the Downtown area? If you’ve got two eyes and ears you can really 27 rapidly tell that there is an intrusion problem and as others have alluded per the Comp Plan, 28 Comprehensive Plan it’s time to bring relief to our neighbors Downtown. Evergreen Park over there by 29 College Terrace who already has their plan we’re extremely supportive of something happening 30 Downtown because we know we are next in line. With what’s happening in California Avenue, with 31 what’s already happened on El Camino, I live at 390 Leland in one of Palo Alto’s old historical houses a 32 block off El Camino and I go out and do volunteer work at 7:00 in the morning and when I return there 33 are no parking spaces for me to put my truck back after I’ve gone out to do the work to come back at 34 8:30 and it’s just beginning. It’s undoubtedly going to get considerably worse for both Evergreen Park 35 and for the Ventura neighborhood. 36 37 So we want to see this Ordinance adopted, but we want an addition to it. We find the provision of 38 10.50.050, which is the initiation by neighborhood to be cumbersome, lengthy, difficult, and we want to 39 add an item .040 and when I finish I’ll distribute to you a copy of a proposal that we would like placed 40 into your recommendation to the Council. We had a good municipal lawyer who understands ordinances 41 and resolutions and law to draft this item for us. We want the Council to have additional authority; we 42 want the Council to have the ability to put an RPP in place. We want the Council to be able to evaluate 43 what Jessica and all the others have spent endless hours doing and streamline the process and make it 44 happen. There are people who will tell you that this whole parking thing is dark science. It’s only dark 45 science if you’re trying to keep from dealing with the problems that occur. There are people who tell you 46 we shouldn’t privatize the streets. Regulating what goes on on the streets has nothing to do with 47 privatizing streets; we do it all day every day with regulations that keep us all more healthy and more 48 safe. We are simply asking you to add to those additional regulations. So can I present these to you 49 Chair to distribute? 50 51 Chair Michael: Yes, please. Just hand it to staff in order… thank you. Thank you very much. 52 53 Mr. Derrids: By adding this item it simply provides for the Council to have a position to initiate a 54 residential parking program in any specific neighborhood when they see and detail the whole thing. So 55 I’ve concluded with that saying please adopt the Ordinance, please include this addition into it. And I 56 7 failed to say at the beginning a lot of these people who stood up and said they were from Ventura 1 neighborhood, Evergreen Park neighborhood, and so on a lot have family commitments and a lot of 2 people have got to get up and leave so please don’t be offended when these folks go. They came and 3 made their statement and folks are going to need to leave and it has nothing to do with their 4 commitment or their belief in what you’re doing here. So I’d be happy to answer any questions that 5 anybody has. 6 7 Chair Michael: Ok. So thank you very much and we certainly appreciate the big turnout from Evergreen 8 Park although we do try to discourage applause or booing. So the next speaker is Michael Hodos to be 9 followed by Elaine Uang on Item 3. 10 11 Michael Hodos: Commissioners my name’s Michael Hodos. I’ve lived in Professorville since 1978. That 12 better? Ok, thank you. And needless to say as several of my neighbors have iterated so, already the 13 situation has changed dramatically over the last 10 years specifically when the color zones were first put 14 in. That was the lighting of the fuse that led to the situation we have today not to mention the 15 densification of buildings Downtown and so on. There are really just two points that have not already 16 been covered more than once that I’d like to make. One is that this Ordinance needs a quality standard. 17 What is quality of life in the neighborhood? Right now our quality of life is nonexistent when it comes to 18 the impact that intrusive parking has. Some certain percentage of space should always be available for 19 guests, for service people to come to our homes, many of whom won’t come to our neighborhood 20 anymore because they refuse to carry their tools for two or three blocks, and emergencies. So the 21 Ordinance needs a quality standard that can be applied universally across the residential neighborhoods 22 in Palo Alto. Then there’s an objective way to decide when a neighborhood is in need of a RPP. 23 24 The second thing is that the administrative regulations, which have been pushed sort of down the pipe 25 somewhere are very, very important. How this is administered, how it’s implemented, what the rules are 26 both for the Planning Department, for the residents, for changes that need to be made needs to be 27 spelled out well before this becomes a final regulation. And to say that that’s something we’re going to 28 cover after Phase 1 is done I don’t think is appropriate otherwise the residents have no idea what’s 29 coming down the pipe until it gets here. 30 31 The third thing is I urge each of you if you haven’t already done it to walk our neighborhoods. Take an 32 afternoon and walk around Downtown North and just see what the parking is like. Come down to 33 Professorville and Downtown South and see how it’s spreading. Now it’s already onto Lincoln. When we 34 started counting cars every month a year or two ago Addison wasn’t even parked up. Now it’s starting to 35 fill up Lincoln and it’s going to continue because of houses that or influx from buildings that is just in the 36 pipeline. So if those three things can be made to happen with this Ordinance it would be a huge 37 improvement over what we have seen so far. Thank you. 38 39 Chair Michael: Thank you for your comments. So Elaine Vang [Note-Chair Michael said Wong] is the next 40 speaker to be followed by Wynne Furth. 41 42 Elaine Vang: Good evening, thank you again for your attention to this. Welcome to the new 43 Commissioners. I want to echo Mac Beasley, Michael Hodos, others; I was part of the RPP stakeholder 44 group. Paid a lot of attention to some of these details and want to echo their sentiments that in the 45 Ordinance a standard be placed or a goal for the program to achieve. I think there are many, you’ve 46 heard some examples here tonight, I might offer one more. Donald Shoup, the author of The High Cost 47 of Free Parking, which you may all be very familiar with, this is the epic tome and the brick of what free 48 parking does to an area has a Goldilocks principle. And the Goldilocks principle is about getting parking 49 just right. And his just right, this is his just right standard is to allow 15 percent of any street face, any 50 street face to be made available at any time and that is the goal of most parking policies. Now I think it’s 51 up to us and to you and Council and staff to determine what the right number is for Palo Alto, but it is 52 important that we do try to set a standard and that goal that we try to achieve. It’s important to grease 53 the wheels of the system as you’ve all, we’ve heard from other people. We need to really enable anyone 54 whether it’s the residents, their support folks, their contractors, the realtors who are trying to show the 55 8 properties, the commuters to be able to find some way to accommodate themselves on our streets at any 1 time. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Michael: Thank you. Wynne Furth to be followed by Neilson Buchannan. 4 5 Wynne Furth: Thank you. My name’s Wynne Furth I live Downtown on Everett Avenue and thanks to the 6 staff for reasonably accommodating my injured back with a nice chair and thanks to you for taking this 7 on. I wanted to echo Tommy Derrids [Note-she also said Derrick] in saying it’s important that the 8 Council retain the power to do what it did last January and start these things directly. It’s not just a 9 matter of headcount because the impact of parking shortages varies from person to person. Can you 10 walk three blocks? Last month I couldn’t. This became really obvious to me. Do you have off street 11 parking? Do you have a nanny? Do people have to come to your house? Do you have friends over? It’s 12 not just a matter of counting heads, sometimes it’s a matter of thinking about future problems and so the 13 Council needs that flexibility. 14 15 I’d like to as always echo everything Elaine has to say. These programs are crucial if any of these other 16 things are going to work. As long as we have free parking in our neighborhoods nothing else is going to 17 go. I think administrative regulations can be very useful, but they shouldn’t be adopted without a public 18 comment period first. And I think too much is being pushed to them in terms of quantitative, in terms of 19 important standards. I do agree that quantitative standards are essential and I think they probably 20 should be in resolutions because they vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and I support 85 percent 21 maximum parking saturation and you know sometimes people say well of course nobody can park near 22 your house, you live by the theatre, you live by good restaurants. Nobody can park near a good 23 restaurant, but that’s not true. It’s like saying you can’t live in Los Angeles (LA) without the kind of smog 24 we had in the Fifties. And we don’t have that kind of smog anymore because we regulated it. The 25 difference is this is much simpler to deal with. Thank you. 26 27 Chair Michael: And thank you. Neilson Buchannan is the next speaker and that’s all on Item 3. 28 29 Neilson Buchannan: Neilson Buchannan, 155 Bryant. I have devoted an enormous amount of time to the 30 resolution and I have devoted virtually nothing to the Ordinance. Once the clarification was made at the 31 stake level, stakeholder level, all my attention went to the details that you’ll hear about later tonight. I 32 devoted my leadership to warning a few other neighborhoods that this was very important and I think 33 that’s one of the reasons that Ventura and Evergreen Park are reasonably informed about their future 34 and the need to assert themselves for protection of their neighborhood quality. I think Tommy is got his 35 finger on the pulse of what needs to be done. I reflect back to City Council meeting with Jim Keene and 36 when this first came up and he was putting the Ordinance into context. And I detected more or as much 37 of a defensive move from Jim saying oh my God, once this gets out every neighborhood’s going to want 38 it and there’ll be a land rush for protection. I think he was right. It’s seldom do we hear that kind of 39 forthrightness, but I agree with him and I think there needs to be a nimbleness in this Ordinance. My 40 neighborhood is actually getting under protection. We’ll hammer out something eventually, but there are 41 other neighborhoods who by and large are not aware of the issues that we know so well from the 42 Downtown core or the California Avenue core, Midtown, any, any neighborhood adjacent to El Camino 43 Real needs to have nimbleness in this Ordinance to protect them. 44 45 One quick thing on the administrative regulations, I don’t know the first thing about the structure and the 46 real teeth into the administrative regulations or guidelines. I am skeptical that we have to really get 47 those penned out as soon as possible in the midst of this next Phase 1 and 2 and not waiver from that. 48 I’m not convinced that administrative regulations have much teeth to them as such. Something has to be 49 built in for appeal and oversight by the City Council. The City Manager by definition is recused from 50 anything in Downtown North or University South so the administrative regulations we have no appeal to 51 the City Manager. The Planning Director is judge and jury as it’s currently written and I don’t know how 52 to do that. Molly and others can help satisfy that need on my part. One last thing on the beautiful work 53 that Jessica’s done. I just want to point out that the business registry wasn’t, I didn’t see it at least on all 54 the nice things that need to be happening parallel to this. So don’t forget the business registry. 55 56 9 Chair Michael: Ok, so thank you very much members of the public speaking on the Citywide Ordinance 1 and for your ability to keep these two issues separate so we can remain in compliance. And it appears 2 that there’s a tremendous recognition of the quality of the staff work particularly Jessica Sullivan and 3 others so that’s really tremendous. So thank you so much for that. 4 5 I wonder before we come back to the Commission I know that you all have been taking notes and a 6 number of these comments seem to be very relevant. Is there any, anything that you want to sort of 7 help us focus on in terms of additional feedback that would be useful or do you have answers to any of 8 the questions that were raised? 9 10 Ms. Sullivan: I just do have one comment. I know a number of folks had concern about the 11 administrative regulations and when they’d be developed. I mean our intent was to develop those as 12 soon as possible during Phase 1 of the program. So this is something that would be completed early on 13 in the development not sort of at a to be determined later date. So I just wanted to respond to that. 14 15 Hillary Gitelman, Director: Thank you Chair Michael if I can chime in with one comment, Hillary Gitelman 16 the Planning Director, I just wanted to respond to the one suggestion about an added section giving the 17 City Council the authority to establish districts and I just point out we believe that authority is granted by 18 10.50.030 and the addition of the addition… and maybe Cara Silver can review this as well, but I just 19 think I appreciate the sentiment of the suggestion and I feel like it’s already covered in this Ordinance. 20 I’d be happy to answer any questions about that as we move forward. 21 22 Chair Michael: You know just as a request when we get the packets if they could get indexed so that we 23 could actually turn to the particular sections faster, we… it’s hard to actually find where oh, I see. 24 25 Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry, that’s packet Page 77 it looks like is where the pertinent sections are. 26 27 Chair Michael: So what you’re suggesting is that the language of the Council may designate an area as a 28 RPP based upon certain criteria gives them that authority? 29 30 Ms. Gitelman: That’s correct. That 030 really says the Council can do that, 050 is really about how a 31 neighborhood would initiate the process, but I don’t think there’s any need to have another section about 32 the Council’s procedures because 030 gives the Council that authority. 33 34 Chair Michael: So I wonder I don’t think it’s a good idea for ordinance drafting to happen from the dais, 35 but one question that I might just feed back to staff is on the interaction between Section 030 and 050 36 would it be helpful to insert the word such as at the beginning of 050 “alternatively” just to make clear 37 that the one doesn’t preempt or supersede the other? Because I think that was a confusion that I had in 38 looking at it and it seems to be something that would address the concern of the Evergreen Park 39 speaker. 40 41 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you Chair Michael we were just talking offline and maybe we should caucus and get 42 back to you with a response to that question. 43 44 Chair Michael: Ok. Just so we will stay tuned. Ok, Commissioner Downing you had a question? 45 46 Commissioner Downing: Yeah just a real quick question for my own clarity and I think for the clarity of 47 the folks in the audience as well. So I mean depending on which way you go if you’re going through the 48 process via the neighborhood bringing an issue or the Council deciding to go down this path for a 49 particular neighborhood at that do either of those, both of those, neither of those have a requirement 50 about how many people in that neighborhood have to agree to this or how many people even have to be 51 asked about that? 52 53 Ms. Sullivan: So that number would be outlined in the administrative regulations. 54 55 Commissioner Downing: Ok, thank you. 56 10 1 Chair Michael: Ok. So we were still going through the possibility that staff might have wanted to respond 2 to any points made by the public before we come back to the Commission and you responded to two 3 important issues. Where there other issues where you wanted to help us focus on? 4 5 Ms. Gitelman: I think those were the two principal issues the timing of the administrative regulations and 6 the suggested change to the Ordinance. Apologize if one fell off my list, maybe the Commission can pick 7 up anything we didn’t get, we didn’t catch. 8 9 Chair Michael: Ok, and so what we’re looking for this evening is a recommendation from the PTC with 10 respect to Council with respect to adoption of the Ordinance? Ok. So let’s open it up to comments from 11 the Commission now. Commissioner [Note-Acting Vice-Chair] Rosenblum. 12 13 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: So I also want to echo everyone’s thanks especially to Jessica Sullivan and 14 to everyone who came out to speak. There’s obviously a lot of passion about this issue and it’s hard for 15 me to stay away from my own neighborhood because a lot of this starts there, but I will refrain from 16 that. 17 18 In general I do this this is a big deal. I think it is kind of a transfer of a public asset into semi-private use 19 and therefore it does have to meet a pretty high standard. And I was actually shocked at this first survey 20 results. I thought it was going to be a runaway yes, please give me protective parking in my 21 neighborhood and I was shocked the results were as split as they were. And so to me that there’s a bit 22 of there’s a bit of cognitive dissonance where something that costs the City so much to regulate and 23 transfer for the private use of some may not have overwhelming support. Now having said that I 24 recognize there is a quality of life issue and the Goldilocks principle I think is a really good one, which is 25 there should be some spaces available. I don’t think the goal is to have empty streets. I think the goal is 26 to have some spaces available. And I do think that staff has put forward a wise recommendation to start 27 with a first process I’m saying in general not necessarily about the specific area, but in general to start 28 with a Phase 1 to basically see what happens under a certain experiment to be able to regulate to that 29 Goldilocks principle. Because I think otherwise you start with just Phase 2 I don’t think there’s any going 30 back. I think it’s very hard to take things away, but easy to add, easier to add additional benefits. 31 32 The other piece that does concern me is cost. I think you always run into problems with subsidized stuff. 33 You get overuse. The reason why we have more people parking in our neighborhoods than we want is 34 because it’s free. And in fact the Downtown parking garages are I think underpriced too. If it costs us 35 $60,000 to build a parking space and we’re renting them per year for $466 and therefore it takes 130 36 years to pay off that’s subsidized and that’s why they’re overflowed. So I do think that cost is something 37 that I hope Council will take up. I think whenever you have a dramatically subsidized good it gets 38 overused, but I recognize the quality of life issue we want to be able to park near our houses and I think 39 that’s very important, but we should also if we’re being, having this good be transferred to us I think we 40 should be willing to pay for that and as a City I think we should be willing to accept that parking as a 41 subsidy is not necessarily where we want to put our City’s funds. 42 43 Otherwise I think the Ordinance is something that the Council should support, but as part of a very 44 strong Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and the other recommendations that staff 45 has put forward. I think it’s part of a three legged stool. I hope I see as many people in the audience 46 when TDM and other things are on the docket and equally valid support because I think it’s all part and 47 parcel the same thing. So thank you. 48 49 Chair Michael: So on this topic, which I think is pretty important we can consider having two rounds, but 50 who would like to go next? Commissioner Gardias. 51 52 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Mr. Chairman. A comment I’d like to make actually may be of interest 53 of Director Gitelman so sorry for just… So looking at the, at the paragraph that we discussed before 54 10.50.050 it talks about prioritization of application. I think that there is a certain consequence of 55 prioritizing permits this way. If we don’t have it in writing, if we don’t establish certain algorithms how 56 11 the permits are being awarded then we give ourselves more work and then we will not be able to 1 automate it in the future and I think the goal should be just to automate it as soon as possible and put it 2 in the some applications. But then also there is another item that’s maybe more important that we are 3 exposing ourselves and it may become a risk item, maybe not as significant because monetary aspects 4 are not that big, but then there may be some controversy that some employees or residents get awarded 5 with the permits others were not and that may create a risk. So for this reason I would suggest to 6 change this paragraph to a quantitative algorithm that would specify, would spell out very clearly who 7 gets the permits at what sequence. 8 9 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you Commissioner. Just to clarify this section of the Ordinance is about prioritizing 10 requests for formation of districts, not for permits themselves. The thinking was we have limited staff 11 resources as we’ve demonstrated through the course of this year it takes a lot of time and energy to 12 gather stakeholders and develop a plan to implement even one district. And so if we were to receive 13 applications from many neighborhoods at one time we would have to prioritize because we don’t have 14 the resources to do it all at once. And so this section is about that process of prioritizing neighborhood 15 districts, not about actually prioritizing who gets permits. That would be worked out in the development 16 of a resolution specific to the neighborhood. 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: So thank you for clarification. So just going back to the essence, right, because I 19 was just speaking about prioritizing of the permits themselves, will there, will this be put in writing and 20 be available to all the residents so it’s understood clearly how the permits are being awarded? 21 22 Ms. Gitelman: We will talk about that in the context of the resolution, our next agenda item for 23 Downtown and you’ll have to tell us whether you think it’s been dealt with effectively in that context. 24 There’s an opportunity just inherent in this Ordinance for each district to set up their own way of 25 prioritizing and determining the number of permits to employees for example and intentional, and that’s 26 intentional. The Ordinance is very flexible because we know that different neighborhoods are different in 27 terms of their characteristics and their goals. 28 29 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, as long, as long this process may be clearly, be clear and transparent to 30 those that would be applying for those permits that of course would be the desired result. So thank you 31 for the clarification. 32 33 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. We’re just going to do two rounds so you can use it however you 34 want. 35 36 Commissioner Alcheck: So in no particular order I also want to I guess congratulate Miss Sullivan, Ms. 37 Sullivan on her role. I remember your first meeting here and I remember thinking at the time oh my 38 God, Jaime just threw you under the bus. Like you have the hardest job and you’re new and no one’s 39 going to like… I mean I just remember thinking that the mountain was tall. And I also remember my first 40 meeting with residents of Downtown North and Mr. Buchannan organized very close to the beginning of 41 my participation on this Commission and I, I think you know this, I’ve been a very vocal supporter of 42 instituting parking programs that will alleviate the kind of concerns that this Ordinance is, intends to deal 43 with. 44 45 I couldn’t agree with the speaker more, this is not dark science. They are not practicing dark science in 46 Noe Valley where I used to live where I had a permit to park in front of my house, I mean in fact it was I 47 had a permit and it was still impossible to park in front of my house, but at least I could find it close by 48 and I don’t buy this privatization argument. It’s restrictions on parking are, they’re common. You can’t 49 park in front of a fire hydrant so that the people who live near the fire hydrant when they have a fire 50 won’t lose their homes so the Fire Department can access the water. We restrict parking in very localized 51 areas for very specific purposes for the benefit of people who live very close to those restrictions and I 52 very much appreciate the hard work that you guys have done. 53 54 My main concern with the Ordinance is this notion of determining the boundary and I mention that 55 because I know some of you have suggested that we incorporate some sort of City Council fast track 56 12 option. I don’t blame you for making that suggestion because you’ve basically gone through this 1 incredibly arduous process. It’s taken over a year to, over maybe potentially more than two years to get 2 to where you are today and the notion of having to repeat that process is, is unappealing, but the reason 3 why I think that this, that that these are linked this idea of boundary and this fast track concept. This 4 process should be evaluated and should encourage a community wide engagement when the RPP or 5 whatever you want to call it for Crescent Park was initiated it bypassed this Board, it bypassed this 6 Commission, and it bypassed a number of what I would call typical processes in Palo Alto and excuse me, 7 I’m going to take a little longer, and as a result the boundary issue wasn’t really addressed and one block 8 decided to move their problem to their neighbor block, and the neighbor block then had to deal with it. 9 10 And so my comment to staff tonight and to my fellow Commissioners is that I think we need to address 11 this notion of boundary in the Citywide Ordinance. How big, I would actually make it specific. I would 12 say that if a community let’s say a community comes or residents come together to suggest that they 13 want a parking permit program between A and B street then the boundary should actually be increased 14 by a factor of no less than a third of a mile or a quarter of a mile. Because there’s an issue here that if 15 the boundary is too small and they succeed to go through this process, which it looks like the first time it 16 really gets public opportunity for engagement is when it comes before the Planning Commission, which 17 would be September of that calendar year, which I read to mean nine months potentially after it’s 18 brought forward there’s a it’s Page 78 it says “Staff shall bring the proposed RPP to the PTC no later than 19 September of the calendar year in which the consideration began.” Which means in a theory it could be 20 nine months before a public commission has an opportunity to invite the public to participate and that’s a 21 really long time for the community that’s not inside the boundary, but next door to it to not participate in 22 the design of this program. And so I know that we notice people within 500 feet, but there’s a bigger 23 picture here. 24 25 I understood that there was a vote initially and then the boundaries changed a little bit and then the vote 26 result changed a little bit with the Downtown and I’m using that as an example. I’m not talking about 27 that item, but as an example of boundary makes a big difference. And who we let decide where that 28 boundary or what will apply in that boundary makes a different. I want to add just one last thing 29 (interrupted) 30 31 Chair Michael: We’ll give you a second round. 32 33 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, fine I’ll go in the second round I’ll, I’ll address the fast track issue a little 34 separately. 35 36 Chair Michael: Ok. 37 38 Ms. Gitelman: Chair Michael if I could just respond to that question? I just want to clarify the processes 39 that this sets forth gives the PTC a role very early in the process. Once the applications are received 40 those applications that meet the criteria are brought to the Commission for prioritization. And the 41 Commission is going to weigh where the parking issue, parking problems are most severe and therefore 42 where resources should be expended in the upcoming year to design a program with boundaries and 43 rules about how many permits would be issued and all the rest. So the Commission has an opportunity 44 at that very early stage to offer their opinions on characteristics of the district and the scope of the 45 problem. And although it is true that after that prioritization happens is when the hard work of working 46 with the stakeholders to define the district and the boundaries will happen and then it comes back to the 47 Commission after that staff and community engagement effort has concluded later in the year. 48 49 Chair Michael: That’s in Section E on Page 78? 50 51 Ms. Gitelman: Yes. 52 53 Chair Michael: Ok. Commissioner [Note-Acting Vice-Chair] Rosenblum is going to have to leave the 54 meeting to go on a business trip and so this conflict of interest is now resolved. So we can talk about 55 anything. 56 13 1 Ms. Gitelman: And Chair Michael if I could get back to the point that we started this discussion about the 2 Ordinance on the suggestion that was handed forward about initiation by City Council, we’ve been talking 3 offline and I think I still believe that this is probably unnecessary because the City Council can do what 4 they want. I mean they can direct us to work on a parking district anywhere they want to at any time, 5 but if there’s a desire to put an alternate or to recognize that in the context of the Ordinance I think 6 Cara’s come up with a way that we could, we could utilize this suggested language at least in part. We 7 might not be able to do specific drafting here tonight, but if the Commission is interested in 8 recommending something that gets to this goal that accomplishes this goal I think we would be prepared 9 to work on that. 10 11 Chair Michael: So if we were to put that in the form of a Motion how would you like that expressed? 12 13 Ms. Silver: I think it would be just simply to direct the City Attorney to propose amendments to the 14 Ordinance that would also provide for a City Council initiated RPP application. And I think what in 15 conferring with Planning staff I think that Planning staff would also suggest that both City Council 16 initiated and resident petition initiated petitions or applications then be subject to the same prioritization 17 that is in the Ordinance right now and that the Planning Commission then review all of the applications 18 whether they are initiated by the Council or by the petition and prioritize those applications for 19 processing. 20 21 Chair Michael: So we will rely on you for interpretation of the Ordinance. Ok. Coming back to the 22 Commission, Commissioner Downing. 23 24 Commissioner Downing: So I really appreciate everyone coming out and speaking. I know it’s a really big 25 deal to come out here and to spend your time doing this and that sitting here for such long periods is 26 hard and it’s difficult so I thank you all and I really appreciate hearing all these voices. I myself live in 27 Ventura. I’m very aware of the overflow parking we’re experiencing already and that’s before we’ve 28 really even built out the projects that are going to happen on Page Mill or Park. We are already 29 experiencing some of that so I can definitely see why my community thinks that they’re probably next in 30 line and I’m glad they’re here to voice their concerns. 31 32 I agree with having an RPP Ordinance. I think this is a good direction for us to go in. I think that as 33 others have said this needs to go in hand with the other two things we’re doing to also work on the 34 parking problem. I mean to that end I think that one of the things that I would like to get clarity on for 35 example is what are we doing to make it easier to get permits? Because right now I’m aware that it’s a 36 thing where you have to go to City Hall and you have to actually show up and you actually have to pick 37 something up physically. That’s a little bit of an onerous process. And then I don’t think we have a very 38 good way of tracking who is actually using those permits, but how often are they using them, right? I 39 mean we kind of just keep increasing the number of permits that we give based on how empty we see 40 the garages being, but it would be nice to not have to guess. It would be nice to have a way of actually 41 knowing this employee no longer works here, this employee has changed jobs or they decided they’re 42 going to use the Caltrain, right? This is all kind of data that we should have and it would be nice to have 43 instead of just trying to guess the perfect number of parking permits to give out because I think that’s a 44 really hard job to do. So as we’re pushing people into permits I would like that to be as least painful as 45 possible for everybody involved so I would like to see us put energy into fixing the technological end of 46 that and making that a lot easier to do. 47 48 I would also say that besides the quality of life issues that we face with not having enough parking I 49 think one of the issue, some of the issues we have to acknowledge is that when people are circling 50 around for parking it’s not good for the environment, right? That’s millions of miles that Americans drive 51 just trying to circle the block finding parking. This program is good for the environment and it’s good for 52 safety because when you’re driving around looking for parking you’re not paying attention to the kid on 53 the bike, right? So I think this program is good for a lot of different reasons and I’ll make a little bit of a 54 controversial comment in saying that I actually think that the permit parking needs to be more expensive 55 for the street than it is for the garage because I think that one of our goals should be getting people into 56 14 those garages and into our lots and off our streets. And I think that to really make that incentive work it 1 has to be a less palatable option than the garage. So that’s one of those things that maybe not now, but 2 I’d like to see happen. 3 4 And lastly if you don’t mind? Thanks. Lastly I do want to talk about standards. I think it’s pretty fair for 5 the community to say that until these administrative regulations are drafted we don’t really know how 6 hard it’s going to be to go through this process again. We don’t really know what we have to show in 7 order to qualify for this process. that’s I think that’s a pretty, pretty fair criticism to make and I mean to 8 that end I actually would really like to see a benchmark that goes into this Ordinance. I like the 9 Goldilocks principle. I like the idea that if you can show that your streets have less than, less than 15 10 percent free parking that gets you to the top of the list, right? I think that that would give us a little bit 11 of transparency to how we make our decisions and how we prioritize which neighborhoods we’re going to 12 work on first. I would like it to be the neighborhoods that have the biggest problem in terms of not 13 having enough parking, not necessarily the most number of people who can show up and complain about 14 it at Council. So thank you. 15 16 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 17 18 Commissioner Tanaka: So yeah I too would like to thank all the stakeholders for coming out. I know that 19 this has been a long and hard process and I appreciate everyone not just taking the time tonight, but 20 throughout the whole process. So thank you and of course staff. 21 22 So myself I’ve actually been through a couple of these. I’ve been through the College Terrace RPP 23 program. It was also long and hard or equally as frustrating. I was also on the first residential permit 24 parking I guess committee way back when for Downtown although it didn’t quite result in much of 25 anything, but so I’ve, I feel your pain. 26 27 I guess a couple of comments. First, College Terrace while not perfect it’s certainly had its issues I guess 28 what I’m for me it is overall a successful program. It’s something which I think if you were to talk with 29 the average College Terrace resident they would be happy with what happened. And I guess one thing I 30 didn’t see in the report and I think that would be actually good to have is kind of the comparison. I know 31 there are comparisons made to College Terrace here and there, but it’s not like a table. It might have 32 been nice to actually have a table where ok this is what happened at College Terrace, and not to say that 33 College Terrace the best solution is identical should be the template for everything, but I think by doing 34 that it would be good to learn from what happened because not everything went well, right? 35 36 I think there are some things that were like for instance I think early on it looked like you guys did 37 extensive outreach and I’ve got to commend you on that, but even in College Terrace with the extensive 38 outreach like literally knocking on every single door and the Resident’s Association did a lot of work in 39 this regard even then you still had people who were like whoa, what’s going on? And so I mean I think 40 just those things those lessons like that which I think could be learned and so I think, I think and as we 41 do other permit parking programs I think it would also be good to learn from them and kind of see what 42 worked well, what didn’t work well and of course each circumstance will be a little bit different because 43 all different neighborhoods are different. But I think at least trying to not make the same kind of 44 mistakes that were made before I think would be a good, a good thing. 45 46 And for that matter I know this is probably maybe above and beyond what the staff is, has time 47 budgeted to do, but Palo Alto’s not the first City to have a RPP program. There’s many other cities that 48 have that. And I think besides comparing it with the programs that we actually do here in the City I think 49 it would also be good to compare it to programs of nearby cities. And so I think having a table like this 50 would be a good thing to have and it might be helpful as we do more of these, we learn more, learn 51 what works, what doesn’t work. I think there’s some things in Palo Alto are different than other cities. 52 So but I think that’s, that’s the other suggestion. I could do the rest later. We have two rounds so no 53 problem. 54 55 Chair Michael: Commissioner Fine. 56 15 1 Commissioner Fine: I also want to echo the other Commissioners and thank the staff and the public. It 2 seems like you guys did a lot of work all the different stakeholders to evidence a bunch of data that 3 shows an obvious quality of life issue and as one member from the public said if you just walk the streets 4 you can definitely see this in the midday. I want to echo Commissioner [Note-Acting Vice-Chair] 5 Rosenblum that I believe the Phase 1 is actually a nice way to kind of ground test some of these ideas, 6 but at the same time it does seem a little squishy and open ended at the moment. Some issues that 7 come to mind for me are how do you treat nonvoting households in College Terrace we actually did have 8 a bit of an issue with that where it wasn’t clear whether nonvoting households are a yes or a no for this 9 district. Also there was some mention of dispersal of employee parking. I think you have to treat that 10 very carefully. It gets back to these issues of circling and fairness as well to how you treat these 11 different employees who do get permits in Phase 1 or going forward. That’s all. Thank you very much. 12 13 Chair Michael: Ok, so couple comments. One is I wonder if in the section of the Ordinance which lays out 14 the purpose if it might be useful to clarify something about this question of privatization. And I apologize 15 if the stakeholder group and others have already thought through this clearly and arrived at a 16 noncontroversial understanding, but it seems to me that there may be an assumption that if you live 17 somewhere and there’s a curb in front of where you live that you are going to use that for your needs 18 and that’s associated with the property that you own, which is private property then I wonder if maybe 19 an introductory clause such as “Whereas there is no private property right for on street parking, RPP 20 districts, excreta,” but there’s something to me that just to clarify in Palo Alto is on street parking part of 21 the commons or is it a private property right? Is this are we taking away something by this program? It 22 seems to me that there are different assumptions depending on which if you live in different cities or you 23 live here if you live in a rural area, what is it that you’re entitled to as a property owner or let’s say you 24 live in a more densely developed neighborhood with apartments you may have a different assumption 25 versus if you live in an R-1 neighborhood with single family houses. So I wonder if in the purpose in the 26 preamble to this it would be useful to clarify and I don’t have the exact language, but and maybe this is 27 not helpful, but to me it seems like the rhinoceros on the table and it’s, it would be useful to sort of be 28 clear about that. 29 30 Then I think a number of the public speakers were strongly encouraging us to incorporate a metric and 31 this may be part of the administrative regulations, but I think also this might be reflected in some hopeful 32 comment in the purpose, you know preamble in the 10.50.010 that we’d like to have a metric. And the 33 metric may somehow lead us to ensuring the availability of a certain minimal amount of parking 34 availability for emergency guest service deliveries and so forth. But that, that principle seems to be 35 important to the community and without getting into we’ll do it in the regulations I think as a statement 36 of purpose it might be, might be helpful to clarify. 37 38 And then I think, let’s see… on the administration of districts on Page 79 in our packet the 10.50.070 one 39 of the questions I had is just this concept of the issuance of permits is this citywide, is this going to be 40 generally issued to an individual or in some cases the Downtown is it going to be issued to an employer 41 who can then distribute the permit among different employees or what have you? And I know that for 42 example with medical insurance that you can get through your employer or you can get direct as an 43 individual if you’re getting something from your employer it may be a deductible expense for the 44 business, but if it’s paid by the individual with after tax dollars in healthcare has led to some problems, 45 but it’s more expensive if you’re paying it as an individual with after tax dollars versus if it’s an employer 46 buying it, deducting it as a business expense and then getting it. So some of the issues here in terms of 47 if the individual has a taint of some sort then you have to pay off the old parking tickets or something or 48 but what if you’re issuing parking, the permits to employer? So it seems to me to be, would be helpful if 49 you have conceptual if you want to in the alternative issue it to the organization or the business instead 50 of the individual. 51 52 And let me stop there for the first round. I didn’t time myself, but it’s probably three minutes worth and 53 go to my colleagues. Commissioner Alcheck. 54 55 16 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok so maybe we can pull up the slide that shows the map? For those of you that 1 don’t have one that’s this big (interrupted) 2 3 Ms. Gitelman: Chair Michael if I can interject for a moment? I’m sorry to interrupt, but I think we’re all 4 itching to get to the main event of the evening, which is the resolution. Which involves a map, a very 5 specific district, very specific proposal for Downtown and I wonder whether we should try and conclude 6 our discussion on the Ordinance with a Motion and an action and then move on or whether you’re like to 7 initiate the public hearing on the resolution and table action on the Ordinance until after that public 8 hearing, but I feel like we’re straying from one to the other without a clear (interrupted) 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: To be clear I was going to use this as an example about the Ordinance as a 11 whole (interrupted) 12 13 Chair Michael: So we’re going to get to that, but I wanted to make sure that Commissioner Alcheck had a 14 chance to ask, to address his comments that I cut him off earlier. 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: On the Ordinance. Ok. 17 18 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I the reason why I want to highlight the map is just simply it’s a very 19 visual reminder of where the boundary is and I want to just reiterate this one more time maybe just for 20 the sake that City Council may read our minutes and contemplate this, which is to say that one of our 21 speakers tonight said the adjacent streets should be allowed to opt in, which they are is an important 22 component. I just want to reiterate that when the community on one side of Lincoln for example decides 23 to implement a parking program it will directly and dramatically affect the other side of Lincoln. And so I 24 don’t it should come as a surprise that everybody in this little green patch here will soon not be in green 25 after we do this. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it shouldn’t be done. 26 27 The point I’m trying to make is that when the, when the boundary is too small allowing an adjacent 28 street to opt in without asking the street adjacent to the adjacent street what they think about it is kind 29 of a problem because that street, let’s use this overnight parking as an example, I can assure you that 30 the problem that was attempting to be addressed by this overnight parking affected 10, maybe less than 31 10 percent of the streets that are colored here. Now every one of these colored streets is paying for 32 permitted parking and that whether or not you think it’s a burden or not is an important factor. But the 33 streets that are for example recommended area or currently approved area join the conversation after 34 the streets that initiated the program were approved and those streets that didn’t have the problem that 35 then needed to have the protection didn’t get to say, wait a minute City Council, wait a minute Planning 36 Commission, if you let this street move their problem to ours… it created a balance of power problem. 37 And that’s why I think City Council needs to be considerate of this idea of boundaries. 38 39 And then the second comment I want to make is about the I want to respond to the privatization idea. I 40 don’t think this is about privatization. I think that’s a little bit of a red herring. I think this is about 41 facilitating the appropriate use of the curb space and I can’t say this strongly enough, if you can’t find 42 parking in front of your home or near, reasonably near your home that’s a major problem the City Council 43 should address and they shouldn’t take a year and a half to do it. And I’m very much in support of us 44 kind of speeding this process through and I and before you go labeling me a residentialist let me be clear 45 that I think that this problem is going to get worse because we have stuff coming down the pipe and I 46 want, I sort of have a hope that we can encourage sort of greater reinvestment in some of our aging 47 buildings without as much opposition because we’ve maybe addressed one of the problems that that 48 reinvestment poses. And so if, if that is my sort of overarching hope and so I, I don’t want to sort of add 49 a provision in the beginning about whether this is privatization or not because I think this is about 50 facilitation and I just I think you’re giving credence to this notion that maybe there is something immoral 51 about the, the fact that someone should be able to park in front of their home, so. 52 53 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 54 55 MOTION 56 17 1 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, I have a few quick comments and then I’d like to make a Motion. So, so I 2 guess the three quick comments that I have is first I know there’s a lot of metrics we’ve been talking 3 about metrics or criteria for getting into the program, but one of the metrics I think that’s important and I 4 know that the report touched on it a bit, but I think the metrics that’s also important is success metrics. 5 So what does success look like? And I think for each neighborhood it’s going to be different and so I 6 think that’s something that should be kind of set up ahead of time so as a program gets implemented 7 you can track against it and see like are we winning or losing here. 8 9 The second thing is and it’s something that my fellow Commissioner said and I think it’s actually really 10 true, but I think it does need to be cost neutral on a long term otherwise it’s not sustainable. So that’s, 11 that’s something that’s important. Third comment is the one that the Chair made, which is the 12 privatization question. I don’t have the answer to that, I don’t know I think that’s kind of a complex 13 question, but I think one thing to think about also is that most houses have some sort of curb cut in front 14 of their house and I think I forgot who, who [unintelligible] maybe Commissioner Alcheck, but by having 15 a curb cut in front of your house you’re in some ways reserving that spot for that house because that, 16 that driveway entrance is used for that house. So that’s, that’s kind of an interesting concept although 17 some houses don’t have that, but most, most do. 18 19 So my Motion is just quite simply that, that we recommend adoption of the ordinance by the City Council. 20 21 Chair Michael: Just to clarify there was a suggestion from Senior Deputy Attorney Cara Silver, I always 22 forget your title so I apologize, that we also direct the City Attorney to propose amendments to the 23 ordinance to permit the City Council to initiate an RPP application. Would your Motion include that 24 (interrupted) 25 26 Commissioner Tanaka: It does and I, I was kind of using shorthand, but yes please include that as well. 27 28 SECOND 29 30 Chair Michael: Ok. Is there a second? Commissioner Gardias. Commissioner Tanaka would you like to 31 speak further to your Motion? 32 33 Commissioner Tanaka: I don’t think I need to, but I again like I said I appreciate everyone’s work on this. 34 I think it’s been long and hard and it’s good that we’re getting to this point. 35 36 Chair Michael: Commissioner Gardias want to speak to your second? 37 38 Commissioner Gardias: No I don’t want to add anything. I think it’s self-explanatory. I think there was a 39 tremendous amount of work put into this and I think it’s time just to put it in front of the Council and 40 move on to further discussions. Thank you. 41 42 Chair Michael: Questions or comments from other Members of the Commission? 43 44 Commissioner Downing: I’d still really like to see an actual standard go in here. I’d like it to be clear 45 when you qualify for an RPP zone so that everyone knows when they reach that it’s not a question, it’s 46 not up for debate, we know when there’s a problem. 47 48 Chair Michael: Ok. So just to that to the new Commissioners if you’ve closely observed the Council or 49 Commission in the past if there’s as Motion and you feel it’s important to propose either a friendly 50 amendment, which may be accepted by the maker of the Motion or the seconder of the Motion or an 51 unfriendly amendment, which requires a second in and of itself and sets up a whole [nother] discussion 52 that’s part of our Commission procedure. So what I’m getting is there’s no proposed amendment to that 53 Motion (interrupted) 54 55 Commissioner Downing: Can I propose that as an amendment? 56 18 1 Chair Michael: Ok, what amendment would you propose? 2 3 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 4 5 Commissioner Downing: I would propose an objective standard for qualification for an RPP zone. 6 7 Chair Michael: And specifically where in the? 8 9 Commissioner Downing: I think in reference to it makes in the prioritization of application section. 10 11 Chair Michael: And that’s Section? 12 13 Commissioner Downing: So it’s Page 78 10.50.5(c). 14 15 Chair Michael: C? Staff do you have a comment on the idea that the prioritization would have sort of a 16 metric in that section? 17 18 Ms. Gitelman: Well, if I can try to explain and maybe Jessica can help me how this has been 19 conceptualized that I mean the idea is that neighborhoods will request establishment of a district and 20 provide their own data or evidence that there’s some kind of problem that needs to be addressed. The 21 prioritization would happen based on that input and information and once the prioritization happened and 22 it was decided that staff should move forward to analyze and work with stakeholders on the design of a 23 district the boundaries and the standards that would be in the procedures or the characteristics of that 24 district it would all be worked out specific to that district with the stakeholders at the table. And so if, if 25 you wanted to insert a citywide quantitative standard that all RPP districts would have to meet you could 26 certainly do that in the ordinance. I guess I wouldn’t do it in the prioritization section. I would do it 27 somewhere else in maybe designation criteria, but (interrupted) 28 29 Chair Michael: Here’s a thought, this is maybe the Commission shall consider if you inserted applicable 30 parking standards or applicable parking metrics as part of the things that may be considered how would 31 that work? Would that be ok? Without saying what the standard and the metric is, but the notion is that 32 we would seek to utilize standards and metrics as something that we might consider. 33 34 Ms. Gitelman: So if you’re suggesting that we simply clarify that that will be done by the Commission on 35 a district by district basis I think we could work with that, but I hear that Commissioner Downing is 36 interested in establishing one numeric standard that would apply to all districts. And if that’s the case I 37 would really recommend doing that in the designation criteria section although I would say that we did 38 consider that over the last year in our work and we decided that it was just not practical because there 39 are neighborhoods that are different than other neighborhoods and we might want to have the flexibility 40 of establishing a district that doesn’t meet a certain quantitative standard that might be appropriate for 41 example in Downtown. 42 43 Chair Michael: Ok so question for Commissioner Downing since there’s some sort of pushback on 44 amending prioritization of applications to include reference to a metric do you withdraw your Motion 45 [Note-amendment] or do you want to see if it attracts a second? 46 47 Commissioner Downing: I’d like to see if it can attract a second. I think that the point about street 48 annexation I think is a fair one because I think that anyone in an adjoining street could say I want to join 49 and soon enough the entire City is part of one zone. I don’t know how we would control that, how we 50 would say to someone yes you can or no you can’t if there’s no objective standard for whether or not 51 they should qualify. So I ask for a second. 52 53 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 FAILED 54 55 Chair Michael: Ok, ok is there a second? Seeing none so that it failed for lack of a second. 56 19 1 Commissioner Alcheck: I would like to make a friendly amendment though. 2 3 Chair Michael: Ok, so Commissioner Alcheck. 4 5 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 6 7 Commissioner Alcheck: I would like to make a friendly amendment that a provision be added that all 8 current trial parking permit programs be required to follow this process as well. So I think, I think there 9 is a if you haven’t heard it in my comments tonight I think that this, the process that you’re setting up 10 here to bring forward public engagement in determination of the permit boundaries, prioritization, 11 number of permits received, that whole process I think should, should take place for the Crescent Park 12 Overnight Trial Program, which is currently in trial. I know they extended the trial, but I don’t think 13 they’ve done it with the same public involvement that we’re contemplating here. And so I’d like to add a 14 provision to this Ordinance that suggests that current trial programs be required to follow this process. 15 16 Ms. Silver: Through the Chair, I think that that particular issue is an important one. It really hasn’t been 17 agendized as that. I have some discomfort with moving forward with that without more outreach to the 18 affected communities. 19 20 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck does that? 21 22 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m not specifically suggesting the Crescent Park Overnight Program, but I am 23 suggesting that programs that are not finalized. So I understand that we have parking permit programs 24 already in place in the City, but not all of them are trials and that’s if it’s, if you’re uncomfortable with it 25 then I’ll sort of stand down, but that’s sort of what I’m suggesting is that current trials be (interrupted) 26 27 Ms. Sullivan: So we have the only trial program we have currently is the Crescent Park Program and then 28 the College Terrace Program is the other RPP district that isn’t really a trial. So as far as tracking I think 29 the point you’re making is a good one. I’m concerned about well we’re sort of not to the resolution just 30 yet, but I think we’ll talk more about how we do intend to track permit sales and analytics for that 31 program. 32 33 Commissioner Alcheck: Let me just interrupt you. I’m saying this because you’re going to have two 34 parking permit programs run into each other, ok? So I know we’re not talking about Crescent Park 35 tonight, but that boundary is going to hit this boundary in quick order. And the what you’re, what we’re 36 going to review next is a very different parking permit program and I’m just concerned that we’ll have 37 two processes, one that basically sidetracked this whole process that didn’t involve community 38 roundtables, that didn’t have oversight, and one that did. And there’s a significant population that will be 39 affected, so again I don’t want to get into the specifics of that parking permit I just want to suggest that 40 my Motion is that we include a provision that requires current trials to also follow this process and even if 41 there aren’t a second to that I hope that City Council considers that or staff considers it because I think 42 we’re going to see them collide and so. 43 44 Chair Michael: So Commissioner Tanaka do you accept the friendly amendment? 45 46 Commissioner Tanaka: Was there a second? 47 48 Chair Michael: Well it’s a friendly amendment so it doesn’t require one so you can accept it or not. 49 50 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so in principle I like the idea. The only thing is it’s already in progress. So 51 does that mean we [roll] back? And… 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: I guess I sort of envision [unintelligible – off mike] I guess my vision here is that 54 if there was some what are you calling it? Not, I wouldn’t call it prioritization section, but whatever 55 determination is made to determine the boundary the number of permits permitted, the number of guest 56 20 permits permitted, that whole process has not occurred for a significant parking permit program that is 1 going look at the map… it’s literally going to collide. And that’s my concern is that on one side of the 2 street you’re going to have somebody that has four permits and on the other side two. And that, that 3 seems like a problem unless the community that is in the two had a chance to participate in a discussion 4 like this community did. So that’s, that’s what I’m suggesting that this College Terrace is ahead of the 5 game, but we’re about to see a lot of different communities try to maybe participate in this and I think 6 uniformity is important. 7 8 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. I think the logic makes sense, but I’d like to get staff’s point of view on this. 9 10 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, if I can interject? Thank you. Just an observation, again we’re not yet even to the 11 main event of the evening which is the consideration of the resolution about Downtown and I think once 12 we get there we’ll be able to explain the idea of a six month trial to start the program in which I think we 13 would learn whether the consequences that Commissioner Alcheck is fearing are going to come to fruition 14 and whether they need to be addressed. So the stakeholder group has designed a process where we’re 15 going to test how this program is going to work and we’re going to be able to make adjustments as 16 needed. So I hope that that concern will be addressed in our subsequent conversation and again we 17 really don’t feel like this issue would be appropriate to include in the Ordinance that’s before the 18 Commission at this moment. 19 20 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 REJECTED 21 22 Commissioner Tanaka: So I’m going to decline then. 23 24 VOTE 25 26 Chair Michael: Ok. So is that ok? Ok. Ok. So I think we’re ready to take a vote of the Commission on 27 the Motion to approve the recommendation for Council to adopt the RPP district Ordinance with the 28 proviso with respect to the City Attorney proposing amendments to the Ordinance to permit the Council 29 to initiate an RPP program. All in favor? Any opposed? So the Motion passes unanimously with 30 Commissioner [Note-Acting Vice Chair] Rosenblum absent. 31 32 MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum absent) 33 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5305) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/1/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Downtown RPP Resolution Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program in the Downtown Neighborhoods From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution Establishing a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program in the Downtown Neighborhoods (Attachment D). Executive Summary At the City Council’s direction, City staff has worked with a group of stakeholders over the past nine months on (1) a framework by which individual neighborhoods can petition to become RPP District within the City of Palo Alto, and (2) a program design for the first proposed RPP District for the Downtown neighborhoods. The attached resolution details this program design. The citywide framework for RPP Districts would be established via adoption of a proposed ordinance (detailed in staff report 5304, heard this same evening), which outlines the general process for a neighborhood to become an RPP district. The ordinance also requires neighborhood-specific resolutions to establish RPP program characteristics for individual neighborhoods. The proposed Downtown resolution would establish an RPP program for implementation in the Downtown neighborhoods via a phased program that would allow issuance of permits to both residents and employees in the first six months, and would then begin to scale back employee permit sales as more parking options become available. In summary: Phase One: 6 Months  Residents will get permits for free  The City will sell unlimited permits to Downtown employees; low-wage employees will be eligible for reduced-cost permits.  The City will collect data on the number of employees purchasing permits as well as the resulting parking occupancy within the neighborhoods. City of Palo Alto Page 2  Both residents and employees with valid permits can park anywhere within the proposed District boundary.  All permits distributed within Phase 1 would expire at the end of the 6 month period. Phase Two: 12+ Months  The City may limit employee permit sales based on data collected in Phase 1.  The City will sell up to 4 permits per residential address; the first one will be free of charge.  Residents with valid permits would be allowed to park anywhere within the District, while permits for Downtown employees will be for designed blocks so as to disperse employee parking throughout the District area. In both phases, permits will not be sold to individuals who do not live or work Downtown, and non-permit holders would still be able to park for 2 hours in any one parking spot. Enforcement of the program would be from 8AM to 5PM Monday through Friday. The resolution can be found in Attachment D. If adopted by Council the Resolution would go into effect immediately after the effective date of the implementing ordinance. Background On January 27, 2014, in response to increasing concern that non-resident parking in residential neighborhoods was negatively impacting neighborhood quality of life, the City Council directed staff to develop both (1) a citywide ordinance establishing uniform procedures for establishment of RPP districts, and (2) an RPP program design for the first “priority” neighborhood. Although many neighborhoods have expressed concern about similar parking issues, staff identified the Downtown neighborhoods as being the most severely impacted, and convened a “Downtown RPP Stakeholder” group in early March to help create the design of an RPP program for that area. In addition, Staff began work on a citywide ordinance which would detail the process by which all individual neighborhoods could pursue parking restrictions (RPP programs) within their neighborhoods. In parallel, Staff has moved forward on a significant number of parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)-related initiatives, summarized in staff report 5304. Available Data on Parking Demand & Occupancy In order to provide a context for decision-making around parking and related programs in the Downtown areas, the City has been collecting data on parking occupancy within the Downtown neighborhoods since 2011. Data shows that especially during the noon hour, many of the residential blocks adjacent to the Downtown core are becoming more and more saturated with cars. Attachment A shows the city-collected occupancy data from September 2014; during the hours from 12-2, much of the areas in and around Downtown are at least 86% occupied, with many blocks exceeding their capacity for parking (more cars are parking on the street than the street should ideally fit). While the city has good data about the number of vehicles parked on the streets at different hours, there is little data bout who is parking on the streets – residents, employees of Downtown, Caltrain parkers or Stanford parkers. Staff has calculated that the City of Palo Alto Page 3 displacement of vehicles within the neighborhood (e.g. the number of vehicles parked at midnight subtracted from the number of vehicles at noon) is estimated to be 1,700 – 1,900 vehicles, but this number includes some number of Downtown employees, some number of non-Downtown employees (e.g. Caltrain or Stanford parkers) and potentially some number of residents as well. In addition to the off-street parking studies, Staff has attempted to increase occupancies within the Downtown garages over the past year by raising the permit caps at Downtown garages (i.e. selling more and more permits). Since the beginning of 2014, Staff has made the following increases to permit caps at the four main Downtown garages: 1. Lot R: 230 permits to 330 permits (total permit spaces available = 134) 2. Lot S: 855 to 665 (total permit spaces available = 307) 3. Lot CC: 820 to 875 (total permit spaces available = 519) 4. Lot CW: 725 to 750 (total permit spaces available = 388) Nonetheless, at certain times of the day and year, the garages are still underutilized as parking in the neighborhoods is a close, free alternative. At other, peak times, many of the garages and lots are 90%-95% occupied. Attachment A also includes off-street occupancies for Downtown garages and lots from May 2014 – October 2014. Members of the community have expressed concerns that development activity continues to increase the unmet parking demand in the central core. (It is important to note, however, that the majority of the increased demand experienced in the last few years has been associated with the intensive use of existing buildings, rather than construction and occupancy of new spaces.) The Stakeholder Process The objective of an RPP program is to preserve neighborhood quality of life by ensuring adequate parking for residents. In some neighborhoods of the City, existing businesses and employees rely on street parking to supplement parking lots and garages. As this is especially the case with Downtown neighborhoods, the process for establishing an RPP District in the Downtown area included significant input of the business and employee constituents as well as residents. The Downtown Stakeholder Committee was comprised of 6 residents and 5 business owners and land owners of Downtown Palo Alto; the names of the stakeholders are listed in Attachment B. Beginning in March, the Downtown stakeholder group was originally slated to meet five times; however, due to the complexity of the program issues and varied opinions within the group, the number of meetings increased to nine. The meeting schedule, agendas and outcomes are listed in Figure 1. Figure 1: Meeting Schedule for Downtown RPP Stakeholder Group City of Palo Alto Page 4 Meeting Date Agenda Outcome Meeting #1 (March 20) Meeting Guidelines and Introductions; “RPP Issues” List Development Group created list of all of the program design elements that would need to be considered for the Downtown RPP, and came to agreement on conduct. Meet #2 (April 17) Recap and Refinement of all Issues into “Policy Questions”; Draft Policy Review Group was divided into subcommittees and assigned elements of the RPP program to design; Group also reviewed Boundaries of the District, Hours of Enforcement and Transferability of Permits. Meeting #3 (May 22) Review of Draft Policies Group came to consensus on an idea of allocating a certain percentage of spots within the Downtown neighborhoods to employees (20% of the available spots). Meeting #4 (June 19) Staff Feedback and Ordinance Update Staff provided feedback on the draft design, presented some draft alternative proposals, and presented Draft Ordinance; an alternative proposal for a “Trial” program to collect data received consensus. Meeting #5 (July 17) RPP Survey Review and Program design discussion, Continued Group provided input on survey design; Staff explained that the survey would be used to obtain a vote on (1) whether or not residents supported an RPP program, and (2) whether or not residents favored an allocation of employee parking within the Downtown neighborhoods, which was the group’s favored approach. Meeting #6 (July 31) Review survey and parking program updates Staff provided an overview of updates on parking programs, and group provided feedback City of Palo Alto Page 5 on survey. Meeting #7 (August 21) Review structure of Ordinance and parking program updates Staff provided an overview of updates on parking programs and structure of ordinance and resolution. Meeting #8 (September 17) Review schedule, group progress and draft Resolution Staff provided updates on all parking programs and RFPs, and reviewed the draft resolution with the Stakeholders. Stakeholders voted in favor of the idea of reduced-income permits for employees and pricing standard employee permits on par with Downtown garages. Meeting #9 (October 23) Review final resolution and ordinance Staff reviewed the survey results to date and discussed amending the proposed District boundary based on the survey results. Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, November 17, 2014 The group’s recommendations led to the development of both the citywide ordinance and Downtown Resolution. Detailed meeting notes for all nine meetings have been provided in Attachment B. Summary of Key Issues Initially staff had proposed to create a citywide ordinance that would serve as an umbrella document for resolutions specific to any neighborhood that would address the particular characteristics of an RPP program for that neighborhood. Preliminary feedback from the stakeholders on the draft ordinance suggested that it was too complex, and also that different neighborhoods might have unique circumstances that didn’t lend themselves well to uniform, citywide criteria. For this reason Staff has suggested simplifying the framework into the following three components: 1. A simplified citywide ordinance, which establishes the criteria about how a neighborhood proposes to become an RPP District; 2. A neighborhood-specific resolution, which outlines the characteristics of a particular neighborhood program, including cost of permits, number of permits issued, hours of enforcement, program boundaries, etc. and; 3. Administrative regulations (to be developed after adoption of the citywide ordinance), which would outline criteria for the required response rate for RPP implementation, City of Palo Alto Page 6 requirements for how occupancy surveys and petitions are conducted, and other detailed criteria and procedures. The specifics of the proposed resolution are discussed in this staff report, while a discussion of the ordinance and administrative regulations are found in staff report 5304. Summary of Proposed Downtown RPP Program and Resolution Over the eight months of meetings, the stakeholder group discussed all aspects of a potential RPP District in the Downtown neighborhoods. Topics included the boundaries of the district, what level of enforcement should be implemented, how many permits should be available to residents, how many permits should be made available to employees, the “opt‐in” process for streets within the district, hours of enforcement, and how much permits should cost. The group also deliberated on how the program might evolve over time, and discussed various other parking initiatives. The most polarizing issue for the group was how to handle employee permit sales within the Downtown District. Resident stakeholders felt that the level of employee parking within the neighborhoods had become untenable, while business leaders, although understanding of the resident point of view, were concerned that employees still needed somewhere to park. Despite many differences of opinion within the group, the stakeholders were able to come to agreement on many of the program’s characteristics, including a phased implementation program in which phase one is used to collect data and fine tune characteristics of future phases. The proposed Downtown RPP program is summarized and discussed in detail below. Phase One: 6 Months  During the 6-month first phase of the program, the City will allow unlimited permit sales to Downtown employees, and collect data on the number of employees purchasing permits as well as the resulting parking occupancy within the neighborhoods.  The City will not allow permit purchase for individuals who do not live or work Downtown.  Both residents and employees with valid permits can park anywhere within the proposed District boundary during this phase.  Residents will get permits for free during this phase.  Low-income employees can purchase employee permits for $50 for the 6-month period, while the standard employee permit would be equivalent to the cost of a Downtown garage permit ($233 for the 6 months).  All permits sold within Phase 1 would expire at the end of the 6 month period.  Hours of enforcement would be from 8AM to 5PM Monday through Friday, and only permit holders would be allowed to park for more than two hours during these hours. Phase Two: 12+ Months  The City will monitor and make changes to the program design based on data collected in Phase 1, including limiting employee permit sales if necessary. City of Palo Alto Page 7  The City will sell up to 4 permits per residential address, with the first one at no cost and additional permits at $50 each.  Permits for Downtown employees will be dedicated to specific blocks during Phase 2, in order to disperse employee parking throughout the District area. Residents with valid permits would be allowed to park anywhere within the District.  Low-income employees can purchase employee permits for $100 annually, while the standard employee permit would be equivalent to the cost of a Downtown garage permit ($466 annually).  As parking supplies in the Downtown core increase and commuters shift to other modes of transportation, the City would sell fewer permits to Downtown employees. The proposed program allows the City to be flexible in managing permit sales and responsive to occupancy conditions in the neighborhoods while additional parking supply and transportation solutions are being developed. Details of the discussions which led to this program design are provided below. Recommendations from the Stakeholders on Downtown Program Design 1. Phased Approach: The recommendation for a phased program approach came from a number of stakeholders who felt that the City did not possess adequate data about who was parking in the neighborhoods to be able to fairly and adequately limit employee permit sales at the outset of the program. Many stakeholders shared a concern that there were a number of motorists parking within Downtown who did not live or work within the Downtown; e.g. Caltrain or Stanford parkers, and felt that a phased approach would eliminate these parkers while giving the City valuable information about how many employees remained and would need to be accommodated, either through access to RPP permits, Downtown garage and lot permits, or other modes of transit. Those who opposed the phased approach felt that it would not give enough immediate relief to the neighborhoods. The idea of a “trial” permit program where residents and employees received free permits received a level of consent within the group (the original vote was 9: Yea, 1: No and 1: Abstain). Three stakeholders subsequently withdrew their support for this approach, but ultimately the majority of the group felt that the merits of some kind of phased approach outweighed the potential downsides as long as immediate improvement in the neighborhoods could be achieved. (2) Boundaries of the Downtown RPP District: The stakeholder group proposed originally that the District boundaries for the Downtown RPP District should run from Palo Alto Avenue to the north, Alma to the west, Embarcadero to the south and Guinda Avenue to the east. However, based on survey results gauging resident interest in an RPP program, Staff recommends modifying the proposed District boundary so that areas south of Lincoln Avenue and East of Bryant Street are not initially included in the program, as resident support in this area was much less than it was in areas close to Downtown. Only the 300-400 blocks of Lincoln Avenue will be included in the revised boundary (as suggested by the Planning and Transportation Commission), because the City of Palo Alto Page 8 500, 600 and 700 block were overwhelmingly not in favor of the program based on the survey results. (3) Number of permits for residents and cost: The stakeholder’s overall recommendation was that all participants, both employees and residents, should have “skin in the game” and pay for permits. The City recommended charging $50 annually per permit in the resident survey, but received an overwhelming response that residents did not feel they should pay for permits. In response, the City modified the recommendation so that residents would not need to pay for permits during Phase 1 and that during Phase 2, they could receive one permit for free and purchase up to 3 additional permits at $50 each. (4) Method of permit sales: The group agreed that permits should be made available online. The City released an RFP for third-party hosting of online permit sales to support the RPP District and is in the process of evaluating the proposals. (5) Level of support from residents: The group discussed what level of resident support for an RPP program should be required by the City for a neighborhood to become an RPP District. Many of the residents felt that the threshold of support for a program should be just over 50% (50% + 1); while some others in the group felt that the threshold of support should be 55%. All agreed that 70% (a super majority) was too high and would make it too difficult to get an RPP program passed. The group also suggested not having a minimum response rate to an RPP vote. The City of Menlo Park, Berkeley and San Francisco all reference a 51% vote for a District to be considered by Council, while other cities, like Santa Monica, require 66% support from at least 50% of the households on the block. The level of support required in Palo Alto districts will be set forth in the administrative guidelines for the program. (6) Transferability of permits: The group was strongly in favor of the idea that employee permits should be transferable within a business, and residential permits should be transferable within a household to help accommodate guests. Staff is concerned about increase of permit fraud when a permit is not tied to a specific vehicle; however, at the direction of the Planning Commission, Staff will be working with the online permit sales vendor and enforcement vendor to determine permit options which would allow employee permits to be transferable. (7) Other types of permits: The group recommended that residents be able to purchase an annual guest permit, which could be used by a nanny or other service worker, as well as one-time visitor permits, to accommodate overnight guests or events. It was also suggested by some businesses that there be a “guest employee” permit which could be purchased for visitors to an office. The current proposal allows residents to purchase up to 2 annual guest permits per household and up to 50 visitor permits per year. City of Palo Alto Page 9 (8) The cost of the employee permits: The group came to consensus on the idea that pricing levels should be introduced into employee permit costs to provide for lower income workers. Staff reached out to a number of local businesses and determined that the provision of an annual permit at a cost of $100 would be feasible for many of their hourly employees. Staff is investigating specific household or individual income ranges suggested by the state to determine an appropriate income-based permit solution; the “low-income” wage level would be defined prior to the implementation of Phase 1 and codified in administrative regulations. The group voted in favor of recommending that the “professional”-level employee permit be kept at or above the price of the garage employee permit to encourage these employees to park in the garages rather than the neighborhoods. However, the group was split on whether or not to charge employees during Phase 1: the 6 residents voted in favor of charging employees during Phase 1 and Phase 2, while 4 business leaders (100% of those present) voted that permits should be free for employees during Phase 1. (9) Hours of Enforcement: 74% of the respondents to the RPP survey felt that the hours of enforcement should be 8:00am – 5:00pm in all areas, and Staff recommends moving forward with these hours, which can be modified in certain areas if necessary. Another issue which was discussed amongst the stakeholder group but did not receive consensus was about allowing a two hour restriction for motorists without permits. Some within the group felt that two hour parking should be an absolute restriction within the District (e.g. a person should only be able to park for two hours within the entire District without a permit), while others felt that not allowing motorists to move their cars to another spot in the District after two hours was too restrictive. Staff recommends that at least initially, parking without a permit should be allowed for 2 hours in any one space, at which point a car would need to be moved. If this design results in motorists moving cars from spot to spot during Phase 1, staff can make a modification to the program in Phase 2. (10) Designation of Employee Spots within the District: An early proposal which received some level of consensus from the group was the idea that “employee” spots be physically designated within the neighborhoods in order to better disperse employee parking away from Downtown. Staff had concerns about the data collection and outreach process required for such a designation but recognized the need to evenly disperse employee parking throughout the District. Although employees can park anywhere within the District during Phase 1, during Phase 2 employee parking would be regulated by allocating employee permits to a block face or some other method of evenly distributing employee permits. (11) Prioritization of Permit Sales during Phase 2: The group discussed the idea that during Phase 2, it might be possible for there to be a “waiting list” for employee permits, similar to the waiting list at lots and garages. Staff proposed within the resolution that if this was the case, the Planning Director could give priority to lower-wage employees. City of Palo Alto Page 10 The Planning and Transportation Commission indicated their desire to be involved in the prioritization discussion, and this section of the resolution has been revised to reflect this change and to reference an applicable State law. The Downtown RPP Survey City staff distributed a survey to residents of the proposed RPP District (approximately 4591 households) on August 18th. In addition to providing an FAQ and link to a website where more complete information could be found on the development of the RPP program and other parking programs, the survey asked three main questions: (1) Whether or not the resident supported the idea of an RPP program; (2) Whether the resident favored a program where employees were given specific spots in which to park within the neighborhoods (which referred to the Stakeholder’s preferred approach, where it was recommended that the City should designate no more than 20% of the parking spots within the District for employees), and (3) What the hours of enforcement of the District should be. A copy of the survey has been provided in Attachment C. As of November 3, 738 households within the Palo Alto Downtown area have responded to the survey in favor of an RPP program, while 728 households have responded against the program (responding to question #1). There was not strong support for the idea of designating “Employee” spots on neighborhood streets (question #2); many were concerned that they would not be able to park in these spots during the day, and didn’t want those spots in front of their houses. Other written feedback from more than 140 households that opposed the program was that residents did not feel that they should have to pay for permits. In response to question #3, most respondents favored 8:00am – 5:00pm enforcement hours. The City recommends releasing another survey during Phase 1 of the program to confirm resident support of a Downtown RPP, as the initial survey was designed to solicit feedback on the design of a potential program as well as to gauge general support of a program. Planning and Transportation Commission Feedback On November 12, 2014, the PTC reviewed the draft resolution and directed Staff to make some minor edits, which included cleaning up some inconsistent language, clarifying transferability of permits for employees, language on prioritization and edits to the proposed boundary. Staff’s updates to the resolution are provided in tracked changes to Attachment D. The edits include clarifying the phased approach of the proposed program , providing clarity that employee permits are intended to be transferable, requiring the Planning Director to confer with the PTC prior to setting the initial employee permit caps for Phase 2 of the program, and including the 300 and 400 block of Lincoln within the proposed boundary for Phase 1. Additional comments from Downtown residents and business leaders have been provided in Attachment G. RPP Program Implementation The City has released two RFPs in support of a potential Downtown RPP program; one, a solicitation for online permit sales, and two, a solicitation for contract enforcement of the City of Palo Alto Page 11 Downtown District. Bids for these contracts have been received and staff is in the process of evaluating the vendor proposals. Additionally, the City has gathered information on existing signage within the proposed RPP District area to determine potential permit sign locations for the program. Attachment E shows a timeline of a projected implementation for a Downtown RPP; if contracts are awarded in December and January, enforcement of a new RPP District could occur as early as April of 2015. Staff will benefit from continued participation and assistance from interested stakeholders throughout the implementation and first phase of the program. Resource Impacts The implementation of an RPP program Downtown has both capital and operating expenses, including staff time, enforcement costs, online permit sales vendor, signage and other administrative costs. During Phase 1, there will be no revenue expected from resident permits, which will be offered for free, and costs will be higher than for the program in subsequent years, because of the one-time expenditures associated with signage installation and the follow-up survey creation and distribution. Figure 2 shows estimated costs for the program including one-time costs and expected ongoing costs Figure 2: Estimated Downtown RPP Gross Costs Expenses One-Time Costs Ongoing Costs Notes Installation of Signage $250,000 $10,000 Costs estimated by City staff for signage fabrication and installation, prior to Phase 1 Contract Enforcement N/A Between $200,000 and $500,000 per year Based on bids received from enforcement contractors Online Permit Sales Startup Costs and Hosting Between $66,000 and $327,000 for the first year $40,000 to $200,000 per year Based on bids received for online permit sales, including customer service and permit distribution Expected Staff Costs N/A Approximately $120,000 annually Includes costs associated with staff time from Transportation, Revenue Collections and Police Department. Staff cost estimates are based on preliminary estimates and will be refined further. Other Administrative Costs $30,000 $15,000 Kiosk for lobby to purchase permits, City of Palo Alto Page 12 printing, marketing costs, survey during Phase 1, community meeting supplies TOTAL Between $346,000 and $607,000 in start-up costs $380,000- $845,000 annually Will depend on vendor selection The Planned Community (PC) project at 101 Lytton provided $250,000 for establishment of neighborhood preservation projects. Because no other funding has been set aside for this purpose, Staff is proposing to use these funds for one-time capital signage expenses as outlined above in order to mitigate the impact to the City’s General Fund. Staff will return to Council in January or February with a Budget Amendment Ordinance for the signage contract. Revenues associated with the program will depend on resident and employee permit sales as well as the cost of permits and citation revenue. It is difficult to estimate what these revenues will be; however, it is expected that at least for the first 6 to 12 months the revenues will be minimal. Figure 3 shows estimated revenues associated with the program during Phase 2 with example values for number of permits sold and citation revenues. Figure 3: Estimated Downtown RPP Gross Revenues (Phase 2) Expenses # of Permits Sold Cost per Permit Total Notes Resident Permit Sales 9,000 $50 $225,000 Assumes that after the first six months, each household receives one permit free and pays for 1 permit, per proposal Low Wage Employee Permit Sales 200 $100 $20,000 Assumes 200 low- wage permit sales; conservative estimate Standard Employee Permit Sales 100 $466 $46,600 Assumes 100 standard employee permits are sold Guest Permits 4,500 $50 $225,000 Assumes each household purchases 1 guest permit Citation Revenue $30,000 Estimate only TOTAL $516,600 Estimated revenues only Total revenues will depend on number of permits sold, cost of permits and citation revenues. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Staff will return to Council with recommendations for the contracts for online permit sales and contract enforcement, which will require Budget Amendment Ordinances (BAOs). Staff will also return to Council requesting creation of a CIP for the start-up costs associated with RPP programs, accompanied by a BAO to move the $250,000 from 101 Lytton to the new RPP CIP. Policy Implications The implementation of a Downtown RPP District would require creation of a new City-wide ordinance allowing neighborhood-specific resolutions, and is consistent with the three-pronged approach Staff have presented to optimize parking within the Downtown core. It is also consistent with the following comprehensive plan goals: 1. Goal T-8, Program T-49: Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto 2. Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts Environmental Review Adoption of a citywide ordinace and a resolution establishing an RPP district in downtown Palo Alto are both exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. Attachments:  Attachment A: Occupancy Studies (PDF)  Attachment B: Stakeholder Meeting Notes and Contacts (PDF)  Attachment C: Survey (PDF)  Attachment D: RESO for Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Districts (PDF)  Attachment E: Timeline (PDF)  Attachment F: Planning and Transportation Commission Draft Excerpt Minutes of November 12, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment G: Correspondence (PDF)  Attachment H: Documents received from Neilson Buchanan, November 24, 2014 (PDF)  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 3/12/2014 Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 0 134 134 294 394 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 10AM 72 94% 120 90%10AM 0% 91 68%10AM 256 87% 289 73% Noon 77 100% 134 100%Noon 0% 117 87%Noon 269 91% 322 82% 4PM 73 95% 141 105%4PM 0% 108 81%4PM 211 72% 340 86% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 187 519 706 63 63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 10AM 0%0%10AM 102 55% 290 56%10AM 41 53%0% Noon 138 69% 314 81%Noon 174 93% 350 67%Noon 50 65%0% 4PM 73 36% 343 88%4PM 177 95% 415 80%4PM 53 69%0% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 10 53 63 78 0 78 68 0 68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 10AM 5 50% 24 45%10AM 25 32%0%10AM 15 22%0% Noon 7 70% 35 66%Noon 76 97%0%Noon 66 97%0% 4PM 0%0%4PM 77 99%0%4PM 64 94%0% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 46 0 46 90 0 90 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 10AM 25 100% 24 89%10AM 30 65%0%10AM 56 62%0% Noon 25 100% 27 100%Noon 45 98%0%Noon 60 67%0% 4PM 23 92% 8 30%4PM 31 67%0%4PM 47 52%0% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 15 41 56 86 0 86 51 0 51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 10AM 7 47% 38 93%10AM 34 40%0%10AM 23 45%0% Noon 11 73% 39 95%Noon 56 65%0%Noon 51 100%0% 4PM 4 27% 36 88%4PM 62 72%0%4PM 50 98%0% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 48 0 48 0 36 36 0 34 34 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 10AM 34 71%0%10AM 0% 12 33%10AM n/a 0% 30 88% Noon 48 100%0%Noon 0% 23 64%Noon n/a 0% 26 76% 4PM 48 100%0%4PM 0% 22 61%4PM n/a 0% 25 74% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 0 5353 28 2452 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 10AM 0% 32 60%10AM 19 68% 10 42% Noon 0% 34 64%Noon 27 96% 11 46% 4PM 0% 30 57%4PM 21 75% 8 33% Lot C Period Period Lot R Period Wednesday, 3/12/14Wednesday, 3/12/14 Period Lot Q Lot S/L Wednesday, 3/12/14 Period Period CW CC Period Lot B Period Lot O Emerson High Period 800 High Lot A Emerson Lytton Period Lot H Period Period Lot F Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Wednesday, 3/12/14 Period Period Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman BryantLot X‐ Sheraton Period Period Lot T Period Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Lot K Period Wednesday, 3/12/14 Downtown Parking Structure Capacity Use Trends ‐ Hourly and Permit Parking Spaces  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot Q Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 ‐134 134 294 394 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 17 22% 70 52%8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 48 36%8 am ‐ 10 am 82 28% 151 38% Noon ‐ 2 pm 76 99% 145 108%Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 115 86%Noon ‐ 2 pm 292 99% 308 78% 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 77 100% 126 94%7 pm ‐ 9 pm ‐NA 67 50%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 297 101% 177 45% Midnight ‐ 2 am 9 12% 20 15%Midnight ‐ 2 am 0 NA 18 13%Midnight ‐ 2 am 12 4% 18 5% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 187 519 706 63 ‐63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 51 25% 191 49%8 am ‐ 10 am 182 97% 117 23%8 am ‐ 10 am 27 43%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 182 91% 292 75%Noon ‐ 2 pm 186 99% 365 70%Noon ‐ 2 pm 55 87%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 156 78% 80 21%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 174 93% 349 67%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 63 100%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 27 13% 15 4%Midnight ‐ 2 am 22 12% 77 15%Midnight ‐ 2 am 15 24%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 78 ‐78 68 ‐68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 11 44% 6 22%8 am ‐ 10 am 16 21%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 7 10%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 25 100% 26 96%Noon ‐ 2 pm 68 87%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 58 85%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 25 100% 22 81%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 78 100%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 51 75%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 5 20% 2 7%Midnight ‐ 2 am 17 22%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 11 16%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 15 41 56 46 ‐46 90 ‐90 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 2 13% 26 63%8 am ‐ 10 am 5 11%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 31 34%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 8 53% 39 95%Noon ‐ 2 pm 45 98%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 63 70%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 14 93% 21 51%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 45 98%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 86 96%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 0 0% 2 5%Midnight ‐ 2 am 0 0%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 4 4%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 48 ‐48 86 ‐86 51 ‐51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 24 50%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 24 28%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 11 22%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 46 96%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 67 78%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 47 92%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 48 100%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 84 98%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 51 100%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 10 21%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 4 5%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 9 18%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 05353 NANANA ‐34 34 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 25 47%8 am ‐ 10 am 0 NANANA 8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 25 74% Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 37 70%Noon ‐ 2 pm 15 NA NA NA Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 32 94% 7 pm ‐ 9 pm ‐NA 25 47%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 14 NA NA NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm ‐NA 19 56% Midnight ‐ 2 am ‐NA 7 13%Midnight ‐ 2 am 1 NA NA NA Midnight ‐ 2 am ‐NA 3 9% Hourly Permit Total 28 24 52 Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 1 4% 4 17% Noon ‐ 2 pm 27 96% 14 58% 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 26 93% 20 83% Midnight ‐ 2 am 0 0% 2 8% Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period Period Lot O Emerson High Note: Valet parking at this location; cars were being double‐parked. Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot C Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period WC Period Lot S/L Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 CC Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot B Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period Lot A Emerson Lytton Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot HLot F Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman BryantLot M Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot T Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot K Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot R Downtown Parking Structure Capacity Use Trends ‐ Hourly and Permit Parking Spaces  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 4/25, 2014 Lot Q Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 ‐134 134 381 307 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 33 43% 89 66%8 am ‐ 10 am N/A NA 48 36%8 am ‐ 10 am 169 44% 151 49% Noon ‐ 2 pm 69 90% 99 74%Noon ‐ 2 pm N/A NA 115 86%Noon ‐ 2 pm 174 46% 308 100% 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 75 97% 76 57%4 pm ‐ 6 pm N/A NA 67 50%4 pm ‐ 6 pm 302 79% 177 58% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 187 519 706 63 ‐63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 41 20% 289 74%8 am ‐ 10 am 146 78% 124 24%8 am ‐ 10 am 12 19%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 90 45% 321 83%Noon ‐ 2 pm 175 94% 287 55%Noon ‐ 2 pm 45 71%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 105 52% 360 93%4 pm ‐ 6 pm 180 96% 239 46%4 pm ‐ 6 pm 39 62%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 78 ‐78 68 ‐68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 18 72% 10 37%8 am ‐ 10 am 45 58%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 44 65%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 24 96% 27 100%Noon ‐ 2 pm 66 85%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 42 62%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 24 96% 24 89%4 pm ‐ 6 pm 78 100%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 61 90%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 15 41 56 46 ‐46 90 ‐90 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 10 67% 28 68%8 am ‐ 10 am 42 91%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 67 74%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 13 87% 32 78%Noon ‐ 2 pm 34 74%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 69 77%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 14 93% 36 88%4 pm ‐ 6 pm 35 76%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 85 94%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 48 ‐48 86 ‐86 51 ‐51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 6 13%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 68 79%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 34 67%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 41 85%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 80 93%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 39 76%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 39 81%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 78 91%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 17 33%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 05353 NA36NA ‐34 34 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 23 43%8 am ‐ 10 am N/A NA 23 64%8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 21 62% Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 26 49%Noon ‐ 2 pm N/A NA 27 75%Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 24 71% 4 pm ‐ 6 pm ‐NA 24 45%4 pm ‐ 6 pm N/A NA 14 39%4 pm ‐ 6 pm ‐NA 26 76% Hourly Permit Total 28 24 52 Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 22 79% 18 75% Noon ‐ 2 pm 18 64% 19 79% 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 15 54% 20 83% Period Friday, April 25 Period Period Lot O Emerson High Friday, April 25Friday, April 25 Lot C Period Lot S/L Friday, April 25 Period Friday, April 25 Period WC CC Friday, April 25 Friday, April 25 Lot B Period Friday, April 25 Period Lot A Emerson Lytton Period Friday, April 25 Lot H Period Friday, April 25 Period Friday, April 25 Lot F Friday, April 25 Period Friday, April 25 Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Friday, April 25 Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman BryantLot X ‐ Sheraton Period Friday, April 25 Period Friday, April 25 Period Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Friday, April 25 Lot T Period Friday, April 25 Lot K Period Friday, April 25 Lot R Downtown Parking Structure Capacity Use Trends ‐ Hourly and Permit Parking Spaces  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Lot Q Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 ‐134 134 294 394 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 34 44% 55 41%8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 43 32%8 am ‐ 10 am 103 35% 131 33% Noon ‐ 2 pm 78 101% 137 102%Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 109 81%Noon ‐ 2 pm 311 106% 291 74% 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 79 103% 126 94%7 pm ‐ 9 pm ‐NA 63 47%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 304 103% 162 41% Midnight ‐ 2 am 8 10% 14 10%Midnight ‐ 2 am ‐NA 11 8%Midnight ‐ 2 am 10 3% 16 4% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 187 519 706 63 ‐63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 103 51% 182 47%8 am ‐ 10 am 42 22% 312 60%8 am ‐ 10 am 19 30%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 169 84% 362 93%Noon ‐ 2 pm 184 98% 442 85%Noon ‐ 2 pm 62 98%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 164 82% 106 27%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 185 99% 396 76%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 60 95%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 27 13% 22 6%Midnight ‐ 2 am 28 15% 86 17%Midnight ‐ 2 am 9 14%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 78 ‐78 68 ‐68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 6 24% 3 11%8 am ‐ 10 am 8 10%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 6 9%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 24 96% 26 96%Noon ‐ 2 pm 74 95%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 67 99%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 25 100% 27 100%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 78 100%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 68 100%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 5 20% 6 22%Midnight ‐ 2 am 18 23%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 17 25%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 15 41 56 46 ‐46 90 ‐90 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 2 13% 16 39%8 am ‐ 10 am 8 17%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 35 39%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 13 87% 34 83%Noon ‐ 2 pm 43 93%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 66 73%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 13 87% 12 29%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 48 104%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 83 92%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 1 7% 2 5%Midnight ‐ 2 am 2 4%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 10 11%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 48 ‐48 86 ‐86 51 ‐51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 29 60%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 23 27%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 10 20%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 47 98%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 84 98%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 50 98%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 48 100%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 81 94%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 48 94%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 12 25%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 3 3%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 5 10%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 05353 ‐34 34 0 31 31 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 29 55%8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 13 38%8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 7 23% Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 29 55%Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 28 82%Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 22 71% 7 pm ‐ 9 pm ‐NA 33 62%7 pm ‐ 9 pm ‐NA 25 74%7 pm ‐ 9 pm ‐NA 15 48% Midnight ‐ 2 am ‐NA 7 13%Midnight ‐ 2 am ‐NA 1 3%Midnight ‐ 2 am ‐NA 3 10% Hourly Permit Total 28 24 52 Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 7 25% 4 17% Noon ‐ 2 pm 20 71% 12 50% 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 19 68% 19 79% Midnight ‐ 2 am 0 0% 1 4% Note: Lot X was observed to have a total of 31 spaces. Lot X Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Period Lot O Emerson High Note: Valet parking at this location; cars were being double‐parked. Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Lot C Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period WC Period Lot S/L Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 CC Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Lot B Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Lot A Emerson Lytton Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Lot HLot F Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman Bryant Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Lot T Lot K Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Lot R Downtown Parking Structure Capacity Use Trends ‐ Hourly and Permit Parking Spaces  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 7/15, 2014 Lot Q Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 ‐134 134 381 307 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9 am ‐ 11 am 68 88% 128 96%9 am ‐ 11 am N/A NA 106 79%9 am ‐ 11 am 127 33% 240 78% Noon ‐ 2 pm 76 99% 133 99%Noon ‐ 2 pm N/A NA 113 84%Noon ‐ 2 pm 260 68% 277 90% 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 72 94% 115 86%3 pm ‐ 5 pm N/A NA 107 80%3 pm ‐ 5 pm 187 49% 259 84% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 187 519 706 63 ‐63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9 am ‐ 11 am 47 23% 224 58%9 am ‐ 11 am 63 34% 304 59%9 am ‐ 11 am 56 89%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 171 85% 339 87%Noon ‐ 2 pm 138 74% 375 72%Noon ‐ 2 pm 55 87%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 115 57% 333 86%3 pm ‐ 5 pm 116 62% 386 74%3 pm ‐ 5 pm 55 87%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 78 ‐78 68 ‐68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9 am ‐ 11 am 17 68% 12 44%9 am ‐ 11 am 21 27%‐NA 9 am ‐ 11 am 19 28%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 22 88% 24 89%Noon ‐ 2 pm 68 87%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 58 85%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 21 84% 12 44%3 pm ‐ 5 pm 55 71%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 37 54%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 15 41 56 46 ‐46 90 ‐90 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9 am ‐ 11 am 3 20% 36 88%9 am ‐ 11 am 14 30%‐NA 9 am ‐ 11 am 38 42%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 12 80% 34 83%Noon ‐ 2 pm 38 83%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 65 72%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 3 20% 33 80%3 pm ‐ 5 pm 13 28%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 44 49%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 48 ‐48 86 ‐86 51 ‐51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9 am ‐ 11 am 40 83%‐NA 9 am ‐ 11 am 23 27%‐NA 9 am ‐ 11 am 26 51%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 46 96%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 70 81%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 39 76%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 47 98%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 61 71%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 43 84%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 05353 NA36NA ‐34 34 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9 am ‐ 11 am ‐NA 29 55%9 am ‐ 11 am N/A NA 12 33%9 am ‐ 11 am ‐NA 17 50% Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 31 58%Noon ‐ 2 pm N/A NA 14 39%Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 31 91% 3 pm ‐ 5 pm ‐NA 25 47%3 pm ‐ 5 pm N/A NA 14 39%3 pm ‐ 5 pm ‐NA 28 82% Hourly Permit Total 28 24 52 Hourly % Permit % 9 am ‐ 11 am 10 36% 5 21% Noon ‐ 2 pm 25 89% 11 46% 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 16 57% 9 38% Lot R Lot K Period Tuesday, July 15 Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Tuesday, July 15 Lot T Period Tuesday, July 15 Period Tuesday, July 15 Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman BryantLot X ‐ Sheraton Period Tuesday, July 15 Period Tuesday, July 15 Period Lot F Tuesday, July 15 Period Tuesday, July 15 Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Tuesday, July 15 Period Tuesday, July 15 Period Tuesday, July 15 Lot H Period Tuesday, July 15 Period Lot A Emerson Lytton Tuesday, July 15 Tuesday, July 15 Lot B Period Lot S/L Tuesday, July 15 Period Tuesday, July 15 Period Period Lot O Emerson High Tuesday, July 15Tuesday, July 15 Lot C Period Tuesday, July 15 Period WC CC Downtown Parking Structure Capacity Use Trends ‐ Hourly and Permit Parking Spaces  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 8/12, 2014 Lot Q Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 ‐134 134 381 307 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 64 83% 96 72%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am N/A NA 75 56%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 108 28% 179 58% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 59 77% 126 94%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm N/A NA 108 81%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 222 58% 282 92% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 67 87% 105 78%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm N/A NA 102 76%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 184 48% 259 84% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 183 509 692 63 ‐63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 39 19% 205 53%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 29 16% 281 55%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 49 78%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 138 69% 346 89%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 157 86% 360 71%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 52 83%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 97 48% 355 91%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 149 81% 347 68%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 56 89%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 78 ‐78 68 ‐68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 11 44% 14 52%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 16 21%‐NA 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 16 24%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 20 80% 22 81%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 60 77%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 61 90%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 23 92% 18 67%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 38 49%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 45 66%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 12 42 54 46 ‐46 91 ‐91 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 2 17% 28 67%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 14 30%‐NA 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 19 21%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 6 50% 34 81%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 31 67%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 41 45%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 3 25% 32 76%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 25 54%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 41 45%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 46 ‐46 86 ‐86 51 ‐51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 33 72%‐NA 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 22 26%‐NA 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 21 41%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 47 102%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 75 87%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 37 73%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 46 100%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 67 78%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 40 78%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 05353 NA31NA ‐34 34 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am ‐NA 28 53%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am N/A NA 18 58%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am ‐NA 7 21% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm ‐NA 35 66%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm N/A NA 27 87%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm ‐NA 26 76% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm ‐NA 31 58%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm N/A NA 23 74%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm ‐NA 27 79% Hourly Permit Total 28 24 52 Hourly % Permit % 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 10 36% 3 13% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 22 79% 15 63% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 13 46% 13 54% Period Tuesday, August 12 Period Period Lot O Emerson High Tuesday, August 12Tuesday, August 12 Lot C Period Tuesday, August 12 Period WC CC Period Lot S/L Tuesday, August 12 Tuesday, August 12 Lot B Period Tuesday, August 12 Period Lot A Emerson Lytton Tuesday, August 12 Tuesday, August 12 Period Tuesday, August 12 Lot HLot F Tuesday, August 12 Period Tuesday, August 12 Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Tuesday, August 12 Period Period Tuesday, August 12 Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman BryantLot X ‐ Sheraton Period Tuesday, August 12 Period Tuesday, August 12 Period Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Tuesday, August 12 Lot T Period Tuesday, August 12 Lot K Period Tuesday, August 12 Lot R Downtown Parking Structure Capacity Use Trends ‐ Hourly and Permit Parking Spaces  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 9/10, 2014 Lot Q Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 ‐134 134 381 307 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 60 78% 123 92%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am N/A NA 93 69%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 90 24% 242 79% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 70 91% 160 119%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm N/A NA 120 90%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 286 75% 319 104% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 69 90% 112 84%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm N/A NA 112 84%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 181 48% 299 97% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 183 509 692 63 ‐63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 46 23% 173 45%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 40 22% 307 60%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 49 78%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 148 74% 253 65%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 158 86% 432 85%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 51 81%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 105 52% 241 62%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 114 62% 432 85%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 52 83%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 78 ‐78 68 ‐68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 8 32% 20 74%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 37 47%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 11 16%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 24 96% 18 67%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 45 58%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 64 94%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 19 76% 14 52%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 50 64%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 35 51%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 12 42 54 46 ‐46 91 ‐91 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 5 42% 35 83%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 14 30%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 28 31%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 11 92% 34 81%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 42 91%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 63 69%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 6 50% 35 83%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 16 35%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 57 63%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 46 ‐46 86 ‐86 51 ‐51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 42 91%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 19 22%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 37 73%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 45 98%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 77 90%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 49 96%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 44 96%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 69 80%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 28 55%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 05353 NA31NA ‐34 34 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am ‐NA 21 40%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am N/A NA 17 55%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am ‐NA 19 56% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm ‐NA 29 55%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm N/A NA 19 61%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm ‐NA 30 88% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm ‐NA 25 47%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm N/A NA 19 61%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm ‐NA 27 79% Hourly Permit Total 28 24 52 Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 8 29% 10 42% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 24 86% 17 71% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 12 43% 15 63% Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Period Lot O Emerson High Wednesday, September 10Wednesday, September 10 Lot C Period Wednesday, September 10 Period WC CC Period Lot S/L Wednesday, September 10 Wednesday, September 10 Lot B Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Lot A Emerson Lytton Wednesday, September 10 Wednesday, September 10 Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot HLot F Wednesday, September 10 Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman BryantLot X ‐ Sheraton Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot T Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot K Period Wednesday, September 10 ~8 Kias with days  passes for media  event Lot R Downtown Parking Structure Capacity Use Trends ‐ Hourly and Permit Parking Spaces  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 10/30/2014 Lot Q Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 ‐134 134 381 307 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 45 58% 101 75%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am N/A NA 45 34%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 145 38% 189 62% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 69 90% 140 104%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm N/A NA 120 90%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 242 64% 258 84% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 60 78% 95 71%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm N/A NA 102 76%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 250 66% 273 89% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 183 509 692 63 ‐63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 150 75% 295 76%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 180 98% 389 76%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 45 71%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 135 67% 355 91%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 145 79% 425 83%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 49 78%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 120 60% 290 75%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 135 74% 409 80%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 42 67%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 78 ‐78 68 ‐68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 8 32% 22 81%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 38 49%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 14 21%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 25 100% 20 74%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 49 63%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 65 96%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 16 64% 25 93%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 52 67%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 39 57%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 12 43 55 46 ‐46 91 ‐91 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 7 58% 39 91%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 14 30%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 30 33%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 11 92% 38 88%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 45 98%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 60 66%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 6 50% 39 91%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 11 24%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 58 64%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 46 ‐46 86 ‐86 51 ‐51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 41 89%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 20 23%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 40 78%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 45 98%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 72 84%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 48 94%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 42 91%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 70 81%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 32 63%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 05353 NA31NA ‐34 34 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am ‐NA 20 38%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am N/A NA 16 52%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am ‐NA 18 53% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm ‐NA 27 51%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm N/A NA 17 55%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm ‐NA 28 82% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm ‐NA 18 34%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm N/A NA 19 61%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm ‐NA 26 76% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 28 24 52 10 53 63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 9 32% 8 33%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 8 80% 43 81% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 22 79% 15 63%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 9 90% 40 75% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 10 36% 14 58%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 6 60% 47 89% Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Period Lot O Emerson High Wednesday, September 10Wednesday, September 10 Lot C Period Wednesday, September 10 Period WC CC Period Lot S/L Wednesday, September 10 Wednesday, September 10 Lot B Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Lot A Emerson Lytton Wednesday, September 10 Wednesday, September 10 Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot HLot F Wednesday, September 10 Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman BryantLot X ‐ Sheraton Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot T Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot K Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot R 800 High Period Wednesday, September 10      1  Downtown Palo Alto RPP District Stakeholder Group  March 2014    Composition and Selection of RPP District Stakeholder Group:  The RPP District Stakeholder Group is intended to be broadly representative of Downtown Resident and  Business interests. Resident stakeholders are from Downtown North, Crescent Park, Professorville and  Downtown South. Business Stakeholders include landlord, property owner, business owner and business  employee constituents.   Stakeholders: Business Interest   Chop Keenan, Land Owner, Keenan Land Company   Simon Cintz, Property Owner, Cintz Commercial Properties, LP   Sue Nightingale, Business Owner, Watercourse Way   Rob George, District Manager, Philz Coffee   Gloria Arteaga, Employee, Palantir     Stakeholders: Residential Interest   Neilson Buchanan, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)   Michael Hodos, 944 Bryant (Professorville)   Richard Brand, 281 Addison (Professorville)   Elaine Uang, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)   John Guislin, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)   Gabrielle Layton, 365 Lincoln (Downtown South)  Facilitators:    Ben Strumwasser, Circlepoint   Emily Marsh, Circlepoint  City Staff:   Aaron Aknin, Assistant Planning Director   Jessica Sullivan, Parking Manager    Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting #1 – Summary Notes Date: March 20, 2014, 1:00 – 3:30 pm  Location: Council Conference Room, First Floor City Hall, 250 Hamilton Street  Attendees:  Name* Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Gloria Arteaga Employee, Palantir Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Gabrielle Layton Resident, 365 Lincoln (Downtown South)  Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville)  Susan Nightingale Business owner, Watercourse Way  Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee  Chop Keenan Land owner, Keenan Land Company  Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Aaron Aknin Assistant Planning Director, City of Palo Alto  Ben Strumwasser Facilitator, Circlepoint Amy Huang Circlepoint Eric Hassett Hassett Hardware David Mackenzie Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce  Barbara Ayer Channing House Georgie Gleim Gleim the Jeweler –540 University  Roxy Rapp Rapp Development Chase Rapp Rapp Development Paul Machado Resident (Evergreen Park) Charlene Gibson Resident (Palo Alto) Wynne Furth Resident (Downtown North)   *Names highlighted in gray indicate RPP Stakeholders; other attendees include members of the public  and City Staff.  Meeting Goals:  1. Provide an overview of current parking issues in Palo Alto and the Residential Preferential  Parking (RPP) program development process;  2. Develop an agreed‐upon framework for identifying shared parking issues and collaborating on a  mutually beneficial RPP program.  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Meeting Goals   Goals are for this meeting only. Staff will abide by Nov. 15 deadline to get draft RPP approach  and ordinance to City Council.  b. Rules of Engagement   Brown Act: Stakeholders who meet with outside neighborhood groups and organizations should  refrain from arriving at RPP‐related decisions and debrief other stakeholders at next meeting,  following the spirit rather than the letter of the Brown Act. Amy will update meeting guidelines  accordingly.   Facilitator will provide time for public comment at the beginning of the next meeting pending  the release of specific agenda items. Whether public comment will be held before/after the  following meeting is TBD by stakeholder group.  c. Palo Alto RPP Stakeholder Group Desired Outcomes   Create a fair, balanced, and realistic solution that is respectful to neighbors, employees, and  customers and that is delivered within the agreed upon timeline.   Provide a model for other communities, not only in terms of results, but also in terms of the  group’s collaborative process.  d. Parking Context in Palo Alto (see PowerPoint presentation)   Palo Alto is a hub between Silicon Valley and mid‐Peninsula facing densification, a high number  of jobs per housing unit, and 38% projected growth of jobs in Santa Clara County.    City Staff are using the “Three‐Legged Stool” metaphor to describe three programs being  developed in parallel: Parking Supply, Transportation Demand Management, and RPP (Parking  Management).  e.  Key Issues to Be Addressed in Development of RPP    Thoughtfully correct a supply/demand parking imbalance that’s trending negatively, and re‐ inject quality of life while addressing employees’ needs.   Maintain the vitality of the business community.  f. RPP Process – Schedule and Overview   Staff are developing the RPP Citywide Ordinance in parallel with this Downtown Program,  allowing them to create RPPs in other districts (reciprocal relationship). Council needs to  approve/ratify the Ordinance, and will also likely see the Downtown resolution as well (unless  the group decides otherwise).   Stakeholders expressed concern that unless Councilmember(s) are attending these RPP  meetings, there is a high chance of program failure at the Council level.   Aaron: The conflict of interest issue is the most difficult restriction on Council participation  (living or owning property downtown). Aaron will investigate Councilmember participation as  observers.   Facilitators will provide a tentative schedule for the remainder of the meetings.  g. Identification of Key Parking‐Related Issues to be addressed (Summary)   Supply: for customers, employees (before/during RPP); two‐hour spaces; pipeline projects   Enforcement Options: frequency; budget/costs; strategies   Parking Time: limits; zones   Implementation: simple, phased, safe; coordinated outreach   Permit Sales: non‐resident parking in residential; decal type; transferable   Costs: pricing incentives; affordability for service employees; costs to employers; TDM area   Definition of District: geographic/demographic; zone inefficiency   Data Collection: impact tracking; iterate on usage assessment; reliable data/benchmarks   Parallel Programs: garage vacancy technology; meters; revenue‐generating permits; Urban Lane   Other: utilize off‐street resources; eliminate free parking in residential neighborhoods   (Note: See Appendix for full list.)  h. Public Comment   Public comment reinforced importance of transferable permits, getting buy‐in from Council, and  the Urban Lane parking garage (residents who want to support Urban Lane should speak at  related council meetings or send letters of support).  i. April Meeting Agenda (4/17 – Lucie Stern Community Center, Fireside Room, 1:00pm – 3:30pm)   Review schedule/outline for the rest of meetings.   Agree upon decision‐making process for group.   Review and prioritize issues identified.  Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date  Update meeting guidelines to  reflect “Spirit of Brown Act”  Amy 3/30/2014  Prepare agenda for Meeting #2 and  build in time for public comment at  beginning of next meeting  ‐  decision on public comment times  Amy 3/30/2014  Investigate Councilmember  participation  Aaron 3/30/2014  Create draft schedule for remaining  meetings  Team 3/30/2014  Upload Meeting #1 materials to  City’s website  Jessica 3/25/2014    Prepare and distribute summary of  Meeting #1  Ben/Jessica 3/26/2014  Determine decision‐making  mechanism for group to use for  recommendation to Commission  and Council  Ben/group (Options)  4/17/2014 (Meeting #2)       Appendix: Identification of Key Parking‐Related Issues (Group Exercise) Note: items noted with asterisks (*) are additions that were submitted after Thursday’s meeting.   Supply  a. Supply of spaces for customers  b. Supply  c. Where will employees park when we have RPP  d. Parking demand for pipeline projects  e. I have concern two hour spaces around the business will be used solely by employees  f. Prevent the “move your car every 2 hours” game – SOFA   Enforcement Options  a. Enforcement frequency and budget/costs  b. Enforcement cost & strategies  c. Management of the parking in neighborhoods after 5pm and on weekends on certain  streets and avenues closest to the commercial cores.  Currently a current problem in  terms of noise, litter, urination, alcohol related exuberance issues*   Parking Time Limits  a. Time limit zones  b. Parking space time limitations   Implementation  a. Stanford parking details (don’t reinvent the wheel)  b. Compensation for homes with no driveways  c. Clarity/easy to understand rules, good/coordinated outreach for implementation  d. Timetable for implementation, phase in/phase out  e. Trial period after implementation – metrics, length  f. Website for permit purchasing and enforcement payment  g. Staged RPP  h. Compensation for homes with no driveways  i. Ease of enforcement – uniform, easy to read or scan stickers/hangers  j. Pricing that is tiered and tied to TDM measures – incentives to reduce driving and  parking demand  k. Availability of satellite parking including back and forth shuttle service  l. Make sure employees have parking solutions at the same time as you launch RPP  m. Make permits easy, intuitive to purchase and access  n. Occam’s razor – simplest solution  o. Safety issues  p. Traffic impact in the unlikely event that permit parking ordinance allows/encourages  unlimited short term parking on residential streets*  q. Ground rules between the city, assessment district and residents.  Who can  change/manipulate the number/ratios of existing short‐term (2&3 hour parking),  permit(all‐day), handicapped, loading zone spaces.  There are forces who want more all‐  day parking and this could force more short term parking into the residential  neighborhoods*  r. Striping*   Permit Sales  a. Number of permits, commercial vs. residential  b. % (number) of parking allocated to employees in residential areas  c. Amount (%) of non‐resident parking in residential neighborhoods  d. Permit type – hangtag decal, decal, location‐ specific?  e. Permits to fit part‐time/less than 8 hour shifts  f. Multiple vehicles to get to work if car breaks down (transferable permit—currently tied  to vehicle)  g. Inability to transfer  h. Transferable permits  i. Permit ease of purchase  j. Long wait list  k. Permits for multi‐resident facilities apartment houses, condos, etc. both with and  without adequate onsite parking*  l. Permits for care facilities (e.g. extended care facility at Bryant & Channing, Channing  House, etc.)  both with and without adequate onsite parking*  m. Long term service permits for things like contractors for major home improvement jobs  (this was mentioned in September at one of the outreach mtgs). Sometimes 2+ trades  need to show up*  n. Contractor permits at low cost if any.  Contractor permits should be issued with address  noted and with time limits to prevent black market use.*   Costs  a. Permit costs  b. Pricing incentives  c. Affordability of permits for service employees  d. Permit costs  e. Reduce costs of permits  f. Costs for hourly vs. salaried workers  g. TDM area and costs  h. Cost of permits to employers and businesses   Definition of District  a. Zone Inefficiency (inefficiency increases w/ number of zones)  b. Are there residential zones and how would they be determined  c. Opt in for additional neighborhoods  d. What is geographically/demographically an RPP District   Data Collection/Occupancy  a. Need tracking information of impact before/after  b. Do we have reliable data on the number of cars, businesses, residents to determine  balance?  c. How to quantify “success”  d. Details of College Terrace program and benchmarks if any  e. What is obligation to serve Caltrain outbound & Stanford student/employee vehicles  f. Acceptable level of parking density in res neighborhoods  g. How do we measure success – survey residents and businesses?  h. Collect data to assess usage and pricing, iterate on this info to refine the program  i. Peak loads by day by hour  j. Number of downtown employees?   Parallel Programs  a. Garage vacancy locational tech (parking guidance systems)  b. Permits to be revenue‐generating (to fund TDM/TMA)  c. Parking meters  d. Urban Lane   Other  a. Parking in close proximity to where you work  b. Better utilization of existing off‐street resources  c. As long as there is free parking in the residential neighborhoods, other strategies are  doomed to fail  d. What is the definition of “preferential”?  e. Close inexpensive parking lot, increase demand  Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 2 – Summary Notes Date: April 17, 2014, 1:00 – 3:30 pm  Location: Community Room, Lucie Stern Community Center, 1305 Middlefield Road  Attendees:  Name Representation Neilson Buchanan* Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Gabrielle Layton Resident, 365 Lincoln (Downtown South)  Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville)  Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee  Chop Keenan Land owner, Keenan Land Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Aaron Aknin Assistant Planning Director, City of Palo Alto  Ben Strumwasser Facilitator, Circlepoint Amy Huang Circlepoint Art Kramer Resident, 1116 Forest Avenue  Geoff Ball Resident, 315 Bryant Street Joe Baldwin Resident, 850 Webster John Reed Resident of Los Altos, 586 Orange  Russ Cohen Palo Alto Business and Professional Association John Morris Resident, 395 Leland Avenue Peter Shambora Resident, 1565 Castilleja Mel Matsumoto Resident, 850 Webster Tommy Derrick Resident, 390 Leland  Wynne Furth Resident, 216 Everett *Names shown in gray reflect RPP Stakeholders.  Meeting Goals:  1. Develop an agreed‐upon methodology for decision‐making.  2. Confirm policies that will be the focus of the ordinance.  3. Identify and come to resolution on initial “low‐hanging fruit” policies.  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of  Goals and Agenda  b. Members of the Public Comment   Mention of two underused garages Bryant (S) and Cowper Webster (CW) with approximately  400 total empty spaces (at 2pm). Request to investigate Evergreen Park (experiencing parking  scarcity due in part to proximity to Caltrain and appears in greater need than Crescent Park).  o Group agreed that meeting Public Comment period will occur at beginning and end of  next meetings. Circlepoint to schedule into future agendas accordingly.  c. Review of RPP Program Process   Draft RPP Downtown Program and Citywide Ordinance should be ready after June meeting for  Planning Commission Review in August. All are “advisory” to Council, even Planning  Commission’s recommendations to Council. Bulk of stakeholder work anticipated for May‐June  timeframe.   Sub‐committees will be formed to tackle four to six policy areas outside of the formal  Stakeholder Group meetings. Recognition that subcommittees may encounter  interdependencies between issue areas during their work outside of meetings.  d. Update on City Council Participation Status   Due to (1) having only four unconflicted Councilmembers and (2) specific direction from Council  to create a group that was independent of Council oversight, staff recommends nominating 1‐2  representatives from the Stakeholder Group to attend and present at Council meetings (which  are open to the public), or have all stakeholders group members individually attend and speak  as they so choose.   Regarding presentations to Council regarding the formation of the RPP District, Stakeholders  might have multiple recommendations and request neutral Staff representation. Staff will  present to Council and will document majority opinions from Stakeholders as well as any  alternative opinions, synthesizing recommendations from the Stakeholder group. Stakeholders  are encouraged to attend Council meetings to provide independent perspective on process and  results.  e. Stakeholder Group Decision‐Making Process    Group will seek greatest level of consensus for each policy that is developed for the Downtown  District; if there is no consensus, staff will document number of stakeholders favoring all  approaches and make the final recommendation.   Commentary reinforced importance of coming to consensus in these meetings.  f. Review and Identification of Policies   Staff reviewed policy questions derived from last meeting’s stakeholder‐developed issues list.   Supply: Comments reinforced that there may be certain neighborhoods that need more  protection and that allocation questions are predicated on knowing inventory and occupancy  data as well as projected demand.  o Data needed on how many spaces available, number of houses, etc. City to provide  data on occupancy and inventory. Stakeholder sub‐committees to investigate and  incorporate in their dialogues and recommendations.   Implementation: Discussion suggested need for ongoing evaluation metrics in addition to  success metrics, inclusion of TDM metrics (out of scope of Downtown RPP program), and  marketing plan.  o What are the metrics for ongoing evaluation and refinement of the Downtown RPP  program? City to incorporate question.  o How will the program be promoted to public? City to incorporate question.   Permit Sales: Comments questioned how to define visitors, provided data point of very few  waiting lists at garages.  o How will the program handle guests and visitors? City to incorporate question.   Costs: Any program cost changes will be factored into annual City review of municipal fees.   Defining the District: Palo Alto Weekly map is generally used for defining neighborhoods, but  there is no exact demarcation for these neighborhoods.   Occupancy: Discussion that occupancy be tabled and combined with metrics for success; City to  update question.   Predicate Actions: RPP Program is not required to be cost‐neutral, but surplus of revenue is  unlikely.  o What is the process of adjusting the program/changing RPP parameters in response to  success from other City programs? City to incorporate question.   Other: Safety is a major issue for business people and employees. Low fines/citation fees may  impede implementation.  o Data needed from PAPD on safety (specifically, success of escort programs and  similar); additionally, more data needed on citations and enforcement. Stakeholder  sub‐committees to investigate and incorporate in their dialogues and  recommendations.  g. Establish Draft Policies for “Low‐Hanging Fruit”    City selected four policies that constituted low‐hanging fruit for the group to discuss and achieve  consensus on with regards to policy recommendation.  1. Downtown District boundary (Policy No. 6a): Group jointly marked up City‐provided basemap to  show initial program boundaries/eligibility (streets that will receive surveys). Group expressed  recognition that some locations may “opt out.” Stakeholder‐recommended boundary included  at the end of the notes.  2. Transferability of permits for employees (Policy No. 4b): Group expressed consensus that  transferability should be allowed. Need additional research on how to manage and reduce  counterfeits/resale (recognized as separate issue).  3. Transferability of permits for residents (Policy No. 4f): Group expressed consensus that  transferability should be allowed. Separate permit for visitors. Noted that transferability may  encourage street parking if cost of permit is low enough.  4. Hours of enforcement (Policy No. 6a): Group expressed consensus on 9:00 am to 7:00 pm,  pending more data, with 2 hours free without a permit. Perhaps different hours for different  neighborhoods.  5. Data needed on impacts to service workers, restaurants, businesses. Stakeholder sub‐ committees to investigate and incorporate in their dialogues and recommendations.  h. Review of Homework Assignments   Stakeholders were assigned to sub‐committees and picked policy questions to discuss and come  to consensus to as homework.  o Homework is due to Jessica by May 15. (See table below for assignments.)  i. Members of the Public Comment   Concern about the far‐reaching ramifications of these decisions. Request to anticipate the  questions/actions of the people who will be impacted and to consider both intended and  unintended consequences.    Homework Assignments Group Assignment Group #1  Gabrielle Layton (R), Gloria  Arteaga (B), Neilson Buchanan (R)   1a. How many spaces will be allocated, or permits sold, for residents of  the RPP District?   2b. What is the expected level of enforcement? Daily? Weekly? Multiple  times per week?   3f. Level of support for survey (what should percentage of support be?)   4d. How will permits be addressed for care facilities?   4e. How will permits be addressed for service workers and contractors?   9a. Safety issues (Not addressed directly – but the design of the district  should address this indirectly)  Group #2  Simon Cintz (B), Richard Brand  (R), Michael Hodos (R)   1c. How will the ordinance address the distribution of spaces for  employees and residents across the district?   1d. Will the amount of spaces allocated to employees be reduced over  time?   3b. How will the ordinance address permits for residents with different  on‐site parking opportunities (e.g. homes that have no driveways)?   4c. How will permits be addressed for multi‐resident facilities?   5a. How much do permits cost for residents and for workers? 8a. What  do the permit costs cover?   7a. What is the target level of occupancy? *This question was bundled  into 3d (“Metrics for success”).  Group #3  Rob George (B), John Guislin (R),  Sue Nightingale (B)   3a. How will the need for employee permits be quantified and how will  they be allocated?   3c. How will the permits be made available (e.g. website, in person?)   3e. What does the signage and striping look like for the District?   3g. What are the follow up actions if a street originally opts out and  then changes their mind?   4a. Will the permits be hangtag or decal? What will they look like?   8a. What do the permit costs cover? *This question was bundled into 5a  (“How much do permits cost?”).  Group #4  Elaine Uang (R), Chop Keenan (B)   1b. How many spaces will be allocated, or permits sold, for downtown  employees?   3d. Will there be a trial period of the district? If so, what are the metrics  that confirm whether the RPP program is successful? 7a. What is the  target level of occupancy?   5b. How will permit costs address the income disparity between  workers of different income levels?   6b. Are there specific zones within the District where only certain  residents or employees can park‐ e.g., what are the restrictions of each  zone?   8b. Parking Supply Measures (e.g. parking garage technology, etc.)  Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date  Prepare agenda for Meeting #3  and build in public comment  period at beginning and end  City/Circlepoint 5/15/2014  Provide available parking data on  RPP website, including but not  limited to parking inventory data,  parking occupancy data and other  stakeholder‐submitted data  City 5/2/2014  Incorporate additional marked  questions to policy list and create  draft policies for stakeholder  review  City 5/22/2014  Prepare recommended solutions  for assigned questions and send  to Jessica  Sub‐Committees 5/15/2014  Next Meeting Date: May 22, 2014, 1:00 – 3:30 pm  Location: Fireside Room, Lucie Stern Community Center, 1305 Middlefield Road  Es cob Churchill Avenue enue ColeridgeAvenue oad Homer Avenue La n e 8W es t Medical F ound ation Way La n e 7 W e st La n e 7 Eas t Emb arcaderoRoad Encina A v enue UrbanLane WellsA v e nue ForestAvenue High Str e e t Emerso n Str eetChanningAvenue Alm a Str eet AlmaS t reet Palo Al to A ElCam in o Rea l venue Mit chell Lane HawthorneAvenue EverettAvenue LyttonAvenue Lane15E High Str e et Alm a Str eet Br y ant St re et Lane 6 E Lane1 1W Lane 21 High Str eet Gilman St reet HamiltonAvenue UniversityAvenue BryantCourt Lane30 Flore nceS tre et Kiplin gStreet Tas so Stre e t Cow pe r S tr e e t RuthvenAvenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33 Palo Alto Av enue Everett Avenue Poe Street Wa verle y S tr eet Ta ss o S tre et Co wp erStre et Pa l o A l t o A v e n u e Webster Street Everett Court LyttonAvenue Byr on Str eet FultonStre et Middlefi eld Road Churchill Avenue Melville Avenue ColeridgeAvenue Waverle y Street Br y a nt Stre et Eme rsonStreet Kellogg Avenue KingsleyAvenue La ne A West La ne B West La n eB Eas t La n e DW es t Lan e 59 Eas t Whitman Court Kellogg Avenue Embarc aderoRoad KingsleyAvenue LincolnAvenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue ForestAvenue Do wn ingL ane Homer Avenue Lan eD East Lane3 9 La ne 56 Hamilton Avenue WebsterS treet Waverle y Street Kip lin g Street Bryant Street Ra mon a Stre e t AddisonAvenue Scott Street ByronStreet Palo HaleS treet SenecaStreet Lytton Avenue Gu indaStreet P a lo AltoAvenue Fulton Stre et Mid dlefie ld R oad ForestAvenue WebsterS treet KelloggAvenue Mid dlefie ld R oad ByronS treet WebsterS treet Cow pe r S tree t Ta s so S tr eet Cow per S tr e e t AddisonAvenue LincolnAvenue Boyce A venue Forest Avenue HamiltonAvenue Homer Avenue Guind a S tr e e t Mi d dlefie ld R oadChanningAvenue AltoAvenue Chaucer S tree t UniversityAvenue C h anni n g A ven u e Addison A venue Linco ln Aven u e R e g e n t P l Gu indaStreet LincolnAvenue Fult onStreet Melville Avenue ByronS treetKingsleyAvenue Melville Avenue H F orest A v enue Forest C t S o m e rset Pl Fife A ve nue Coleridge Avenue CowperS treet Mid dlefie ld Road WebsterS treet Kirb K ent Pl ace M artin A ve nu H arriet S tre et WilsonStreet CedarStreet H ar ker A ve nu e G re en w oo d A ve n ue H utchinson A venue C H opki n s A v enu e Embarcad W alte W a lnu t Drive Ne we P a rkin s on A v en uePineStreet Ramo naS treet Addison Avenue Channing A venue Waverle yStreet PaulsenLn C o m m u nity L an e Lane1 5E Eme rsonS treet Lane 20WLane20 E University Avenue CalT r ain R OW Eme rsonS treet Waverle yStreet Kip lin g Street BryantStreet Ramo naS treet Lane 12 W Lane5E hePlace Everett Avenue HomerAvenue PaloAlt o Avenue C o m m u n i ty L a n e G re en w o od A ve n ue H ar ker Aven u e P a r k in s on Av en u e By ron St re et Emer son S tr ee t Alma S tre e t AlmaStree t HawthorneAvenue LyttonAvenue The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to {CopyrightYear} City of Palo Alto This map is a product of theCity of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'180'360' DRAFT RPP Downtown DistrictCITYOFPALO A LTOINCORPORATE D CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL16 1894 jsulliv, 2014-04-14 10:18:56, RPP District Boundary Draft (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\jsulliv.mdb) Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 3 – Summary Notes Date: May 22, 2014, 1:00 – 4:00 pm  Location: Fireside Room, Lucie Stern Community Center, 1305 Middlefield Road  Attendees:  Name* Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Gloria Arteaga Employee, Palantir Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Gabrielle Layton Resident, 365 Lincoln (Downtown South)  Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville)  Susan Nightingale Business owner, Watercourse Way  Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Tom Fehrenbach Economic Development Manager, City of Palo Alto Ben Strumwasser Facilitator, Circlepoint Amy Huang Circlepoint Joe Baldwin Channing House Geoff Ball Resident, DTN Alice Frayne Resident Russ Cohen Palo Alto Downtown Professionals Association Paul Machado Resident, Evergreen Park Mel Matsumoto Channing House Tommy Derrick Resident, Evergreen Park Steve Levy Resident, DTS Barbara Gross Manager, Garden Court Hotel  DM Griffin Resident, Downtown North Charlene G Resident *Names in gray represent RPP Stakeholders.  Meeting Goals:  1. Vet Sub‐Committees’ proposed policy recommendations.  2. Come to resolution on as many policies as possible – target at minimum half of outstanding  policies.  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Goals  and Agenda  b. Tom Fehrenbach Introduction   Tom referred to his written goals and objectives on the City website and expressed that he is  interested not only in raising business revenues but in maintaining Palo Alto’s quality of life to  attract residents.  o Group expressed concern about turnover of City staff and continuity of staff institutional  knowledge. City responded that Jessica will be largely responsible for delivering the  stakeholder’s group recommendations to Council, and Tom will support those efforts.  Jessica and Tom will report to those Councilmembers who are not conflicted out of the RPP  discussion and Jessica, as Parking Manager, is the main point of contact for Parking and  Transportation Demand Management‐related efforts.  o Stakeholder expressed concern that the distinction between “residents” and “businesses”  would set the stage for group polarization. City responded that these categories were used  to create a balanced stakeholder group but can be removed if they are inappropriately  designated.  c. Members of the Public Comment   Supporting opinion from a dual resident/hotel businessperson that labels can pigeonhole  complex opinions.   Comment that Channing House, as 24/7 facility, has special needs. Afternoon shifts from 3pm to  7pm would increase permit requirements by an estimated 20% even though physical space  demands remain consistent with morning shift needs.   Comment that any impact to the success quotient of business community will have direct  impacts to residential community.  d. City Presentation on Other Activities and Data   Jessica presented on ongoing TDM activities (e.g. valet program, pricing in garages, wayfinding)  and RPP schedule of implementation: implementation begins January 2015, full enforcement  likely March 2015.   Group commented that RPP implementation will be disruptive and requested that City work  with underutilized business parking lots on High and Emerson Streets during interim period.   Discussion on community survey, which could potentially have multiple functions. (e.g. to   inform residents of implementation details and establish support and then have subsequent  efforts include an official opt‐in mechanism.) Due to concern that uninvested neighbors will not  support the Program, Group requested that demand data/Downtown Cap Study (DCAP) data be  included to show the impact of taking no action. Group was in favor of a strong outreach effort  on top of the two anticipated Planning Commission meetings and the upcoming Planning  Commission meeting (Wednesday, May 28, 6:00 p.m., City Hall) to present on Phase I of DCAP.  City Response: Survey process and outreach strategy will be a topic of focus for the next  meeting.   During review of April policies, Group rescinded support for including areas south of  Embarcadero (agreeing that Embarcadero should be RPP District’s southern boundary) and re‐ opened the issue of hours of enforcement for further discussion.  e. Policy Discussions by Category  Policies in red were rejected by the Group. The Group focused on the Supply category, which had  proposals that covered the number of employee and resident permits, as well as the allocation  strategy for those permits and, potentially, spaces within the boundary of the RPP District area. The  Supply category included all of section 1 questions, 3a and 6b. The proposals listed were the work of  the RPP stakeholder sub‐committees.   1a: How many spaces will be allocated, or permits sold, for residents of the RPP district?  o For a housing unit with no onsite parking option, through no fault of owner or renter, one  free permit should be provided. Yea: 0, Nay: 9, Abstain: 0. Though Group felt these residents  should not be penalized, Group was in favor of having all residents having “skin in the game”  by paying for permits, and applying for exemptions if necessary.  o For all other residents, a maximum of two residential parking permits should be made  available at a minimal price. Additional permits with a reasonable upper limit should be  made available at a higher cost. Yea: 9, Nay: 0, Abstain: 0. Group conceded that the total  number of available permits could be discussed later.  o All permits should be tied to a residence (residential unit/mailing address). Yea: 8, Nay: 0,  Abstain: 1.   1b: How many spaces will be allocated, or permits sold, for downtown employees?  o Option 1 – Flat Rate Model. 1 space per commuter and 1 space per household. Gather data  on usage for street parking needs. Six month test, one year review. Revisit supply question  with data on usage. Yea: 0, Nay: 7, Abstain: 2.   o Option 2 – Market Based Solution. Sell unlimited permits (no cap). Do not physically allocate  spaces for individual uses. However, allocate zones within the RPP Boundary; offer 3‐4  tiered street pricing options, the closer to downtown the zone, the more expensive. Pricing  for furthest spots affordable for those with limited means. Yea: 1, Nay: 6, Abstain: 2. Group  mentioned some cases where number of permits sold exceeded allocation, which worked  because it was successfully incentivizing TDM measures. Also, this scheme aims to  “temporally stack” parking supply (i.e., the same space that serves as employee parking  during the day may serve as resident parking at night, which ensures greatest utilization of  the resource). However, Group did not agree in principal on the sale of unlimited permits as  proposed (citing “supply creates its own demand”). Group instead agreed on allocation  scheme discussed in 1c.   1c: How will the ordinance address the distribution of spaces for employees and residents?  o A percentage of the available spaces will be designated for downtown workers on a block‐ face‐by‐block‐face basis (during enforcement hours).  Such designated spaces will be curb‐ marked and striped in a consistent manner that promotes safety and ensures easy access to  residents’ homes. Availability: 1st come, 1st served. Yeas: 8, Nay: 0, Abstain: 1. The opposing  opinion to this proposal was that the City did not have adequate data to develop an  appropriate percentage of spots for employee designation, and that it would be difficult to  make adjustments to this percentage after the fact.   o Accommodations should be made for school employees & parent volunteers as well as retail  service businesses that have unique customer parking needs (e.g. auto shops). Yea: 6, Nay:  2, Abstain: 1.  o Single stage implementation proposal – a specific percentage of spaces to be made available  to workers, equally distributed through district. Resident parking data indicates 20% is  adequate. Yea: 6, Nay: 2, Abstain: 1. Group understands that this implementation strategy,  like all programs, will be reviewed and “tweaked” if necessary.  o Sequenced implementation proposal – assess actual employee need prior to determining  percentage and distribution via one of the following options: (a) Two staged (sequenced)  RPP: all downtown employees register/receive permits, then determine percentage &  distribution strategy. (b) Less desirable alternative: 40‐50% (guesstimate) initial downtown  employee allocation, then adjust down as required by actual count. In all cases safe and  reasonable walking distances. May result in unequal distribution. Per City Council Motion,  Item #6: “Minimize disruption when RPP is implemented.” This recommendation is an  alternative to “Single stage implementation proposal” and was rejected based on that  recommendation’s success. Group agreed with the spirit of this proposal but was wary of its  “gameability” (i.e. an inflated number of people park on assessment day and data is still  inaccurate).   1d: Will the amount of spaces allocated to employees be reduced over time?  o Yes, but only if additional capacity that becomes available via new garages/lots, garage valet  parking, various TDM options being considered, etc. is not reasonably utilized. Any  reduction in downtown employee permits should be based on objective data. Yea: 8, Nay:  0, Abstain: 1.   3a: How will the need for employee permits be quantified and how will they be allocated?  o Each block has three possible parking types: all day resident, all day commercial, 2 hr  anyone – no reparking in same zone/district on same day. Commercial permits quantity is  set at 20% of spaces. This recommendation is functionally equivalent to previously decided  question 1c, and group therefore did not vote.  o City must make additional parking spaces available for workers employed on January 2015.  Yea: 8, Nay: 1, Abstain: 0. Group expanded this recommendation from “service workers” to  general “workers.”  o E.g. 2‐6 spaces, 1 Commercial permit. 7‐11 spaces, 2 Commercial permits. 12‐16 spaces, 2  Commercial permits. 17+ spaces, 4 Commercial permits. Permits made available first come,  first served. No reserved/guaranteed space. Group did not vote on these ancillary details.   6b: Are there specific zones within the District where only certain residents or employees can  park? Zone restrictions?  o Need zones – some low on‐street parking to home ratios (i.e. Ramona). For market‐ based solution, zones could be determined based on average demand of street face, but  residents & commuters would both be allowed to park along entire street. Keep it  simple & equitable, exclusive privatization or commercialization of spaces is a slippery  slope. Group discussed but did not come to consensus within time limit.  f. Members of the Public Comment – N/A    Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date  Synthesize and format results of  discussion  City 5/30/2014  Review results of discussion Stakeholder Group 6/6/2014  Note and (if desired) attend  upcoming PTC meetings (5/28,  5/29, 6/11)  Stakeholder Group 5/27/2014  Prepare Draft Ordinance for  Stakeholder Input  City 6/19/2014  Next Meeting Date: June 19, 2014, 1:00 – 4:00 pm  Location: Westin Hotel, 675 El Camino Real  Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 4 – Summary Notes [DRAFT] Date: June 19, 2014, 1:00 – 4:00 pm Location: Sheraton Hotel, 625 El Camino Real, Palo Alto Attendees: Name Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North) Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North) John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park) Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville) Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Gabrielle Layton Resident, 365 Lincoln (Downtown South) Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville) Susan Nightingale Business owner, Watercourse Way Chop Keenan Land owner, Keenan Land Brett Somers Employee, Palantir Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto Tom Fehrenbach Economic Development Manager, City of Palo Alto Amy Huang Circlepoint Several Members of Public Meeting Goals: 1. Review Supply discussion and Staff/PTC input. 2. Provide Stakeholder feedback on Draft City‐wide Ordinance. 3. Review City‐wide Survey Process. Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Goals and Agenda b. Members of the Public Comment • Comment from Evergreen Park resident that requirements imposed by Draft Ordinance on residents are disheartening; it seems very difficult to create an RPP District, but very easy to terminate one. c. Supply Discussion (Continued) and Staff Draft Proposal • Jessica summarized the Supply discussion as a debate concerning two main issues (allocating and regulating through physical spots vs. regulating through sales instead, and implementing staged RPP vs. single‐phase RPP). • Jessica presented Staff/PTC concern that physical allocation would entail 9‐12 months of community outreach work and investigation into implementation details (e.g. number of spots). o Group expressed concern with the 9‐12 month timeline. Staff considered 9‐12 months necessary to message neighbors and hold community meetings, even after Council approval. Stakeholders did not feel that 9‐12 months was an accurate estimation and believed that, in relation to the original January‐March 2015 implementation timeline, the moving goalpost was concerning. However, Stakeholders also considered that given deteriorating quality of life, residents might move quickly to approve the proposal. • Given the up‐front work to implement a physical allocation solution, Jessica proposed a compromise program that would not preclude eventual physical allocation, but would allow Staff to collect data and iterate (as detailed below). o Staff Draft Proposal: Directly adjacent to current 2‐hour Blue Zone (Downtown Core/SOFA), add Green/Red/Orange zones to cover the highly occupied areas. In these zones, restrict permit sales to non‐resident employees to 20% of available spots, to start, and price permits on par with garages. Surrounding the colored zones, add a Gray Zone where permit sales are unrestricted (priced lower than garages). Use flexible signage plans to move zones back and forth. Immediately begin occupancy studies. o Benefits as proposed by Staff: Meaningful occupancy studies (City has legal barriers to other methods of surveying), meaningfully adjustable permit sales, flexibility in management, possibility of physical allocation at a later point. Reduction of demand from non‐resident parkers (Caltrain, Stanford, PAMF). • Group discussed details of the Staff Draft Proposal. o Pricing: Stakeholders expressed that City should not make on‐street parking cheaper than garages, encouraging people to park on the street. The possibility of group‐based exemptions or time‐based exceptions for service employees was raised. Stakeholder mentioned that competitive pricing would be key for his employees. o Varied density within zones: Group discussed the marketability of the proposal to residents, saying it could be a hard sell for people in the Colored Zones, as they would see no change for 6‐9 months while the City collected data. Additionally, Zones would be polarized, as the blocks closest to Downtown would be the worst impacted. Residents would have different experiences depending on which side of the street they were on. o Los Gatos: Group discussed the preferential permit program in Los Gatos, which was implemented quickly. There is free all‐day parking for employees in garages, but also more space (due to the conversion of their railroad right‐of‐way into parking). Stakeholder expressed that Los Gatos was not comparable due to the shutdown of entire Historic District. o Zone size: Stakeholders felt that the adjustable size of the zone would protect employees and that if zones were small enough, the City could obtain the necessary data without significantly impacting residents. o Supply: Group refocused discussion on supply, in light of incoming economic growth and conversion of lots like Bridge Bank to office use. Stakeholders agreed on importance of raising the issue of supply (Urban Lane, Lot G, etc.) with neighbors, Staff, Council, and other politicians. As demand growth is relatively contained by constraints on new development, Group agreed RPP proposal should incentivize Council to push supply initiatives forward. o Lean proposal: Group agreed that the proposal, though adverse to some, would have an overall benefit, incentivizing residents to support the next iteration of the program. Stakeholder voiced concern that demand would be redistributed elsewhere. Group agreed that recommendation to Council should be viable in a short time, though there was some discussion on whether the recommendation should entail a robust combination of solutions and mitigations, or merely be as simple as possible to launch. o Timelines and Council support: Jessica confirmed that the timeframe for community outreach under this proposal would be from July through September, targeting August for consensus, and outreach required would be much lighter than for physical allocation. Short‐ term permits (1 month or 3 months) would allow the program to be implemented for a number of months or up to a year. Staff and Group discussed making time for Group to form additional contextual recommendations to Council. • Group discussed, formed, and voted on a revised approach to the proposal allowing the City to collect data while still eliminating poachers. o Group’s Revised Proposal: As soon as possible, implement a one‐time issuance of cost‐free RPP permits to people who can prove that they live or work in the greater Downtown area, allowing them to park anywhere in the greater Downtown area. Color‐code the permits based on area of residence or business (basic zoning to indicate where the resident/employee is from). Institute some expiration date for the permits, suggestion 120 days after issue. Support additional supply options and protect district parking assets. o Benefits: As compared with original proposal, retain meaningful occupancy studies, flexibility, etc., and reduction of demand from non‐resident parkers. Added benefits of: minimal visible impact to residents. “Foot in the door” with Council and residents/employees. Expiration dates (plus possible conversion to “true” RPP permits at a later date) and the explicit supply‐related amendment should incentivize supply measures. o Group voted as follows: Yeas: 9, Nays: 1, Abstain: 1. Dissenting opinion was that proposal does not address core issue of supply strongly enough. o Other concerns were regarding enforcement and data collection costs, incentivization of non‐renewal of existing permits (though same issue exists today). d. Overview of Draft Ordinance • Jessica presented the overview of the RPP Program, comprising the Draft Ordinance and Resolution. The Draft Ordinance consists of the process by which neighborhoods can petition to become RPP Districts, the survey process by which a District opts in or out, and the enforcement strategy for Districts (likely via private contractor). It is intended to be a standard petition process, but one that can flex for each District. The Resolution is specific to each District, consisting of the design, hours, number of permits, number of spots allocated, boundaries/zones, and permit sales/costs, and is developed through stakeholder and community input for each District. o Stakeholder asked whether Ordinance was necessary, since College Terrace implemented RPP without one. Jessica to look into this and follow up. o Group was concerned that some items (e.g. enforcement) that were discussed in Sub‐ Committees are now listed under the Ordinance and are therefore outside of the Stakeholders’ purview. This item to be resolved when Policy discussion continues. • Jessica presented the first component of the Draft Ordinance: the petition process for neighborhoods to become RPP Districts. Group offered specific input. o Petition process summary:  Resident proposal: residents apply using resident‐collected data by June 30 (end of fiscal year).  Staff review criteria: • Non‐resident vehicles do substantially interfere with resident ability to park • Interference occurs daily/weekly, is a constant source of parking impact • Non‐resident vehicles are a source of noise/traffic hazards/pollution/devaluation of property • Alternative mitigation strategies have been attempted  Community outreach and internal review: • Parking occupancy studies • At least 2 community outreach meetings with residents • Stakeholders for smaller neighborhoods (2‐3 meetings max) • Draft resolution and postal survey to validate resident support, 50% response rate required, 70% support from collected responses • PTC/Council review • Evaluation/monitoring o Group agreed that the District formation process seemed onerous, but the Districts themselves easy to dissolve. o Definition of District: Group was concerned that Ordinance is missing technical criteria on who gets to define a District, how large it should be, and how to define a block/block face. Group was in favor of adding criterion for a minimum number of blocks. Stakeholder suggested using pre‐determined districts; City responded that this was not in the scope of city‐wide Ordinance. o Percentage of support: Group was in favor of reducing percentage of support from 70% to 50%+1 (as was used at College Terrace), indicating that 70% is a higher bar than is asked for in City elections. Group and City agreed to remove the criterion for minimum percentage of surveys returned. Stakeholder voiced concern about outreach to neighborhoods adjacent to RPP Districts. o Noise/pollution/hazard: Group and City agreed to remove the criterion for validated noise/traffic hazard impacts, citing that most residents would not have the resources to perform such a study. o Qualification of “substantial interference”: Stakeholder expressed that “substantial interference” should be qualified in such a way that residents can easily determine whether they qualify. Staff responded that qualifying percentages depend on the area, and City should reserve right to review. o Application review: Stakeholders suggested that Councilmembers be involved earlier than currently listed, e.g. in the PTC meetings. e. Members of the Public Comment • Request for City to provide microphones so public can better hear Stakeholder Group’s conversation. • Comment from Crescent Park resident that Draft Ordinance is extremely complicated, and process should be reduced to objective observation of daytime occupancy over a contiguous number of blocks. Votes and surveys should be eliminated in favor of allowing opt‐in for currently unaffected adjacent blocks and opt‐out. • Comment to thank Staff and Stakeholders. Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date Investigate whether Ordinance is necessary, since College Terrace was implemented without one City 7/10/2014 Investigate and draft terms of expiration/conversion for “RPP Light” permits City 7/10/2014 Create plan to present Meeting No. 3 allocation proposal (“RPP Full”) to Council City 7/10/2014 Resolve issue of whether enforcement falls under Resolution (Stakeholder purview) or Ordinance (not Stakeholder purview) City 7/17/2014 Coordinate Parking Strategy workshop to discuss larger TDM, TMA and additional strategies City 7/17/2014 Provide public registry data on how many people are working downtown City Mid‐2015 Next Meeting Date: July 17, 2014, 1:00 – 4:00 pm Location: TBD Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 5 – Summary Notes Date: July 17, 2014, 1:00 – 3:30 pm  Location: Cubberley Community Center, 4000 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto  Attendees:  Name Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville)  Susan Nightingale Business owner, Watercourse Way  Brett Somers Employee, Palantir Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee  Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Tom Fehrenbach Economic Development Manager, City of Palo Alto Amy Huang Circlepoint Kelsey Kawaguchi Parking Intern, City of Palo Alto  Yuki Matsuura City Auditor, City of Palo Alto  Russ Cohen Palo Alto Downtown Professionals Association Tommy Derrick Resident Paul Machado Resident, Evergreen Park Mel Matsumoto Channing House *Members in gray are RPP Stakeholders.  Meeting Goals:  1. Review program timeline.  2. Respond to current “supply” proposal.  3. Design survey to be distributed to Downtown neighborhoods.  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Goals  and Agenda  b. Members of the Public Comment   Comment from resident that internal conflicts are sabotaging the group’s interests. Resident  stressed urgency of original motion to have functional parking system by January 2.   Evergreen Park resident noted that northern Evergreen Park is full and provided map of  southern Evergreen Park occupancy. (View map on RPP website.)  c. Brief TDM/Parking Update   Jessica provided overview of her role and level of responsibility.   Jessica summarized TDM measures going before Council in next 1‐2 months: Zipcar contract  award, TMA consultant selection, garage tech implementation plan and policy changes, RFPs for  contracted enforcement and online permit sales, public‐private partnership proposals for mixing  other uses with parking, valet program expansion to Civic Center garage.  o Remote lot on Embarcadero is an action item at next Council meeting; Stakeholders  encouraged to attend to provide their support for the satellite parking.  o Stakeholders inquired about online permit sales. Staff responded that end goal is to have  permits available via third‐party interface. Enforcement methods will tie in, and permits will  be transferable.  o Stakeholder commented that existing empty garages need to be utilized.  o Stakeholder commented that though valet program increases utilization, it does not support  service workers who are uncomfortable using valet parking.  d. Summary of Ordinance Feedback and Input   Purpose of Ordinance is to create parity in how the various RPP districts are developed (College  Terrace will become part of Ordinance). Ordinance allows for provision of private enforcement,  but level of enforcement may be set in the Resolution.   Staff requests concrete feedback on how to simplify process, given the requirements of going  to PTC, going to Council, and performing occupancy studies. Comments allowed through  October/November.  o Stakeholder expressed that districts need to be smaller to be impactful; Staff responded  that this issue is in the purview of the Resolution, not the Ordinance.   Staff revisited issue of minimum level of support (percent of surveys received that are in favor).  Stakeholders voted as follows: 50+1% – 5 votes. 55% – 2 votes. 65% – 1 vote. 70% – 0 votes.   Staff raised issue of minimum level of participation (percent of surveys distributed that are  returned). Stakeholders voted as follows: No threshold – 7 votes. Require 50% threshold – 1  vote.   Outreach: Draft Ordinance will be distributed this week to Chamber of Commerce mailing list,  neighborhood leaders, PAMF, and other venues. Stakeholders are requested to circulate the  Ordinance and suggest any additional audiences.   Timeline:  o September 10: Present RPP Program/Resolution at PTC.  o November 17: Present Ordinance (first reading) and seek approval on RPP  Program/Resolution at Council.  o December: Present Ordinance (second reading) at Council.  o Implementation can begin in November, especially if “contingent approval” measures  succeed.  o Staff will target sending survey at beginning of August for an open response period of 4  weeks and convene a community meeting before going to Council.  e. Summary of Progress on Program Design – Current Proposals   Staff summarized that Group has expressed some level of consent on three (3) proposals:  1. Allocating spots within district (~20%) for employee parking. This proposal cannot be  implemented by January and, as discussed at previous meetings, would require public  outreach to confirm the placement of the spots.   2. Regulations (limitation) of employee permit sales for identified zones nearer to the  commercial core and unlimited permit sales outside of the zones (closer to the  perimeter of the boundary). This proposal seeks to spread out the parking impact over a  larger area and provide relief to the areas which are closest to the commercial core. This  proposal can be implemented starting in January.  3. Trial program where color‐coded permits are distributed at minimal cost for employees  and residents (data collection exercise). This proposal can be implemented starting in  January.   Staff Input on Proposal 3 (which was discussed at last meeting): Staff disagrees with minimal  fee: pricing mechanism needs to begin regulating where people park. Lower‐income workers  should be considered, e.g. for designated lots/garages. Maximum 2 residential permits per  household. Employee permits to be made available to all valid employees of Downtown and  phased out as more supply is introduced.   Stakeholders expressed importance of defining pricing structure. Stakeholder commented on  urgency of supply issue and questioned necessity of community survey. Some stakeholder  rescinded support for data collection proposal discussed at previous meeting.   Costs:  o Staff quoted parking consultant’s recommendation to have tiered permits durations  (monthly, daily) for wage workers. Stakeholder agrees. Staff confirms RPP Program may be  subsidized from General Fund since permit revenues likely cannot cover the costs of the  program.  o Stakeholders discussed different permits for professional vs. hourly/service workers, as  those two groups will have different use cases in terms of purchasing power and occupancy  over time. Stakeholder suggested basing permit price on general business use (e.g. retail,  restaurant). Stakeholders agreed $100‐200 annually was in the right range for service  workers. Stakeholder suggested requiring business owners to purchase a number of permits  equal to some percent of their employee count to begin generating revenue for City and to  force the supply issue. Staff was uncomfortable with such a requirement due to City’s desire  to encourage people to drive less.  o Staff confirmed that tiered permit durations do not necessarily increase enforcement cost  (via License Plate Recognition technology where multiple license plates can be associated  with a registered permit).  o Stakeholders discussed and suggested the permit costs as follows:  Duration Professional Hourly (Low‐ Wage)  Residential  Daily $17.50 (current cost – not RPP permit)  Monthly $40 $10   Quarterly $176 $30   Annual $466 $100  (transferable)  $30‐$50    f. Downtown RPP District Survey Design   Purpose of survey is to gather feedback on design of RPP Program (community input on top of  Group input) and verify percentage of support to the various programs being discussed. Survey  will be short (one page, approximately 10 questions), and Staff will target 1 returned survey per  household.   Audience: Stakeholders suggested that every address in the District (residences and businesses)  should receive the survey, and responses should be coded or otherwise distinguished by  neighborhood. Stakeholder urged Staff to allow residents to take survey online, especially if an  online survey is already being created and distributed to businesses.   Background information: Stakeholders suggested including personal appeal in first line (“Your  residence is being considered for RPP…”), “three‐legged stool” graphic, FAQs that set context  (explain current parking costs, notify that increased enforcement will increase permit costs,  establish the urgency of approving the program), URL for more information, Stakeholder contact  details (Stakeholders to opt‐in). Jessica requests stakeholders sent draft survey question text  to her by next week.   Questions:  o Do you support the creation of an RPP District in your neighborhood? (last question)   Yes   Yes, if…   No, because…  o Brief explanation of percentage of spots allocation proposal (proposal number 1). Check all  that apply:   No, no allocation   Yes, I’m OK with specifically‐allocated spots on my street ( “up to X%”)   Yes, I’m OK with random allocation on my street   Yes, I’m OK with one spot in front of my house  o <Enforcement – days of the week.> Check all that apply:   Monday – Friday   Saturday   Sunday  o <Enforcement – hours of the day.> Check all that apply:   8 a.m. – 5 p.m.   Additional morning hours   Additional evening hours   Other (please explain)  o How many permits would you require for your household/business?  o What is a fair/reasonable price? (Include background info on employee pricing structure.)   <= 30, <= 50, <= 80   Specify a range   Specify a number  o Stakeholder suggested additional questions for business‐specific survey:   How far are you willing to walk?   How many permits do you need?   Would it be relevant to your company to have hourly or low‐wage permits?   Would it be relevant to your company to have transferable permits or shared permits?  g. Members of the Public Comment   Mel Matsumoto commented that Channing House will have to educate residents and offered  the use of Channing House auditorium (capacity 130) for any meetings.   Russ Cohen suggested doing the survey by phone and additionally commented that $466 for an  annual permit is difficult for people to pay up front. Mr. Cohen suggested offering the option to  pay in installments, ensuring that the installments come out to less than $17.50 per day.   Tommy Derrick urged Stakeholder Group to simplify Program to have only resident and business  permits, and to restrict anyone but business owners from buying business permits. Mr. Derrick  suggested that employees of business who do not subsidize permits will go elsewhere and  recommended using an electronic hangtag‐based system for transferable permits.   Stakeholder commented that time limits of the supply proposals need to be defined so  Stakeholders can provide useful information to neighbors.   Stakeholder commented that current supply proposals are not equitable for different  geographic locations.  Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date  Coordinate Community Outreach  Meeting  City 9/15/2014  Provide public registry data on  how many people are working  downtown  City Mid‐2015  Send draft text for any desired  survey questions  Stakeholder Group 7/25/2014  Suggest any additional audiences  for outreach and circulate Draft  Ordinance among own circles  Stakeholder Group 7/25/2014  Provide feedback on simplifying  RPP creation process for  Ordinance  Stakeholder Group 10/31/2014  Next Meeting All attendees supported having an additional 2‐hour meeting to take straw votes on remaining policies.  Date: Thursday, July 31, 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. (tentative)   Location: TBD     Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 6 – Summary Notes Date: July 31, 2014, 1:00 – 3:00 pm  Location: Museum of American Heritage, 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto  Attendees:  Name* Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville)  Susan Nightingale Business owner, Watercourse Way  Chop Keenan Land owner, Keenan Land Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Tom Fehrenbach Economic Development Manager, City of Palo Alto Kelsey Kawaguchi Transportation Intern, City of Palo Alto  Amy Huang Circlepoint Joe Baldwin Resident, 850 Webster, #524 Rob Lipshutz Resident, 970 Palo Alto Avenue  Alice Frayne Resident, 850 Webster, #303 Fred Kohler Resident, 315 Homer Avenue, #201  Paul Machado Resident, 363 Stanford Avenue  Kuo‐Jung Chang Resident, 315 Homer Avenue, #201  Barbara Wallace Resident, 356 Lincoln Avenue  Peter Hertzmann Resident, 445 Homer Avenue  Russ Cohen Downtown Business and Professional Association *Names in gray denote RPP Stakeholders.  Meeting Goals:  1. Review survey(s).  2. Review timeline for survey distribution and other milestones.  3. Continue Program design discussion (policy questions, continued).  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Goals  and Agenda  b. Members of the Public Comment   Question from Paul Machado, Evergreen Park resident, on how RPP Program will address  pipeline projects that are under‐parked (sometimes because of exemptions) and the impacts to  businesses.  c. Survey Review and Schedule  Review of Schedule   Because proposed RPP Program (designating spots on street) requires additional input from the  residents, Staff wants to use the community survey to obtain feedback on the design of the  program before going to PTC for the final recommendation. Therefore, Staff has added a final  meeting with PTC in November in addition to September’s first review meeting. Council’s first  reading of Ordinance will be in late November. Second reading of Ordinance and Contract  Awards will happen in December.   Staff plans to send survey out by mid‐August, with responses returned in 4‐6 weeks, and will  send the survey twice to constituents who do not respond the first time.   Stakeholder asked about signage fabrication and installation timeline. Jessica clarified that signs  can be erected in 60‐90 days and confirmed work is expected to be complete in June 2015.   Jessica confirmed that Staff’s tentative colored zones proposal (“Regulation of permit sales in  key zones around the core and unregulated permits elsewhere”) does not supersede the  Group’s proposal, and also that Staff is not including this proposal in the survey because of its  complexity. Jessica reiterated advisory nature of Stakeholder Group to Council.   Group discussed scheduling additional meetings. Group decided on an additional 1‐hour check‐ in meeting in September and an additional 2‐hour meeting in October to discuss survey results.  Staff confirmed meeting materials would be sent out in advance of these meetings.   Revised timeline (updates are underlined):  o September 10: Present update on RPP Program/Resolution at PTC.  o November 12: Present final RPP Program/Resolution at PTC.  o November 17: Present Ordinance (first reading) and seek approval on RPP  Program/Resolution at Council.  o December: Present Ordinance (second reading) and Contract Awards for RPP online permit  sales and contract enforcement at Council.  Review of Technology Recommendations    Jessica provided an update on the parking consultant’s technology recommendations. Jessica  requested Stakeholder support on all or a subset of these recommendations when they are  presented to Council on August 18. The recommendations include:  o Branding program/standardized signage, including variable message signs for parking  guidance systems  o Enhanced City parking website  o Parking app (can tie in with parking guidance systems)  o Online permit sales  o Revised time limits in garages (data elsewhere showed garages were not being used for the  full 3 hours)  o More permit pricing options  o Elimination of color zones  o Implementation of off‐street paid parking (refers to the installation of infrastructure  necessary to begin charging in public lots/garages)  o Enhanced parking enforcement   Stakeholder suggested that parking app include private parking facilities (e.g. bank parking).   Staff clarified that the order of recommendations is not based on priority. Staff is asking for  specific direction on the implementation of Parking Guidance Systems and Access and Revenue  Controls. On‐street paid parking is mentioned but not explicitly recommended.   Stakeholder asked about how these recommendations impact the transferability of employee  parking permits. Staff confirmed that the off‐street paid parking technology would facilitate  permit management. These and additional details will be discussed once Council reviews and  approves these high‐level recommendations.   Stakeholders expressed concern over the lack of a replacement for the color zones, the  formation of recommendations to Council without constituent buy‐in, the lack of mention of on‐ street paid parking (meters priced to incentivize permits), and the lack of response to medium‐ term parking issues (6‐10 hour parkers in the neighborhoods).   Report will be publicly available beginning August 13. Jessica will send consultant  recommendation subsection to Group.  Review of Survey   Staff will outreach directly to businesses for feedback on RPP Program via e‐newsletter to  Chamber and Business Associations, summarizing discussion to date; website tool to collect  comments; and direct outreach to Middlefield businesses.   Stakeholders gave feedback on survey in round robin format. Issues raised include:  o Survey methodology should be strict.  o Staff should track responses by address block or zone.  o Meaningful analysis will be difficult if turnout is low.  o Survey is difficult to understand; simplified language or bullets would be easier to read.  o Email distribution is more effective than paper mailing.   o Proposal as described on survey penalizes residents rather than problem parkers.  o Survey leaves too many open questions to express support or opposition.  o Price should be listed as a range, e.g. $30‐50.  o Map is misleading and should differentiate between business district and Downtown Core  developments that are north of Forest.  o Stakeholders were unclear on current proposal’s impacts to unlimited 2‐hour parking. Group  discussed and recommended adding 2‐hour parking in the sense of a “one‐time shot within  the zone” to the description. Staff do not support this proposal and maintain that the only  way to implement this strategy is with the inclusion of zones within the RPP District, but two  hour parking should be clarified within the survey and FAQ.  o Stakeholder commented that residents might not understand the impacts of different hours  of enforcement to businesses. Group discussed having multiple (3) options for hours of  enforcement, or removing the question. Group had previously arrived at consensus on  enforcement hours of “9:00 am to 7:00 am, pending more data, with 2 hours free without a  permit. Perhaps different hours for different neighborhoods.”  o Group discussed efforts to educate recipients before they receive the survey and reduce  survey bias. Staff noted that additional outreach efforts would impede the strict timeline.  Group recommended including the e‐newsletter content and a fact sheet/FAQ with the  survey.  o Stakeholder discussed whether survey would be used as a “ballot” to determine whether  the district is formed. Staff clarified that the survey is meant to obtain feedback and will not  have the exact definition of the Program on it. Stakeholder recommended adding a link to  the website feedback tool on the survey to collect comments.  d. Members of the Public Comment   Joe Baldwin suggested that the survey have three questions: (1) Is it difficult for you, your  friends, family, visitors, and service providers to park? Y/N. (2) Has it become more difficult since  2001? Y/N. (3) Would you favor some form of RPP if a permit cost you $40/year? Y/N.   Rob Lipshutz, resident on Palo Alto Avenue below Seneca, asked whether boundary of district  ended at Seneca or Guinda. Staff clarified Guinda and will update map.   Peter Hertzmann asked whether normal users of off‐street parking could obtain free temporary  permits if their driveway were blocked (e.g. by church activities).   Russ Cohen made the following comments: (1) The survey should ask whether residents would  accept having a space/signage in front of their house, as the visual blight issue defeated other  RPP programs. (2) A response rate of greater than 1% is considered good. (3) A phone survey  would be quicker, since the City has phone numbers but not email addresses, and would provide  additional data above a mailed survey, such as why a resident is not interested, or that they  don’t understand. (4) Mr. Cohen is concerned about the impacts of eliminating the color zones  without adding another regulatory mechanism. (5) If parking meters are not brought up in  discussion now, there will be no viable movement on the issue. (6) Mr. Cohen suggested  targeted business outreach to restaurants and medical offices specifically.   A College Terrace resident suggested that the survey add the question, “Would you support a  program under the template already established at College Terrace?” She noted that the block‐ to‐block vote was onerous for College Terrace and requested that visitor parking be protected.   Mary, Board member at a Condominium Association on Guinda, made the following comments:  (1) She was concerned about the response rate and necessity of personal education of  residents. (2) She noted that there were not enough spaces for everyone, not to mention  visitors and service workers who might come for intervals greater than 2 hours.   Stakeholder reinforced importance of highlighting supply with Council. Staff presentation on  supply, the TMA contractor award, and satellite parking improvements are to be discussed at a  Council meeting on August 11. Staff requests that Stakeholders express their support to  Council.  Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date  Provide feedback on simplifying  RPP creation process for  Ordinance  Stakeholder Group 10/31/2014  Distribute updated survey and  post online feedback form.  City 8/15/2014  Draft resolution language  City 10/15/2014  Support Staff technology  recommendations at Council  meeting on August 18  Stakeholder Group 8/18/2014  Send parking consultant  technology recommendations to  Stakeholder Group  City 8/18/2014  Next Meeting Date: Thursday, August 21, 1:00 – 3:00   Location: Lucie Stern Community Center, Fireside Room       Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 7 – Summary Notes Date: August 21, 2014, 1:00 – 3:00 pm  Location: Fireside Room, Lucie Stern Community Center, 1305 Middlefield Road  Attendees:  Name Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Brett Somers Employee, Palantir Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee  Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Tom Fehrenbach Economic Development Manager, City of Palo Alto Cara Silver Senior Assistant City Attorney, City of Palo Alto Kelsey Kawaguchi Transportation Intern, City of Palo Alto  Amy Huang Circlepoint Joe Baldwin Resident, 850 Webster, #524 Tommy Derrick Resident Barbara Gross Manager, Garden Court Hotel  David McKenzie Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce  Russ Cohen Downtown Business and Professional Association   Meeting Goals:  1. Review timeline and program updates.  2. Legal update and discussion.  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Goals and Agenda  b. Members of the Public Comment   Joe Baldwin discussed the deterioration of quality of life and referenced the Comprehensive  Plan’s aim to preserve the character of the city. Mr. Baldwin was concerned that the City’s  efforts do not address the projected growth in parking demand from new jobs. He requested  that the survey ask “Do you favor an effort to reduce the number of cars parked downtown”  rather than “Do you support this program,” referring to something not well‐defined.  c. Program Updates   Parking Management: Staff felt that Monday’s Council meeting was successful and focused on  moving forward permit policy and pricing solutions.     Zipcar: Will launch August 28 with 10 cars within the Downtown Commercial core. Use case is  employees who drive to work because they need to run errands during the day.  o Stakeholder asked what the measurable effect on demand would be. Staff responded that  the contract allows the City to add more cars if the trial run is successful.   Transportation Management Association (TMA): Non‐profit TMA is intended to manage  alternative transportation programs and funding around downtown and ultimately throughout  Palo Alto and even neighboring cities. Consultant will engage Stakeholder Group and others to  create a Steering Committee. Goal is 30% reduction in single‐occupancy vehicle trips after three  years. Vision is for City to have staff on Steering Committee and have TMA run parking  programs.  o Stakeholder asked whether scope of work included multiple commercial centers, e.g.  California Avenue and Stanford Research Park. City responded that TMA consultant has  asked Stanford to be included in the Steering Committee and is at liberty to engage other  centers in order to meet aggressive goal.  o Stakeholders discussed viability of TMA efforts. Stakeholder voiced that limiting geographic  scope to the parking assessment district or the area defined by Downtown CAP study would  not grasp the totality of the problem. Staff reiterated that the consultant group was charged  with a reduction in single‐occupant vehicle traffic, and if this meant engaging other  commercial centers, they were free to do so.   Satellite Parking: Council has agreed to initiate environmental review and design for up to 132  spaces on Embarcadero east of 101 at Faber Place.  o Stakeholder was concerned about the displacement of parkers in the current lot while the  garage is being constructed.  o Stakeholder referenced his misunderstanding the status of the proposed lot as a temporary  solution vs. a permitted solution, and mentioned that Council worries about Embarcadero  shuttle impacts. Stakeholders discussed ongoing need to educate Council on supply  measures and other proposed solutions and to be vocal by attending Council meetings.   Garage Technology and Wayfinding:   o Council supports implementing technology to maximize utilization and support paid parking.  RFP will include parking guidance systems (showing available hourly and permit spots, both  at garage entrance and at key locations), revenue and access controls (e.g. pay gate),  methods of payment (e.g. standalone pay stations,  meters, mobile payment). RFP is  targeted to go out by end of year for mid‐late 2015 implementation.  o Additional RFP for improved branding and wayfinding signage is being released now, for  mid‐2015 implementation.  o RFP for permit procurement website (RPP sales and website design) will go out in about 1  month.  o Stakeholder raised policy issue that guidance systems for nearby permit spots would  theoretically remove block‐specific permit restrictions and asked which entity would make  this policy decision. Staff will deliberate with the parking committee but believed that  Council would have the final ruling on this.     o Stakeholder asked if these initiatives were specific to garages and lots. Staff confirmed the  desire to perform the same analysis on streets.  o Staff presented the VIMOC Parking Occupancy Technology Pilot Program at King Plaza,  which can gather information on average parking duration/turnover for an individual  parking spot, and discussed the plan to expand the program to Ramona. Stakeholders were  appreciative of the program and supported its expansion into the downtown and residential  areas.   Displacement: Stakeholders discussed the message being circulated in print media that “there  will be commuters who no longer have a place to park” and question of whether the RPP  program would displace workers.  o Stakeholder commented that recent discussions have been more favorable to residents and  will not lead to an equitable solution for business employees.  o Stakeholders referenced previous Group discussions about accommodating employees from  day one of RPP and believed this message was not being heard by media.  o Stakeholder commented that the goal of the program is to reduce commercial parking  intrusion into neighborhoods, which is being balanced by reduced permit costs to workers.  o Stakeholders discussed advanced notice to businesses. Stakeholder expressed that the TDM  programs are contributing to a comprehensive solution and asked if better buffer time  between permit purchase availability and implementation would aid businesses.  o Staff confirmed there was no prior agreement to displace any parkers. Stakeholder  commented that the movement will be more of a “shifted burden” than displacement,  especially considering TDM programs. Stakeholders generally agreed that they are ready to  prepare for and participate in significant change, but that change needs to be adequately  defined.  d. Legal Update   Cara Silver presented on the preferential parking stipulations in CA state law.  o As a charter city, Palo Alto can typically adopt its own laws even if in conflict with state laws;  however, Palo Alto is restricted to following state law in the area of parking regulations. CA  Vehicle Code states that cities can implement preferential parking ordinances to give  preferential treatment to “residents and merchants” but does not define merchants, so it’s  unclear whether e.g. office workers are included in that definition.  o Exception: Cities can issue permits to groups other than residents and merchants if the  issuance of those permits will not “adversely affect” the parking situation.  o Cara encouraged the Group to identify key users/groups that would not be accommodated  through other parking alternatives; there could be flexibility under the exception to issue  permits to those discrete groups. Staff intention is to be able to provide permits to those  subgroups immediately.  o Stakeholder commented about impacts on retail employees, who are not “merchants.”   Cara described Staff’s proposal for the setup of the ordinance.  o Ordinance (general framework for implementing districts city‐wide) will be limited to key  pieces:     Designation criteria (items to prove in order to establish the program)   Permit types (residential, merchant, other pending defined subgroups)   Exemptions (emergency vehicles, school events, etc.)   Fines and enforcement   Procedure to dissolve program  o Regulations (more detailed administrative guidelines), which are codified via administrative  bulletin, could include:   Response rates   Occupancy study requirements   Proof of residency  o Resolution (for implementation of individual neighborhood districts):   Identification of affected blocks   Hours of operation  o Kara confirmed permit fees live in the fee schedule, a separate document. If fees are  different for different zones, that could be added to the Resolution.  o Staff will distribute the draft ordinance at the end of August.  e. Survey Discussion   Staff confirmed that there would be no community meetings and requested direct feedback via  the feedback form on the RPP website.  f. Resolution Review   Group reviewed District boundaries.   Group discussed space allocation for residents: up to 2 per household, except for multi‐family  dwelling units (note: ~4,500 households * 2 permits = 9,000 permits for 5,400 street spaces).  o Stakeholders commented that permit prices should keep people parking in their driveways if  possible and to be cautious of the driveway rental market.   Group discussed space allocation for employees: permits would be assigned to a block face, or  spaces could ultimately be striped at an appropriate percentage (suggested 20%).  o Group discussed the ideal percentage, with some saying that 20% would not be enough, and  others saying it would be too much and not defensible to residents/Council. Stakeholders  suggested having a concrete number for the upper bound, but tying it to a time limit (e.g. six  months).   g. Members of the Public Comment   Former planner suggested having stricter development standards to stem the incoming pipeline  of projects and intensification of uses.   Tommy Derrick suggested ignoring the “red herring” of “displacement” outcry and moving the  program forward with 20% allocation due to the urgency of taking action.   Russ Cohen recommended ensuring adequate process behind the Council’s ability to “enact an  emergency program” to reduce reflexive reactions to strong lobbying. He also requested that  the Group take a pledge not to lobby Councilmembers, speak with the media, etc. unless under  the auspices of the Group, due to such communication’s undermining the Group’s larger  motives.     Mary Dimmett (sp?) requested that the City/Group continue to push supply forward for the sake  of people with mobility challenges. She requested clarification on the extent of the survey  question phrase “anywhere in the neighborhood” and on hours of enforcement. She supported  the idea of making additional permits for multiple cars more expensive, and expressed concern  about the usage of the satellite parking lot during crowded commute hours at  101/Embarcadero.   David McKenzie requested that the City/Group provide more messaging about the changes  under the RPP program by the end of the month.  Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date  Provide public registry data on  how many people are working  downtown  City Mid‐2015  Distribute draft ordinance City 8/31/2014  Distribute draft resolution City Mid‐September  Next Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 17, 1:00 – 3:00   Location: Museum of American Heritage, 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto     Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 8 – Summary Notes Date: September 17, 2014   Location: The Museum of American Heritage, 351 Homer Ave, Palo Alto   Attendees:  Name* Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Gabrielle Layton Resident, 365 Lincoln (Downtown South)  Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville)  Susan Nightingale Business owner, Watercourse Way  Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee  Chop Keenan Land owner, Keenan Land Company  Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Tom Fehrenbach Economic Development Manager, City of Palo Alto Kelsey Kawaguchi Transportation Intern, City of Palo Alto  Mark Nanericz Resident, 288 Waverley Darryl Fenwick  Resident, 204 Ramona Paul Machado Resident, 363 Stanford Tommy Derrick Resident, 390 Leland Greta Purcell Resident, 860 Forest Joe Baldwin Resident, 850 Webster,#524 Steve Levy Resident, 365 Forest Mary Dimit Resident, 784 University   *Names highlighted in gray indicate RPP Stakeholders; other attendees include members of the public  and City Staff.  Meeting Goals:  1. Provide parking program updates.  2. Review Stakeholder input on draft resolution.  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Meeting Goals  b. Members of Public Comment   Steve Levy discussed the pricing of permits for residents, believing the permits should be free to  residents, but only for the first few years. He recommends reconsidering “permit trading” down  the line. Mr. Levy was concerned that some residents have paid for parking spaces near  home/complexes and now residents will be getting street parking privileges for free.    Resident Greta Purcell was concerned the RPP boundary does not extend far enough to the East  of the Downtown Commercial core. She believes the proposed the boundary should extend as  far to the East as it does to the South of the Commercial core.    Darryl Fenwick discussed the issue of displacing commuters, who consequently will be forced to  park elsewhere. Mr. Fenwick was concerned the solution does not address the large number of  commuter vehicles and residents should be more tolerant of the vehicles.   Resident Mary Dimit discussed the varying parking situations that may exist for multifamily  units, which she feels should be given a closer look. Ms. Dimit believes the program needs  flexibility after implementation.     Joe Baldwin was concerned that Phase 1 of implementation may be counterproductive to the  goals of RPP and wanted numbers to be included in the resolution, not in the administrative  regulations. Mr. Baldwin believes allocated spaces are needed for a successful program and  institutional residential areas need special accommodation i.e. Channing House. He suggested  the possibility of clustering employee spaces near Channing House.  c. Parking Program Update   Zipcar: 10 spots within the Downtown Commercial core. The program has seen 10%‐30%  utilization within the first two weeks since the program launch.  o Stakeholder asked about marketing for the program and the target utilization rate. Staff  responded that target outreach is planned and the target usage rate is 35%, which is  seen in other cities around the peninsula.    Transportation Management Association (TMA): Interviews for the steering committee are  being conducted. TMA will be able to provide a forum for larger transportation and parking  discussions.   o Stakeholder asked about how California Avenue will fit into the program. Staff  responded that it is unknown at this early point in the process.  o Stakeholder asked who chairs the TMA. Staff responded that the consultant is  interviewing City recommended‐individuals for the steering committee.  o Stakeholder inquired the geographical boundaries of the TMA. Staff responded that  outreach to larger players in the community will help determine the boundaries, but at  the present time no boundaries are set as the program is still in early stages.    Satellite Parking Analysis: The concept designs for the program are targeted to be available by  the end November.   Parking Technology and Wayfinding: The Wayfinding and signage RFP is expected to be posted  in September with the Garage Technology following in October. The design process is targeted  to begin in early 2015.   o Stakeholder understood the benefit of the programs to visitors and short term parkers  and wanted clarification regarding whether the revenue and access control systems will  allow permit transferability between garages.    o Stakeholder asked whether all garages would have the parking wayfinding and  technology added to them. Staff responded that there is funding for two garages with  the ability to increase to four garages depending on pricing.   Transferability of Permits  o Stakeholders sought clarification regarding transferability of permits. Staff replied that  permits may not be sold to a business; instead they may be sold to an employee and  transferred within a business. Details regarding transferability of permits will be  discussed again in January/ February.  Staff responded that the details have not been  finalized but that the implementation of revenue and access controls will potentially  facilitate the introduction of a “business lot” permit which would allow employees  within a business to be associated with a pool of permits for that business. The business  could be charged for non‐permit‐holding employee garage use. However, this concept is  distinct from “permit transferability”, which implies that one employee could give their  permit to someone else if they left the company.    Parking Occupancy Technology: Additional sensors have been added on Ramona; the City is  trying out different kind of sensors including ones with LED indicator lights.    General Stakeholder Comments  o Stakeholder indicated that transferability of permits between employees and garages  would be an important issue for businesses.  o Stakeholder wanted the permit process to be easy and cheap for hourly workers.  o Stakeholders emphasized the importance of selling permits for valid for small  increments of time such as a month or a day.  o Stakeholder brought attention to increased possibility of black market sales for permits  with the increased difficulty parking  d. Draft Resolution Overview    Draft Resolution possesses seven sections.   o Section 1 establishes that the criteria for a RPP program outlined in the Ordinance have  been met.  o Section 2 defines the parameters of the trial period. The trial period will have two  phases. Phase 1 will be six months and Phase 2 will run for at least twelve months. The  standard commuter employee permit is suggested to be sold for $300/year while low  wage employees will qualify for permits priced at $100/year. During Phase 1 residents  will receive up to two free permits. During Phase 2 residents may receive one free  permit with each additional permit increasing in price.   o Stakeholder mentioned a referencing error in the resolution that needs to be addressed;  Staff will address.  o Section 3 establishes the district boundaries for the program. Staff indicated that the  recommendation for the boundary would potentially depend on survey results.  o Section 4 defines that program’s hours of enforcement will be 8 AM to 5 PM Monday  through Friday, and parking will be limited to two hours within the neighborhoods after  which a non‐permit holder would need to move their car to another space. Staff  emphasized the need to at least initially allow re‐parking within the District as the area  was too large to restrict parking to a single two hour stay.  o Section 5 outlines the criteria for purchasing permits and the quantity of permits that  may be distributed to residents and employees.   o Section 6 outlines the pricing system of permits.    Stakeholder Discussion  o Stakeholders discussed pricing of the permits for the program. There was concern that  the price for a standard employee permit in the neighborhood was too low and should  be at least equal to permits for the parking garages in downtown.   o Stakeholder reasoned that all permits should be free during Phase 1 to collect data to  find out who is parking in the neighborhoods and where they are coming from. Also  agreed the prices need to be chosen carefully.  o Stakeholder believed pricing of permits should play a role during Phase 1 to reduce  “shock to system” and as a mechanism to change behavior. Stakeholder wanted  resident permits to be free for the first two cars and control the supply through a pricing  mechanism, rather than limiting the availability of permits to residents.  o Stakeholder was concerned that the lower price for the permits in the neighborhood  would discourage employees from parking in the garages in downtown. Suggested to  make it a criterion that permits for the neighborhood would not be sold until the  downtown garages meet a threshold of 90%.  o The group discussed the improvements to the parking situation during the trial period.  One stakeholder believed Phase 1 of the trail should provide substantial relief to the  residents, and was concerned that selling “unlimited” employee commuter permits  might compromise this. Others felt the trial period would bring incremental relief,  preventing Caltrain commuters from parking in the neighborhoods during Phase 1 and  Phase 2 would bring additional improvements.   o Stakeholder feels there isn’t an appropriate database to gather information and believes  the current solution leaves room for the system to be gamed.   o Stakeholder believes Phase 2 process should be flexible and address the possible  situation where the garages start emptying due to increased employees parking in the  neighborhood. Stakeholder suggested the standard commuter employee permit be  equal to the price of a permit for the downtown garages. Staff responded with  suggestion of making sure garages are full before selling commuter permits for the  neighborhood.  o Staff raised issue of classifying permit qualification based on type of service provided or  by income level.  o Stakeholder addressed the current parking habits of employees. Stakeholder pointed  out that SOFA employees tend not to park in the downtown garages because they are  too far away. A Stakeholders survey of employees  showed approximately 15% of  employees were paying $5/day to park in the Caltrain lot, another portion parking south  of Emerson/Addison, and the majority re‐parking their car every two hours. Stakeholder  wants to support the program and encourage employees to participate.  o Stakeholders discussed the topic of increasing parking supply and parking efforts to  increase supply. It was suggested that residents should support the project to increase  parking supply, i.e. Urban Lane, because they are the ones who vote on issues.   o Stakeholder believes that the cost of increasing parking supply should be shared by  residents and businesses.   Straw Votes:  o Staff revisited the issue of selling employee permits based on income vs. type of service  provided. Stakeholders voted as follow: Income‐6 votes in favor. Type of retail providing  service‐ 2 votes in favor. Abstain‐ 2 votes.  o Staff returned to the permit pricing issue asking stakeholders if the price of the standard  professional commuter RPP permits should be equal or greater the cost in the garages.  Stakeholders voted as follows: Yes‐ 8 votes. No‐ 2 votes. Abstain‐ 0 votes.    Additional Stakeholder Comments  o Stakeholders presented the following key points regarding Phase 1 from a discussion  among the stakeholders held prior to the meeting:   Phase 1 issues:   Commuters should pay for residential street parking.   All permits for commuters must be priced at not less than the permit  price for city garages and city lots.   Residential street parking permits must be available for purchase online.   Residential street parking permits must be available for purchase in one  month increments to accommodate hourly workers.   The following Phase 1 related issues should be addressed prior to implementing  Phase 1 to improve utilization of existing city parking facilities:   City garage and City lot parking permits should no longer be garage or  lot specific.   Sufficient additional City garage and City lot parking permits should be  issued to reduce waiting lists and to ensure that the permit spaces in  the garages and lots are at least 95% full during peak periods.  e. Members of Public Comment   Steve Levy felt that City staff should change the parking incentive so that street parking would  be $500 and garages would be $250. Levy also requested that Staff make clear to everyone  where the money from the program will go.    Tommy Derrick urged the group to take another look at the council mandate to decrease the  number of parkers in the neighborhood and emphasized that a trial period is not needed.   Mark Nanericz indicated that many residents may not want to support increases in parking  supply after previous incident where they were promised RPP after the garages were built. His  position is that new developments should deal with their own parking problem.   Paul Machado stated the businesses should also support the residents in advocating for  increased parking supply.   Darryl Fenwick advised the need reasonable expectations and approach. He believes it is not  reasonable to implement the program right away without having a solution for the commuter  parkers. Mr. Fenwick felt that City Council needs to vote to increase parking supply in addition  to moving programs such as RPP forward.  Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date  Finalize Survey Results and Geo‐ coding effort, and present  recommendation to PTC and  Council  City 10/23/14    Next Meeting Date: Thursday October 23, 1:00 – 3:00 Location: Museum of American Heritage, 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto    Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 9 – Summary Notes Date: October 23, 2014, 1:00 – 3:00 pm  Location: Museum of American Heritage, 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto  Attendees:  Name Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Brett Somers Employee, Palantir Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee  Gabrielle Layton Resident, 365 Lincoln (Downtown South)  Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville)  Susan Nightingale Business owner, Watercourse Way  Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee  Chop Keenan Land owner, Keenan Land Hillary Gitelman Planning Department Director, City of Palo Alto Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Amy Huang Circlepoint Mel Matsumoto Channing House Mary Dimit Resident Wendy Silvani TMA Consultant Tommy Derrick Resident Russ Cohen Palo Alto BID   Meeting Goals:  1. Review survey results and Resolution.  2. Review boundary of district for recommendation to Council.  3. Discuss implementation plan for District.  4. Stakeholder recommendation for community outreach.  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Goals and Agenda, Opening Comments   Hillary stressed that the period between now and December 1st is a critical time for the group to  reduce misinformation and outreach to their networks in advance of the Council meeting.  b. Members of the Public Comment   Joe Baldwin requested that the City and Group quantify two cornerstone metrics for PTC and  Council: (1) the increasing parking supply deficit (1,566 according to an outdated staff report; he  requested an updated number due to numerous under‐parked projects in the development    pipeline), and (2) the underutilization of existing lots and garages (current data already  available). He commented that new developments should be required to provide parking to  counterbalance generated demand.   Mel Matsumoto stated that Channing House’s single most important concern is the ability of  night shift employees to walk to work safely and over short distances.   Russ Cohen requested that RPP be not the first TDM tactic to be implemented, but the last, after  the success of the others is evaluated.  c. Survey Results / Resolution   The survey was distributed to about 4,500 households with a 32% response rate, with current  resident approval about evenly split. About 150‐200 employees completed the online feedback  form.   Residents disapproved of demarcating spots on their blocks. Staff will move forward with a  different recommendation to distribute spots through the District.  o Stakeholders discussed equitable distribution of spots. Staff intend to distribute permits per  block face(s) to facilitate detailed data collection (comparable to Santa Cruz RPP), but noted  the recommendation will depend on the enforcement vendor’s constraints.  o Stakeholders expressed concerns about the desirability of permits for block faces closest to  Downtown. Stakeholder rescinded support of permit transferability on the basis that  permits might privatize a street for a specific company.  o Staff confirmed that the allocation recommendation must be finalized before the resolution  goes to council (i.e. for Phase I), even if not applicable until Phase II.   There was little support for RPP south of Lincoln and east of Bryant (a less impacted area). Staff  propose moving the RPP boundary to exclude this area.  o Stakeholder commented that the District must be of sufficient size to prevent people from  simply parking on the edges of the non‐RPP area.  o Stakeholder reported that Kellogg residents are willing to take their chances on an unlikely  parking influx in their neighborhood due to their distance from Downtown.   Residents were concerned about paying for permits.  o Stakeholder asked whether employers would be able to purchase large blocks of permits  during Phase II. Staff will use Phase I data to inform this decision.  o Group discussed permit pricing and whether to charge for permits during Phase I (as agreed  in Meeting No. 8). Stakeholders in favor argued that: Phase I pricing is necessary to move  the dial on behavior; the first six months should not be used to collect data that already  exist; the root cause of the overflow issues and significant capacity in garages/lots is that  people who have parking aren’t using it. Stakeholders against argued that: charging  employees during Phase I will skew the data as people park on District outskirts and move  their cars; this makes it difficult to analyze behavior by geography; the goal of Phase I is to  collect not money but data; charging will push people into the garages, but overflow will still  exist.  o Group re‐voted on whether to charge for Phase I permits ($50/6 mos. for low‐income  workers, $233/6 mos. for professional workers): Yea: 6, Nay: 4, Abstain: 0.     Staff reviewed the changes to the Resolution following the input from Meeting No. 8.   Group discussed statement in Resolution Section 5: “Planning Director shall give priority to low‐ wage workers if demand for commuter parking exceeds supply.”  o Stakeholder was in favor of reduced prices, but not priority.  o Stakeholders recounted that residents had been concerned about retail businesses and had  agreed to support low‐income workers in terms of pricing and access. Stakeholders felt that  residents would not support a program that favored high‐income workers.  o Stakeholder commented that low‐income workers would churn often and still be “in front”  of professional workers, reducing the City’s ability to later support program enforcement.  o Stakeholder requested some mix of policies to ensure spaces would not be “bought up.”  d. Implementation Plan and Project Schedule   Staff reviewed implementation plan, targeting April 2015 for program launch.  e. Communications and Outreach   Staff requested Group input on how to better prepare for and encourage constituents to attend  the November PTC meeting.  o Stakeholders commented that using Phase I/”RPP Light” as an educational period would be  the best way to get traction. Stakeholder recommended building flexibility into the  Resolution so that contentious elements are not hard‐wired.  o Stakeholders recommended a clear, concise bullet‐point document and suggested changes  to the “Why RPP?” document provided at the meeting (condense further; add context about  TDM measures; replace annual fee with 6 month fee; add some timeline information; notice  finalized document to residences).  o Stakeholders liked the idea of channeling people to a town hall where Jessica would attend.  o Stakeholder suggested that the PTC/Council presentation reference or footnote the  contentious issues, as well as add information about the costs vs. revenues.   Group discussed continued stakeholder involvement/outreach during late 2014 and into 2015.  Stakeholders agreed meeting intentions and desired outcomes should be clear (advisory vs.  decision‐making vs. simply informational). Stakeholders were generally in favor of informational  email updates and decision‐making full meetings only if necessary.   Stakeholder requested Staff make the administrative guidelines available as soon as possible  and offer flexibility in Resolution around weekends and after‐hours enforcement.   Staff requested Stakeholders send neighbors’ questions, to be compiled into a FAQ.   Stakeholder reminded Group to reiterate the argument for supply during outreach.  f. Members of the Public Comment   Russ Cohen commented that if City is subsidizing parts of the program, then the timeline for free  permitting needs to be a consideration when developing program financials.   Tommy Derrick commented that the current timeline is short of the original goal of January 1  and urged Staff to revise to launch by mid‐ to late February. He added that the program should  include a resolution regarding 75‐80% of spaces for residents for effectiveness.     Mary Dimit agreed with charging for employees in Phase I. She was in favor of giving priority to  low‐income workers to ensure equitable distribution. She also supported flexibility in tailoring  some blocks for either varied hours or percentage of allocation (e.g. for schools).   Stakeholder commented that there is precedent for a supply increase of even 1,000 spaces.   Stakeholder requested more comprehensive reports on under‐parked garages.  August 15, 2014 Dear Resident, The City of Palo Alto is considering a new Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District in and around the neighborhoods close to Downtown Palo Alto. Your home is located within the proposed Downtown RPP District. The Palo Alto City Council will evaluate a proposal for the Downtown RPP Program later this fall, and City Staff are asking for your input on the program through the attached survey. Your participation in this survey is crucial for City Council and City Staff to gain feedback on the design of this program and how it may impact you as a resident. The following information is attached for your reference: • RPP Frequently Asked Questions • RPP Survey • Preliminary Program Boundaries • Self-addressed envelope Please return the survey in the self-addressed stamped envelope no later than September 8, 2014. If you have additional questions or need help understanding the survey, please contact Jessica Sullivan at Jessica.Sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org. Please note that the city will only accept one (1) returned survey per household address. Sincerely, Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Frequently Asked Questions 1. What is RPP, and why am I getting information about it? RPP stands for “Residential Preferential Parking.” It refers to a program that regulates parking within residential areas. Usually the program is implemented because there is a non-resident source of parking within the neighborhood which makes it difficult for residents to find parking near their own homes. You are receiving information about RPP because there is an RPP program being considered for your neighborhood, and the City would like to solicit your input on the program and its characteristics. 2. What would it mean for me to have RPP in my neighborhood? It would mean that you would need to purchase a permit to park in the public street for longer than two (2) hours during the hours of enforcement of the RPP District. 3. What are the hours of enforcement? It is currently suggested that the RPP hours of enforcement would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mon- day through Friday. If you think that the hours should be different, there is a survey response where you can indicate this. 4. What about the employees who are parking in my neighborhood? Will permits be available to them? While there are many programs being developed to add more employee parking Downtown, the RPP program would at least initially still sell permits to employees. However, these permits would cost more than resident permits, and over time their numbers would be decreased as the parking options increase in the Downtown area. 5. What about people who don’t live or work in Downtown? Can they buy permits? All streets within the District will still provide two hour parking with or without a permit. However, people who park in the neighborhoods who are neither residents nor Downtown/South of Forest (SOFA) employees would not be able to purchase permits. 6. How much would the employee permits cost? The exact cost of employee RPP permits has not been determined; however, ranges have been suggested up to $466 annually, which is the current cost of permits within the Downtown garages. 7. What about my guests and visitors? If they visit me during the hours of enforcement, would they get a ticket? Anyone can park in the neighborhood for up to two hours. The program would also allow you to receive a certain number of visitor permits which would be valid for one day. You could also receive annual guest permits, although the exact number has not been determined. Permits for construc- tion activity would also be available. 8. What is the survey asking me to do? The survey requests your input on two basic questions. The first is whether you support an RPP program in your neighborhood, given these characteristics. The second asks you how the employee permits should be distributed. A group of residents and business leaders has suggested that a limited number of “Employee” parking spots could be physically allocated on the neighbor- hood streets. During the enforcement hours, employees with permits could park in these spots, while residents could not (although at night, any resident could park there). The survey asks if you support employee parking in specific spaces, or whether you would prefer to allow employees with valid permits to park anywhere in the neighborhood. 9. How will my responses be used and what is the timeline? During the months of September and October, City Staff will be compiling your responses and developing the final design of the program, which will be presented to City Council in November for implementation beginning in January of 2015. 10. Whom do I contact if I have more questions? Please contact the city’s parking manager, Jessica Sullivan, at 650.329.2453 or Jessica.sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org • The City is considering implementing an RPP program to regulate non-resident parking in neighborhoods adjacent to Downtown. • A map of the proposed Downtown RPP has been provided on the back of this survey. • Until additional parking can be provided, the RPP program will allow employees of downtown businesses as well as residents to purchase permits. • Permits would not be available to parkers who do not live or work in Downtown. • The cost of resident permits for a trial period would be $50 annually. Employee permits would cost more, although the price has not been established. Additional parking updates and program information can be viewed at www.cityofpaloalto.org/DowntownRPP. You may also leave additional comments on this page. 1. As a resident, are you supportive of this program? Yes No 2. Do you think employees should be required to park in designated spaces on each block? Yes, there should be a few designated spaces for employees on each block. No, employees with valid permits should be able to park anywhere within the neighborhood. 3. What do you think the hours of enforcement should be? Regular business hours: M-F, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Extended hours: M-F, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Extended hours: M-F, 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Additional comments: ReSiDentiAl PReFeRentiAl PARking (RPP) SuRveY Please return this page of the survey in the self-addressed stamped envelope no later than September 8, 2014. 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 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 y S t Wa v e r l y S t Ta s s o S t Ta s s o S t 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 yc e A ve A d dison A ve Linc oln A ve Fife A ve C h an ni n g Ave Pa rki nso n A v e H o p k ins A ve Melville A ve Harriet St P a l o A lt o A v e Al ma S t Al ma St Embarc a d e r o Rd El Camino Real Preliminary Downtown RPP District N SOFA DOWNTOWNCOMMERCIALDISTRICT Proposed Downtown RPP District* Figure 1 illustrates the Downtown RPP District as currently proposed. Residents living within the bound- ary would need to purchase Parking Permits to park on the streets for more than two hours during the hours of the permit enforcement if the program is implemented. *Downtown Business District and the SOFA Business District (shown on the map) are not included in the RPP District. Existing 2-hour parking will not be altered as part of the RPP District plan. Fig. 1 PReliminARY Downtown RPP DiStRiCt Map is approximate ATTACHMENT D NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District Under Chapter 10.50 of the Municipal Code 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 met 9 times and made its recommendations to the City on (1) the provisions of a master ordinance establishing city-wide procedures for Residential Preferential Parking Districts (RPP Districts) and (2) the particular program rules to be applied to the Downtown RPP District. C. On June 11, 2014, and September 10, 2014 and November 12, 2014, the Planning and Transportation Commission held public hearings to consider the proposed master ordinance and the proposed Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking programs. D. On ___________, 2014 the Council adopted Ordinance No. ________, 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. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 for designating a Residential Preferential Permit Zone have been met as follows: (1) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents; (2) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly; (3) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life; (4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical. 1 141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014 ATTACHMENT D NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 2. Duration and Trial Period. The Trial Period for the Downtown RPP District shall be divided into two phases. 1. Phase 1: The first phase shall start from the date that the both installation of signage is complete and enforcement of the District has begun, and last for a period of 6 months. Resident permits will be distributed pursuant to the criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. During the first phase the City shall also issue permits to Employees pursuant to the criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. All permits shall expire at the end of the trial period. The City will collect parking occupancy data on all blocks within the Downtown RPP District to determine how many Employee Permits (both low-wage and professional) should be sold during the subsequent phase of the program. During Phase 1, both Employee and Resident permits will be valid anywhere within the boundaries of the RPP District. During this phase the City may issue a survey to elicit qualitative and quantitative feedback on the program. 2. Phase 2: The second phase of the trial period shall follow Phase 1 and last for at least 12 months. The City will make permits for Phase 2 available prior to the initiation of Phase 2. During the second phase the City will regulate the number of Employee Permits issued based on parking occupancy data collected in the first phase. It is expected this distribution of permits will be iterative and adjusted during the course of Phase two. 3. The RPP District shall remain in force until the City Council takes action to extend, modify, or rescind. The City Council shall consider whether to make the RPP Districts and its their parking programs permanent, modify the Districts and/or their parking regulations, or terminate them no later than December 31, 2016. SECTION 3. District Established. Pursuant to Chapter 10.50, the Downtown Residential Preferred Parking District is hereby established. The boundaries of the Downtown RPP District are shown on Exhibit A attached to this resolution and made a part of it. [Note: Initial boundaries of RPP District may be adjusted based on RPP survey results]. Blocks that are directly adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the Downtown RPP District may become subject to the regulations of the Downtown RPP District in the future if the council approves a resident petition for annexation as provided in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.50.080. SECTION 4. Hours and Days of Enforcement. In both Phase 1 and Phase 2, the parking regulations shall be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. During the regulated days and hours of enforcement, no person shall park in the same on- street parking space within the Downtown RPP for more than two continuous hours without a valid permit. A vehicle lawfully displaying an Employee Parking Permit or a 2 141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014 ATTACHMENT D NOT YET APPROVED Resident Parking Permit shall be exempt from the two-hour limit. Other vehicles exempt from the parking regulations are contained in Chapter 10.50. Outside of these enforcement hours, any motor vehicle may park in the Downtown RPP, subject to other applicable parking regulations. SECTION 5. Residential Parking Permits. A. Duration. With the exception of the 6-month trial period, both Employee and residential permits shall be made available on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis and may be renewed if the applicant continues to be eligible to receive a permit. One-day visitor permits for residents will also be available during both Phases 1 and 2. B. Purchase of Permits. Requirements and eligibility for purchase of permits for both residents and Employees shall be listed in the Administrative Regulations. C. Permit Sales a. Phase 1. i. Each residential address within the Downtown RPP District may receive up to two 6-month permits at no cost. ii. Guest and Visitor permits may be sold at the costs listed in section 6B and 6C. iii. Permit costs will be pro-rated for the 6 month period (e.g. half of the annual fee). iv. All Employees may purchase permits pursuant to the costs listed in Section 6D, pro-rated for 6 months. b. Phase 2. i. Resident Permits. 1. Residential Permits. Each residential address may purchase permits at the costs listed in Section 6A. 2. Daily Visitor Permits. Each residential address may purchase up to 50 Daily Visitor Parking Permits annually. These permits may be in the form of “scratcher” hang tags, an on-line issuance system, or such other form as the city may decide. The permit shall clearly indicate the address to which it was issued and the date for which it is valid. 3. Annual Guest Permits: Each residential address may purchase up to two (2) annual guest permits, which are 3 141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014 ATTACHMENT D NOT YET APPROVED transferable within a household. The permit shall clearly indicate the address to which it was issued and the date for which it is valid. ii. Employee Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits for use by employees working in the area as specified in Exhibit A. Employee Permits shall be subject to the following regulations: 1. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are for the exclusive use by employees working for businesses within the proposed District boundaries while commuting to work and may be transferrable between employees within a specific business. 2. Limit of Sales. The Director will limit Employee permit sales according to a threshold listed in the Administrative Regulations, and give priority to low-wage workers. Employees may purchase permits at the costs listed in Section 6D. 3. Reduced Allocation. After Phase 1, the Director may reduce the allocation of Employee Parking over time as additional parking and transportation options become available. D. Signage and Allocation of Spaces. During Phase 2 of the Trial Period, the City shall regulate which on-street parking spaces shall be dedicated to Employee Parking by selecting one of the following methods: 1. Employee Parking Permit spaces shall be clearly signed and marked as such by the City; 2. Employee Parking Permits shall be assigned by block/blocks; or 3. Other reasonable method designed to distribute Employee Parking throughout the Downtown District and to avoid undue parking saturation in one neighborhood at the expense of others. E. Permit Priority. During Phase 1, the Director shall consult with the Planning and Transportation Commission and determine the maximum number of Employee permits to be issued during Phase 2, such 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. with the goal of effective utilization of Employee spaces without issuing so many permits that excessive traffic from Employees searching for spaces results. The Director shall give permit priority to lower wage earners. [Note: City will define lower wage earner in Regulations.] 4 141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014 ATTACHMENT D NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 6. Cost of Residential and Residential Visitor Parking Permits. During the Initial Trial Period the cost of Parking Permits shall be: A. Resident Permit: a. Phase 1: Residents shall receive up to two permits per residential address at no cost. b. For Phase 2, the prices are as follows: First permit $0/year; second permit $50/year; third permit $50/year; fourth permit $50/year. No more than four parking permits will be sold per residential address in either phase. B. Annual Guest Permit – A residential address may purchase up to two Annual Guest Permits at $50/year ($25 each for Phase 1). C. Visitor Daily Permit -- $5/each D. Employee Permits a. Standard Permit --$466/year ($233/6 months) b. Reduced Rate for income qualifying employees -- $100/year ($50/6 months) SECTION 7. CEQA. This ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. SECTION 8. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. [insert], Amending Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferential Parking Districts) and Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor).immediately upon its passage. Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: 5 141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014 ATTACHMENT D NOT YET APPROVED __________________________ __________________________ Interim City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _______________________ ____________________ Sr. Assistant City Attorney City Manager APPROVED: _____________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment Exhibit A - Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Districts Boundaries 6 141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014 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 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 y S t Wa v e r l y S t Ta s s o S t Ta s s o S t 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 yc e A ve A d dison A ve Linc oln A ve Fife A ve C h an ni n g Ave Pa rki nso n A v e H o p k ins A ve Melville A ve Harriet St P a l o A lt o A v e Al ma S t Al ma St Embarc a d e r o Rd El Camino Real Preliminary Downtown RPP District N SOFA DOWNTOWNCOMMERCIALDISTRICT Proposed Downtown RPP District* Figure 1 illustrates the Downtown RPP District as currently proposed. Residents living within the bound- ary would need to purchase Parking Permits to park on the streets for more than two hours during the hours of the permit enforcement if the program is implemented. *Downtown Business District and the SOFA Business District (shown on the map) are not included in the RPP District. Existing 2-hour parking will not be altered as part of the RPP District plan. Fig. 1 PReliminARY Downtown RPP DiStRiCt Map is approximate December 1: Council Meeting and Public Hearing, 1st Reading of RPP Ordinance • Council Review will review proposed ordinance and resolution Early December: Proposal Review and Union Meetings •Staff will review proposals for onliine permit sales and contract enforcement •Staff will meet and confer with unions for RPP enforcement and online permit sales contracts December 15: 2nd Reading of RPP Ordinance January 2015: Program Launch • Contract Awards for online permit sales vendor and RPP enforcement • Online  permit sales vendor will begin work on website and permit sales interface; training of  revenue collections Staff •Enforcement contractor begins training and mobilization of parking ambassadors •City notices  residents that program has been approved; provides info on permit costs and sales •City notices  Chamber and Downtown businesses details of the program; also notices Stanford,  Caltrain, PAMF, T+C •City completes work orders for sign installation in Downtown February 2015 •City begins sign installation throughout Downtown neighborhoods •City works with online permit sales vendor to determine methodology for tracking of permit sales •CIty determines types of permits and enforcement technology • Contract award for attendant valet programs March 2015 • Online Permit Sales and Parking Website launch; begin selling of RPP permits to employees • Attendant Valet Programs launched at other Downtown garages •Notice to residents that permits are available and enforcement will begin • Community Meeting to answer resident questions • Completion of signage installation in Downtown neighborhoods April 2015: Phase 1 Begins •City begins enforcement of Phase  1 •City begins to track data on number of permits sold         Downtown RPP Milestones and Schedule   11/18/2014  1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 November 12, 2014 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Downtown RPP Resolution Recommendation to Council: The Commission will be asked to7 recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution implementing the downtown district RPP. In order to8 expedite the implementation of a RPP in the downtown area, the area currently most impacted by non-9 residential parking demand, the City has proceeded with these two initiatives on a parallel course. Items10 3 and 4 are related. The items have been agendized separately to permit conflicted Commissioners to11 recuse themselves from area specific discussions in accordance with State Conflict of Interest law. For12 more information contact Jessica Sullivan at Jessica.sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org13 14 Chair Michael: Alright. So we can come back to order and proceed with Item Number 4 and calling on15 Jessica Sullivan to introduce the topic of the Downtown parking ordinance [Note-Resolution].16 17 Jessica Sullivan, Parking Manager: Thank you Chair Michael. So the agenda here is I’m going to give a18 little bit of background on some of the parallel, parallel data that we’ve been collecting on parking in the19 Downtown because I think it speaks to some of the choices and decisions we’ve made in this Resolution.20 We’re going to go through a little bit about the stakeholder process that you’ve already heard a little bit21 about, discuss the kind of main points of the Resolution and then also give some background on the22 survey that we conducted as part of the Downtown district development process.23 24 So again the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) as we talked about with the Ordinance is25 really part of an integrated parking strategy for the Downtown. Our parking supply initiatives,26 Transportation Demand Management (TDM), especially crucial Downtown as we have so much, so many27 parking concerns and traffic concerns in that particular area. So one of the things that I wanted to just28 kind of show graphically I know there’s a lot of information in the staff report, but as we’ve been29 developing this program for the last nine months we’ve also been tracking occupancy of the Downtown30 lots and garages and I just wanted to plot some of the information that we collected especially from our31 garages showing the, their occupancy at sort of the noon or peak hour. The average occupancy based32 on the sort of accepted industry standard for parking garages is 85 percent, which is basically it’s mostly33 full, but you can still find a spot. And so that’s really if there’s some sort of good target for us that is,34 that is a decent one to look at. So the red line that’s plotted there shows the 85 percent as you can see35 our four garages are not too far off from that mark. Lot R is consistently high above that. Lot R is the36 garage where we have our valet program implemented. So we do see higher occupancy levels there.37 and even at Civic Center and at Cowper/Webster we do have some, some months where the garages38 have been dipping below that mark, but overall we’re not too far off from that, from that ballpark39 number. But I also want to point out that this graph shows you the sort of result we’ve been steadily40 increasing the permit sales cap at these garages for the last seven or eight months. And so you don’t41 see a corresponding sort of the more permits we sell the more the garages are full and we suspect one42 reason for that is really because people have had other places to park such as the neighborhoods.43 44 So if we look at the occupancies for the neighborhoods that we’ve been tracking now for a few years45 typically the pattern is pretty much the same. On the left you have basically the midnight hour so the46 green, the green streets show that you have basically 50, 50 percent or less parking occupancy. So half47 of the spots on the street are open. The yellow is between 50 percent and 70 or sorry, it’s actually 5048 percent and 85 percent and then the red is 85 percent and higher. And you do have some blocks, which49 you can see on the right hand side this is the noon hour so you see especially near the Downtown core50 you’re going to see blocks that are at least 85 and sometimes more than 100 percent occupied. I mean51 there’s more cars on the block than can reasonably fit on the block. This is the same pattern we’ve seen52 over the last few years and it appears, it appears that the red blocks are sort of growing. We have53 estimated that that number probably represents something like 1,600 to 1,900 vehicles that are parking54 in the Downtown area. And again this is on top of the occupancy that we see in the parking lots.55 ATTACHMENT F 2 1 So as you’ve heard developing the Downtown Resolution has been a very lengthy and involved process 2 and because our businesses Downtown are such an important part of the community and because they 3 are obviously stakeholders in the parking issue the committee that we led had six residents and five 4 business leaders and I’m going to sort of condense 9 months of meetings into one slide here, but I mean 5 the reality is we really did have consensus on a lot of different topics related to this permit parking 6 program. And so I know that we’re going to talk a lot tonight about some of our differences and some 7 things that we want to change, but I guess I just want to take the two minutes to sort of emphasize 8 there’s a lot of things that this committee agreed on and that we got a lot of feedback from the 9 community on who also agreed. 10 11 So those topics I’ve listed here ultimately there was an understanding that at least initially we really do 12 have to sell permits to employees. And I think that that may seem like a given, given all the discussion 13 that we’ve had over the last few months, but the reality is many RPP programs do not sell permits to 14 employees. So that’s, that’s something that we all agreed on. We agreed on the proposed boundaries of 15 the district and we’ll talk a little bit more about that later, but there was pretty much unanimous 16 agreement on what that should look like within the group. There was general agreement and I won’t say 17 this is 100 percent agreement, but that a phased approach to implementing this program would have a 18 lot of benefits and one of them was that a sort of less stringent Phase 1 would help identify how many 19 people parking in the neighborhoods were the Stanford or Caltrain type parker meaning they don’t, they 20 don’t actually live or work Downtown, but they are parking Downtown and adding to the parking 21 challenge. 22 23 Another thing that all the group agreed on was that we really do need to make permit sales easier and 24 that they should be sold online. And so I’ll talk a little bit about that. There was also a theme of 25 supporting a lower wage/hourly worker within the group, meaning that we recognize that these workers 26 that work at our restaurants and our businesses Downtown really do add tremendously to the vitality of 27 Downtown and we want to give them options. Some people making minimum wage do have a hard time 28 affording the cost of parking in the Downtown garages. And then generally there was agreement on the 29 hours of enforcement of the district being 8:00 to 5:00. There are some, some differences of opinion on 30 that, but that came out also in the resident survey that we conducted. 31 32 So the program that ultimately the committee sort of has a sort of level of consensus on is a phased 33 approach, but I’m just kind of go through the program and I’ll try to call out areas where there is sort of 34 differing senses of opinions in the group, but generally as I said there was a lot of consensus around 35 most of these things. So the Phase 1 as we’ve discussed is a six month phase and basically the idea here 36 is that we’re sort of testing the program, make tweaks as needed, and then use that information to sort 37 of more appropriately design the Phase 2 program. So during Phase 1 we’re not issuing permits to 38 people who don’t live or work Downtown and actually that’s true in Phase 2. I don’t think we have a, 39 we’re not proposing at any point that we sell permits to people who don’t live or work Downtown. And 40 when I say Downtown I mean within the boundaries of the district that we’ll show you. 41 42 Residents are given free permits during Phase 1 and they can have as many permits as they like although 43 the permits would need to be tied to a specific vehicle that’s registered at the resident address. And so 44 these, these details about how permits are sold and who is eligible for permits are something that we 45 want to include in the administrative regulations. I know that seems a little bit like the catch all for just 46 things that we haven’t done yet, but this really is the intention that things like if you apply for a permit 47 and you’re a resident what sort of articles do you need to provide to prove that you’re a resident? Things 48 like that they don’t belong in the Resolution. 49 50 We’re proposing that employees may purchase permits at $233 for the six months for a standard 51 commuter permit. This is the same price as the Downtown garages. So there was support within the 52 committee of the idea of if we’re going to charge for these employee permits they should be at least as 53 expensive as the garages otherwise people will just keep parking in the neighborhood. And then the $50 54 cost is proposed for the six month permit for a low wage employee, the idea being that $100 when we 55 3 polled the business, business workers Downtown they felt $100 was a sort of a fee that they could live 1 with. 2 3 During this phase the City is going to collect data on the number of employees who are purchasing 4 permits and also the resulting occupancies Downtown. So as part of this process as I mentioned will be 5 engaging a vendor that sells the permits online. This vendor is going to have a database of all the 6 permits and we’re going to track them. I think in some ways more thoroughly than we do currently, but 7 the information about who were, who is buying the permits and ultimately what occupancy results in the 8 neighborhoods at that point is going to be very critical for us to develop the recommendation on how we 9 limit the permit sales in the Phase 2 of the program. 10 11 During the first phase all the resident and all of the employee/commuter permits would be eligible 12 anywhere within the district. So meaning if you bought a permit as an employee it doesn’t matter where 13 you park, you can park anywhere. During this phase we’re proposing that we would issue a follow up 14 survey to the residents because we expect that during this phase we’ll have a much better sense of what 15 the impact of the program is and that we’re still saying that parking for two hours is allowed anywhere 16 within the district even if you don’t have a permit. So that’s Phase 1 and all permits issued in Phase 1 17 will expire at the end of Phase 1. 18 19 Phase 2 is basically suggested at being 12 months or longer if the program is not rescinded. During 20 Phase 1 we are essentially determining an employee permit cap for Phase 2. So the idea is that we don’t 21 know right now what that cap should be. There is many within the stakeholder group who felt that 20 22 percent employee allocation of permits if you will is the appropriate number, but the proposal is that we 23 use the Phase 1 to determine how many employee permits we should actually be selling. During Phase 2 24 resident permits will be free for the first permit and then cost $50 each for additional permits up to a 25 maximum of four per household. And there’s also guest and visitor permits that would be available as 26 well. We do put something here about the idea of wanting to develop a business pool permit so that 27 businesses rather than just employees can purchase permits. We think this is very important. We’ve 28 heard a lot of feedback from the business community this is very important. So our goal is to have that 29 option available not just in Phase 1 or sorry, not just in Phase 2 but also in Phase 1. And then the main 30 difference with Phase 2 though is that in addition to regulating the employee permit sales by limiting 31 however many we sell the employee permits are also going to be assigned to a specific area or a block 32 face. So one of the proposals within the group that had a lot of support was this idea of designating 33 specific employee spots within the neighborhood to employees and to employees only; you’ll see that 34 that idea did not get majority support when we surveyed the residents within the area, but the idea of 35 distributing employee permits throughout the district was very important. 36 37 Also mentioned in the Resolution we have a note about the district annexation, which we’ve also talked 38 about in the Ordinance. That basically blocks that are adjacent to a RPP district, which is pushed forward 39 will be able to annex themselves into the district by a petition process similar to how the Crescent Park 40 and College Terrace programs worked. And then the hours of enforcement are proposed at 8:00 to 5:00, 41 two hour parking is permitted without a permit, and currently the way the Ordinance is written two hour 42 parking means that you can park for two hours and you can actually move your car to another two hour 43 spot. It’s not a two hour absolute minimum or sorry, maximum within that area as we felt that that 44 might be too restrictive. 45 46 So some background on the survey which we distributed to kind of come up with some of these 47 recommendations; as many of you know we distributed a survey to the approximately 4,500 households 48 within the boundaries that you see on the screen. And the boundary was originally proposed by the 49 stakeholder group to reach to Palo Alto Avenue east to Guinda and south to Embarcadero and west to 50 Alma. As you can see what we did was we mapped the survey responses by geographic area because 51 we felt that not only the sort of total number of responses was important, but also what people were 52 saying in different parts of the Downtown. And as you can see the results more or less reflect the, the 53 sort of pattern that’s set by the occupancy studies where are people parking a lot and where are they not 54 parking as much. We did get about a 33 percent response rate to the survey and amazingly based on 55 that geographic area the votes in favor of a program and against a program were about a tie. At last 56 4 count it was 738 yes votes, 728 no votes, which is a very small margin. But one of the survey in addition 1 to asking about whether a program was desired the survey also asked people about the design of a 2 program, specifically how they felt about having employee spots actually allocated on the street as well 3 as the hours of enforcement. 4 5 Some of the comments we got on the survey suggested that residents pay $50 per each permit. We got 6 major feedback from a lot of the residents that they felt that they shouldn’t have to pay for permits, 7 which helped us develop the recommendation that residents would get one permit for free and then pay 8 for subsequent permits. The results did not support marking employee spots on the street. We had 9 about 41 percent of the respondents saying that they did want that option and the rest were very 10 concerned about this idea of employee spots for various reasons. Most of the respondents supported an 11 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. hours of enforcement recommendation. 12 13 And then also looking at the geographic responses mapped we noticed that really south of Lincoln 14 Avenue and east of Bryant there was very little support for the program compared to the numbers that 15 we were seeing above that area. And so in our recommendation we say we’re going to recommend that 16 for Phase 1 we don’t include the area where most of the people were not supportive of the program. 17 And this was so the revised boundary is what you can see here, which has the boundary stopping at 18 Lincoln Avenue and then going to Embarcadero kind of making a notch at Bryant. This is pretty 19 consistent with the occupancy study and our, our thinking is if we make this a boundary during the Phase 20 1 program we may keep the boundary that way or it may turn out that in fact cars spill over into the area 21 below that and we may have to reevaluate during Phase 2. 22 23 As far as program implementation goes there are a number of vendors that we would need to bring 24 onboard to make the program feasible. One of them is the online permit sales. As we’ve discussed we’re 25 currently reviewing proposals for a vendor who would sell the permits online. Actually completely third 26 party hosted website that would basically act in conjunction with our Revenue Collections Office here at 27 City Hall. It would be possible to purchase the permit at City Hall as well as purchase the permit online. 28 We’re also proposing that in addition to the online permit sales we kind of upgrade our parking website 29 and provide more comprehensive parking information in a consolidated location. Contract enforcement is 30 another Request for Proposal (RFP) that we’re going to be reviewing. We’ve solicited some firms that do 31 private parking enforcement. And then the signage installation project, which if the program is approved 32 would begin in January we expect, we expect will take at least 60 to 90 days to install signage within the 33 proposed area. 34 35 So if the vendors are brought on board in January and we take 60 to 90 days to get them ramped up and 36 for training to start we expect that we’d be able to start selling permits by March with the idea of 37 beginning enforcement sometime in April. We are working on calculating the projected cost of the 38 program based on information from the vendors and also staff costs associated with it, but right now the 39 program is estimated to cost for the first year including the startup cost probably $500,000 to $700,000 40 in the first year. So that concludes my presentation and we recommend adoption of the Downtown RPP 41 Resolution to City Council. Thank you. 42 43 Chair Michael: Ok, let’s open it up to the public. We’ve got 11 cards if I’m counting correctly more or less 44 and if you’re here on behalf of a group and you need more time please let me know and I’ll, I’ll adjust 45 that. So the first card in the stack is Nancy Adler and I’ll start you off with three minutes. Is Nancy still 46 here? Ok, so she’s gone home. And then we have John Guislin and then next will be Simon Cintz. And 47 do three minutes. Thanks. 48 49 John Guislin: [JR] Commissioners thank you for this opportunity to speak, my name is John Guislin and I 50 served on the stakeholder group for approximately nine months and I want to echo everyone else’s 51 comments about what a great job staff and in particular Jessica Sullivan did managing the group. I had, 52 would not have predicted the success we achieved after the first meeting with the way it started, but we 53 finished up quite strongly and as Jessica said we agreed on many components. 54 55 5 However, I wanted to talk to you about two things that I think are problems with the staff 1 recommendation tonight and the first being having been talked about a bit already the administrative 2 guidelines are not yet developed. And that’s where the rubber meets the road or perhaps the curb in this 3 case is in those guidelines because if we don’t know what the level of parking intrusion is or how many 4 permits are allowed it, we don’t know [policies for] the program might be. And no matter how patient 5 and intelligent and careful and fair our Director of Planning is, I don’t want to give one person the right to 6 determine that number for the citizens of Palo Alto. So I would like that process to be open and involve 7 the public with some check and balance in it. 8 9 Secondly, there was a survey that Jessica just talked about and I have to say when this came up they 10 were going to survey the residents everyone was for this survey. When we, when we then got into some 11 of the details we, we learned in my opinion that the staff had no experience or expertise developing 12 surveys. Many of us wrote letters to City staff about saying there was a lack of expertise in survey 13 design and interpretation. The response we got was we do surveys all the time. That may be true, but it 14 doesn’t mean we do them well. My neighbors when they got the survey and it wasn’t an easy thing to 15 do, but they got the survey and they said the City asked me if I want to pay for parking in front of my 16 house, are they crazy? It was people didn’t take the time to read the three pages of the survey or the 17 questions weren’t worded in a way to encourage them to do so. I’m not a survey expert, but I would say 18 that the survey that we used was not optimal and I hope that the City will invest in survey expertise to 19 engage citizens in the community in the future. 20 21 And finally I hope that you will take this opportunity to show the staff that we did appreciate it and I also 22 want to say that I learned a great deal and I actually made some friends in the business community. 23 People from across the aisle are now friends of mine because I understand their position a lot better than 24 I did going in. Thank you. 25 26 Chair Michael: Thank you and then Simon Cintz to be followed by Wayne, Wynne Furth. 27 28 Simon Cintz: Hi, my name is Simon Cintz. My family has two small commercial properties in the South of 29 Forest Avenue (SOFA) area which we’ve owned since the 1950’s. I am also one of the business 30 representatives in the Downtown stakeholders group. I’m here tonight to speak only for myself. I do not 31 pretend to speak for others. 32 33 Chair Michael: Oops, sorry. 34 35 Mr. Cintz: Ok, well that was a very short presentation. Ok, moving on here I do want to echo the 36 comments, compliments to Jessica and staff. I also want to not forget Tommy. He was important in our 37 meetings and I’d like to also make sure that I recognize the fellow stakeholders who I think worked very 38 hard in a very cooperative fashion and we produced a lot. I mean I think this is a major accomplishment 39 where we are right now, ok? 40 41 First I fully support RPP in the Downtown. The residents have a legitimate grievance and RPP is the best 42 way to solve the problem given the current situation. I also support both the Citywide Ordinance and the 43 Downtown Resolution with some simple changes that I think will actually make RPP work better for both 44 Downtown residents and employees. Tonight I wish to address only one of these changes and that is 45 making Phase 1 parking free for employees. I support the Phase 2 employee pricing plan. Downtown 46 RPP has to work for both residents and businesses. Palo Alto faces a challenge that no other Bay Area 47 RPP district confronts. We need to figure out a way to successfully park an estimated 1,000 cars, 48 employee cars or more on residential streets. I’ll repeat that. We have to park 1,000 cars or more on 49 residential streets. If it wasn’t for that fact RPP would be much more simpler in this town. This is a 50 major challenge. Understanding how many employees and who they are is one of the major data 51 collection challenges in Phase 1. To get accurate data we want to encourage both residents and 52 employees to participate. Making permits free to both of these groups is the best way to encourage 53 participation and to be able to collect data that will help us design the best RPP program. 54 55 6 Let’s be realistic about human nature, no one in this room can control the behavior of where 1,000 1 individual employees will choose to park on day one of RPP, of day one of Phase 1. By forcing them to 2 pay for a temporary program that expires in six months a significant number will decide that there are 3 better free alternatives in the short term. They can park just outside the boundaries of the district 4 creating problems for adjacent neighborhoods or they can move their cars every two hours, which goes 5 on a lot Downtown right now, getting to be a lot worse, and create problems for, even more problems for 6 customers because they don’t have permits we have no way of counting or tracking them. Poor data will 7 produce a poor RPP program. The argument that free parking during Phase 1 will entice people to leave 8 the City garages is nonsense. Right now parking is free for the neighborhoods yet people who are 9 currently in garages choose to pay for their parking. The convenience is worth the expense. They will 10 not give up their current space in a garage just to get six months free parking in the neighborhood and 11 then have to get back on a wait list to get into the garage. Please give the many employees who 12 currently pay for parking credit for doing the intelligent and responsible thing. Let’s encourage 13 participation and playing by the rules so we can get good data. The best way to do this is to make Phase 14 1 free for both residents and employees. Thank you. 15 16 Chair Michael: And thank you very much. Wynne Furth is the next speaker to be followed by Mark 17 Nanevicz. 18 19 Wynne Furth: Good evening, Judy Beasler has faded and asked if she could cede her time to me. 20 21 Chair Michael: Ok. 22 23 Ms. Furth: So I could deliver her message which is not only do we have commuters, we have pizza 24 delivery trucks parked in front of our houses waiting for calls to deliver pizza. The Commission discussed 25 the issue of privatization is thinking about this issue and for me the phrase that I find most helpful is 26 thinking about a tragedy of the commons. And until we resolve this there’s too many sheep. Until we 27 solve that we’re not going to get the kind of cohesion that leads to successful reinvestment in our 28 commercial Downtown, which is vital to us all as well. 29 30 You just had recommended adoption of an Ordinance which says that residential permit parking districts 31 are to restore and enhance the quality of life in residential neighborhoods and to accommodate 32 nonresidential parking to the extent that’s consistent with that goal and a lot of the standards that you all 33 were talking about as missing from the Ordinance I think really belong in the Resolution. And the most 34 important one is a quantitative standard to guide staff when it makes decisions on for example how many 35 commercial permits to issue. Listening to my colleagues I suspect that parking saturation should not 36 exceed 85 percent on any block would be a nice simple one. If you look at the Resolution right now and 37 ask what standards guide the staff particularly since we’re dealing with this lack of knowledge of what 38 might be an administrative regulations it says that the Director shall determine number of permits and 39 making sure they don’t issue so many that excessive traffic from employees searching for spaces results. 40 That’s not an ok standard for improving the quality of residential life. I’m looking at Section 5 of the 41 existing Ordinance. So the first recommendation I’d recommend that you add at least an 85 percent 42 maximum parking saturation per block provision to that Section 5 so that there would be that strong 43 guide. There is some other language, but I don’t think it’s enough to get us where we want to go. 44 45 Secondly, this step, this program is designed so that things don’t get better right away. I agree with the 46 earlier comment. I wouldn’t have said yes on that survey about do you want to pay for parking when 47 there was no indication there would be any parking available anyway, but the resident stakeholders 48 advocated for a program where everything got better from day one or at least generally got better within 49 the first few weeks for residents. This will not necessarily get any better in Phase 1 and I understand 50 why the stakeholders, residential stakeholders agreed to that it’s because it’s a complicated interactive 51 process and there’s a difficult transition involved. So I support that Phase 1/Phase 2 notion, but the City 52 needs to be prepared for the fact that there are going to be a lot of upset people who aren’t as residents 53 seeing any benefit and be prepared to do the outreach and so on and so forth that will make it work well 54 for people. 55 56 7 Thirdly, we talk about nonresidential permits and the regulation of the movement of cars on streets is 1 preempted by the State of California and then they give some of that power back to cities including the 2 power to regulate parking. And the Vehicle Code says that you could issue permits to residents and 3 merchants. And if you want to issue permits to anybody else you have to be able to show that it doesn’t 4 adversely affect the residents or the merchants and I don’t think you can make that case. So when 5 you’re thinking about where these permits are going to go I think they need to be limited to residents 6 and merchants. We can have disagreements about what a merchant is, but I’m pretty sure a merchant is 7 somebody who sells a good or service to somebody who comes in as a customer and it could be a 8 theatre experience, it could be getting your nails done, it could be stationary, it could be a meal, but I’m 9 pretty sure it’s not doesn’t include people who code for programs that are not going to be sold primarily 10 to people who walk in to buy them or to property management firms. 11 12 And finally I would ask you to give the staff more power in Phase 2 to address the problems that arise in 13 Phase 1 by having the ability to where necessary restricting two hour parking and maybe even any non-14 permit nonresidential permit parking because neither Phase 1 or Phase 2 is going to address the parking 15 crisis on my block because I am fortunate and I live close to Downtown. I have no driveway because my 16 little infill higher density project, it’s a bunch of looks like a bunch of townhouses, it’s actually single 17 family detached units with zero lot line adjustments was deliberately designed with no driveways because 18 it makes for a better pedestrian experience, right? There’s no breaks in the sidewalk. It’s a great place 19 to walk, it’s a great place to push a stroller, but there’s no extra parking. And shift workers leave 20 between 3:00 and 4:00 and then a new crew comes in. So after 3:00 between 3:00 and 3:30 I can 21 usually find a parking place on my block. After that the evening shift comes in including ironically the 22 valet parking crews. 23 24 Chair Michael; I’m going to call time on you. 25 26 Ms. Furth: Sure. So please give them more power so they can address that in Phase 2. Thank 27 (interrupted) 28 29 Chair Michael: Ok. Thank you. Mark Nanevicz to be followed by Mary Dimet. 30 31 Mark Nanevicz: Ok, the first issue I wanted to talk about was brought up by Eric Rosenblum regarding 32 the whole concept of privatization of the streets. And I couldn’t disagree any more with him. And the 33 way I see it right now a lot of my neighbors and friends do is that right now it is privatized. It is 34 privatized. If you took a neighborhood and said we are going to allow anyone to park on the streets and 35 then you took some say eight men who owned properties next to it and said, and they said we’re going 36 to dump 1,000 cars every day onto those public streets so that no one has the opportunity to possibly 37 use them what is that? Is that private or is it public? There’s only eight or 10 guys that are making use 38 of all of the street parking. In the meantime the thousands of residents and everyone else who would 39 like the opportunity to utilize those streets has no opportunity at all. 40 41 This is not a matter of privatization this is a matter of regulation. This is a matter of making it fair to 42 everybody else in the City to have the opportunity to use these streets and it’s been posed over and over 43 again as oh, the residents just want to take the streets back for themselves so they can park directly in 44 front of their house. I don’t know how long it’s been, at least two decades since I’ve been able to 45 possibly park in front of my house and I bought my house 25 years ago. When I bought it, yes you 46 could. And we’re not asking to be able to park directly in front of our house, but we’d like the 47 opportunity to be able to park within the block of our house and still be able to utilize the streets if we 48 have a carpenter or a cleaner or a maid or a babysitter or a teacher or anyone else come and visit and be 49 able to use those streets. So I really have a huge problem with this whole proposition of in any way 50 saying we’re privatizing these streets. They are privatized right now. 51 52 Secondly, the cost of the program [unintelligible] saying it’s going to cost a close to a million dollars or so 53 for the first year. The price of the parking permits is way undervalued. If you look at the per square foot 54 cost of commercial rents in San Francisco versus Palo Alto they are almost identical and yet in San 55 Francisco you have to pay $20 a day or $1000, $2,000 a year to be able to park there and here we’re 56 8 asking for a fraction of that. It doesn’t make any sense. We should get realistic with the prices that 1 we’re charging these people to be able to park here. 2 3 Secondly the or thirdly, the two hour parking and people are saying oh, we’re just going to have sleeper 4 cars where people park for two hours and have to go out and move their car again, we need to zone that 5 so that the when someone parks for two hours that’s it for the day be it the north side or the south side 6 of the business district we have to make sure that after they park there for their two hours that’s it, it’s 7 over with otherwise this is not going to work at all. It’s just going to free up a bunch more parking for 8 everyone to come along in the business community and use up all the parking. 9 10 Just one, just one more thing. Well I’m against the first the Phase 1. We know what the problem is. We 11 need to address it. We need to start this right now. I don’t think adding a phase, Phase 1 is going to 12 make anybody in the neighborhood happy because I don’t think anything will get any better through it. 13 Thank you. 14 15 Chair Michael: So thank you very much. Mary Dimet to be followed by Linda Anderson. 16 17 Mary Dimet: Hi, good evening, I’m Mary Dimet at 784 University Avenue just east of Middlefield in 18 Crescent Park. And I had a few comments about the Resolution and also regarding multi-family, which is 19 both townhomes and apartments and condos which in the Downtown area is definitely a factor. I just 20 wanted to say to start this out I came to preface it with I’m the type of person that would naturally or 21 usually be against this because I want to reduce car trips. I was hired to work the City of Palo Alto to 22 manage the Energy Efficiency Office. I bought a place Downtown so I could walk to work and then in 23 future jobs I took Caltrain to either San Francisco or the bus to Oakland. So I’ve never commuted by car. 24 Our family only has one car. But that said I’ve been here long enough that I’ve seen all the development 25 that’s been happening Downtown and the increased density, the additional building and not just of the 26 buildings themselves in the commercial, but also now in the residential area there is increased density. 27 28 We live as I said in a condo complex and where before we had one or two people living our kids were the 29 first kids that were ever born there we now have families with several kids. We have young professionals 30 having two and three people in smaller places and then we have the downsizers too that are usually two 31 people. And for the multi-family what I wanted to mention is the target market usually who is living in 32 multi-family there as I said the young families and the old people are ones that are more and more 33 making up the occupants, the residents of these units and they have, they’re people who have trouble 34 either getting, they’re the ones as someone mentioned that has babysitters and that that need to get 35 access, but they’re also harder for having had two young kids a year and a half apart to carry all your 36 paraphernalia and get up to the house when you have to park far away. You when you’ve got older 37 people there that are now having trouble walking far especially if they have to carry groceries and as the 38 greying of America and Palo Alto continues that will be more of a factor. 39 40 Also the other two aspects of multi-family are that one, there’s insufficient onsite parking and there aren’t 41 driveways for the multi-family and then the other factor is that as I mentioned there’s a lot of multi-42 family they tend to be zoned in the same area so if you’re 8 or 10 houses on a block that’s one thing, but 43 if you I will just finish my comment, if you’re we have 28 units. We can’t park on University. Next to us 44 is a multi-family and on the other side is a multi-family and there’s just no parking even without the 45 employees. Thank you very much and thank you Jessica, Neilson Buchannan, and all the other 46 stakeholders and also the Commissioners for putting all your hours in volunteering. 47 48 Chair Michael: Thank you. So Linda Anderson to be followed by Michael Hodos. Is Linda still here? Ok, 49 Michael Hodos to be followed by Kelli Tomlison. 50 51 Michael Hodos: Thank you, Michael Hodos, 944 Bryant between Addison and Channing. Two disparate 52 issues related to the Resolution; one is that this whole issue of allowing unlimited parking in the two hour 53 zone by basically moving your car, why bother? Right now at least people are required to move their car 54 from one color zone to another. Having someone have to move their car a few inches to allow it to park 55 there for two more hours you might as well just open up the whole area. It makes no sense whatsoever. 56 9 1 The second thing is I thought it would be helpful since you’ve heard the survey criticized to hear a 2 specific example of why so many people were confused by it and why the responses were not what all of 3 us expected, which was that there would be a widespread support for the for resident permit parking. 4 Just to give you one example, by the way within the first day this hit mailboxes I had 11 inquiries from 5 my neighbors asking me what I, what it meant because I was one they knew I was one of the 6 stakeholders involved in that in the stakeholder effort. The and this shows why it’s so fatally flawed and 7 why some of the data may not be particularly valid when it comes to establishing the boundaries of the 8 RPP area. Question Number 2 says, “Do you think employees should be required to park in designated 9 spaces on each block? Yes and [then or] there should be a few designated spaces for employees at each 10 block. No, employees with valid permits should be able to park anywhere within the neighborhood.” 11 There’s all kinds of ways of interpreting those three statements. If instead of saying “Do you think 12 employees should be required to park in the designated space on each block” it had said your let’s see… 13 it should have said, well one other point before I go on is that this was just a survey. A survey is a 14 collection of opinions. Literally no one I spoke to realized that they were voting for what would happen 15 with RPP in their neighborhood. If that specifically had been spelled out and if this question had been 16 made clearer “Are you in favor of having residential permit parking in your neighborhood or not, yes or 17 no, up or down then the responses might have been quite different. 18 19 So just to amplify what my fellow stakeholder said, whatever goes out again as a survey should actually 20 be a vote. It should be very, very clear to the residents that they are voting to decide whether they want 21 residential permit parking in their neighborhood or on their street because that’s not at all what this 22 information communicated to them. Not that the intent wasn’t good, just that it didn’t, wasn’t fulfilled. 23 Thank you. 24 25 Chair Michael: Thank you. Kelli Tomlison to be followed by Susan Nightingale. Is [unitelligble]. 26 27 Kelli Tomlison: Hi. 28 29 Chair Michael: Sorry. 30 31 Ms. Tomlinson: I’m Kelli Tomlison and I live on the 400 block of Lincoln. First thank you to everyone 32 specifically Jessica, she’s been incredibly personable and responsive in this matter. First I just want to 33 speak specifically on behalf of the residents of the 400 block of Lincoln and they’ve given me the power 34 to speak on their behalf. There are only eight houses on our block and I know that Council and Jessica I 35 think heard from most everyone via e-mail today. We are right on the boarder of or the boundary of the 36 Resolution and it’s actually a little bit vague and unclear to us if we’re included or not. We were included 37 in the initial proposal and now the boundary has been drawn along our street and in some interpretations 38 it seems that we’re included and in other interpretations it seems that we’re not included. So we’re 39 definitely looking for specificity on that. 40 41 I can say that absolutely the 300 and 400 block have been very much impacted by the parking for years 42 and we are stakeholders in this process and it makes no sense to us whatsoever that we would not be 43 included in the first phase of this trial. We are already impacted and were we to continue to be right on 44 the boarder and not included in Phase 1 it just seems ridiculous to us as residents and it’s very clear to us 45 that we would be impacted immediately because we’re already impacted by the parking. So we’re 46 looking for clarity on the boundary and very much the 300 and 400 blocks of Lincoln want to be included 47 in the Resolution. 48 49 And then I would just reiterate what has been said before that in regards to the survey I think the survey 50 with all due respect was flawed and not clear. It was, it was certainly not put out to the residents as a 51 vote, a yes or no vote on a parking program. It was a survey soliciting input and it was very difficult to 52 distinguish on some of the questions what you were even looking for in terms of a response if you were 53 for a parking program or not. And I know in speaking directly to my neighbors that some of them didn’t 54 even turn it in because they didn’t quite understand it. I think that’s it. Thank you very much. 55 56 10 Chair Michael: Thank you. Can staff respond to the question on the clarity of the boundary is that 1 something you want to just pick up now or? 2 3 Ms. Sullivan: So in the information that we have showing the, I’m going to show the survey results the 4 statistics at the bottom showing the 65 yes, 138 no that includes Lincoln Avenue meaning that most 5 people on Lincoln Avenue did not vote in favor of this program. I’ve heard a lot of comments from the 6 300 and 400 block, which are the two blocks sort of closest to the Bryant Street that they are very much 7 in favor and that’s what the results indicate. So I think that that’s a discussion that we should have as to 8 whether we decide to include Lincoln despite the fact that the other blocks are not, not supportive by a 9 wide margin of a program. 10 11 Chair Michael: So does that mean they are in or out? 12 13 Ms. Sullivan: So right now they’re out. 14 15 Chair Michael: Ok. Next speaker is Susan Nightingale to be followed by Richard Brand. 16 17 Susan Nightingale: My name is Susan Nightingale and I’m one of the owners of Watercourse Way, a 18 business in Palo Alto for 34 years now. I want to thank of course thank Jessica. She’s been extremely 19 helpful throughout the whole process and I was part of the stakeholder group, one of the few businesses 20 that was represented. And I it was a really important experience for me as a business owner to go 21 through that process. At first it was very polarized group and I think we really came to some 22 understandings, which is reflected in the final RPP Ordinance the fact that they came from, the residents 23 came from really I’d say vilifying business and employees to understanding that our employees do have 24 to have a place to park and low wage workers it is an issue for service businesses in Palo Alto. It may 25 seem like a small amount to pay, but it’s a very large amount if you’re not making much money. 26 27 So let’s see, so I completely support RPP. I think it’s important that we have restrictions about where 28 employees can park. I fully support TDM, but I also hope that Palo Alto will consider the whole supply 29 issue. People that are now parking in the neighborhoods are going to need some place to park and it 30 seems that the Council, I don’t know if you all are part of this philosophy too, but they seem to have the 31 philosophy that parking supply is not important or that TDM is going to solve all the problems. And I 32 don’t, I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. I think it’s important, but all the other parts should be 33 considered. 34 35 Transferability is really essential. I bought five permits in the Cowper/Webster garage for my employees 36 for five of my managers and the next day one of them quit and moved to the East Coast. I lost that one. 37 Then three of them decided that they weren’t going to be using their car, their particular cars anymore so 38 it was a complete failure for me and I was very happy to buy the permits, but transferability is really 39 important. So I guess I can’t [unintelligible] other things, but anyway thank you very much. 40 41 Chair Michael: Thank you very much as well. Richard Brand to be followed by Neilson Buchannan. 42 43 Richard Brand: Yeah, good evening again and I want to thank the Commissioners I think in the earlier 44 item discussion you’re very enlightened about some of the activities here and it delved into the 45 Resolution because the Ordinance is the outer ring of this whole thing. So I think that was well done. I 46 urge you to support the staff proposal here for the Resolution and a couple things I want to talk about 47 again I think it’s important to realize that 7 of the 11 stakeholders were here tonight one which, Mr. 48 Cintz, doesn’t live in town and has to drive a long way. So I think that was really a good overview what 49 you’re hearing is a lot of good feedback on the activity. 50 51 A couple of items I have to say I wrote a letter to the Commission about this, the 51 percent buy in 52 number I think that’s critical. We discussed that extensively in the stakeholder meeting. The reason that 53 number is low is because of education. It’s important and a lot of people don’t understand this until they 54 get into it and realize that they can’t have their kids or their people park in front of their house when this 55 thing grows out and I think one of the later speakers will show you the circles and arrows and 8 by 10’s 56 11 about the red. This thing is growing as we well know. As to fees absolutely got to have a fee to get 1 people to pay whether it’s a low cost, low wage employee fee because if they don’t buy a permit for the 2 nonresidents they’re just going to park here and in fact could game the system. So we’ve got to have 3 some fee as some previous speakers have said the fees are reasonable, much less expensive than when I 4 worked in San Francisco so I think the fees are critical in order for the thing to work. 5 6 Phase 1 is not going to help my area at all, in fact I have employees coming in from out of town where I 7 live at 6:30 a.m. and fill up my street and in fact we had an injury with a young child on a bicycle on 8 Monday with his father because people can’t see to park. The streets are parked up by 7:30 or eight 9 o’clock in the morning. We all know we need permit parking, but we’ve got to somehow control this 10 thing. Phase 1 lets everybody park close to where they work, obviously they work near the Downtown 11 region. That’s a compromise we made, I’ll live with it, but we’ve got to have a Phase 2 that distributes 12 those people parking and that’s got to be done and I’m willing to work with the staff on that. 13 14 Finally I think what else? I guess that’s probably about it. You’ve heard from many people and again, I 15 ask you to support this, this recommendation. I think it’s very sound and well done. Thank you. 16 17 Chair Michael: Thank you. Neilson Buchannan to be followed by Gab Layton. Oh, and this says Neilson 18 on behalf of Gab Layton. Are you (interrupted) 19 20 Neilson Buchannan: Yes, Gab is ceded her three minutes to me. 21 22 Chair Michael: So how much time do you need Neilson? 23 24 Mr. Buchannan: Hopefully not more than six, five or six minutes. 25 26 Chair Michael: We’ll give you six minutes. 27 28 Mr. Buchannan: I want to jump forward to August of next year and let me make a prediction of what 29 we’re going to be facing. The way I count empty spaces and the way I count cars assuming there’s no 30 extra demand between now and August I do agree there’s 1,600 nonresident cars parked on residential 31 streets today. And that’s what Eric [unintelligible] came up with over a year ago and put into the public. 32 If anybody would like to challenge our numbers and no one has. So here what happens with that 1,600 33 cars? I am hopeful that there are 200 or 300 Caltrain commuters and Stanford people and God knows 34 who so you could take, knock off a little bit for that elimination that will happen pretty quickly. I am 35 hopeful that the empty spaces in garages plus valet parking would take another 400 cars. So we’re still 36 stuck in the order of 1,000 cars to distribute somehow on the neighborhood streets and that’s assuming 37 that demand is static. So when you take a look at what load that is, that is a pretty big load on the 2,600 38 possible places to park. 39 40 I think I’m going to get into real trouble in my own neighborhood because I’m going to say what I think 41 the best solution will be in August for Downtown North. I would hope that the City does not ask to park 42 more than 600 cars in the 1,500 parking places that are available. There’s 1,513 actually available. 43 That’s about what? A 40 percent load. I am convinced that we, my neighbors and the nannies and all 44 that take up demand for about 40 percent. So we’re already at 80 and I personally think that it’s really 45 inappropriate to suggest to neighborhoods that our parking standard is that of a commercial parking lot 46 of 85 percent. Plus we’re having the two hour load so I really think we need to be thinking about in our 47 neighborhood and I wouldn’t ask any other neighborhood to take this load, but I think we need to talk 48 about 80 percent: 40, 40, and 20 to make a viable neighborhood for Downtown North. And that’s a 49 jammed neighborhood and maybe that is our historical fate. 50 51 I can only speak for myself and I’ll tell you there’s a lot of resistance about [unintelligible] talking about 52 starting with 40 percent concession for nonresident parking, but I frankly don’t see any way that we can 53 do that unless we want to bring Downtown commerce to a halt and that was one of the things I agreed 54 to from the very one, day one that we would not bring Downtown commerce to a halt. I did not agree to 55 keep the garages with empty capacity. I did not agree that that would be the situation forever, but I 56 12 think if we have to start at 40 percent there is a way to work that down over time as TDM facts get on 1 the table, other things where we can begin to mitigate the demand, but none of those mitigation 2 programs are well funded and by definition they are slow to get started. There is a huge front end 3 investment before you get the return on investment in the environment of a diverse Downtown like we 4 are. We don’t have large employers like an office park or Stanford. So that’s the way I see it going and I 5 wish it were better and if I get fired as the chief vehicle counter because of what I just said within my 6 neighborhood it would relieve me of a lot of pain, but I think that’s where we’re headed. I hope that to 7 my, to the south of Forest that those neighborhoods never have to take that kind of a nonresident 8 parking load. 9 10 Let me say a couple of things. One, I don’t agree that the City staff cannot multiplex on multiple parking 11 programs at one time. That is inconsistent with other ways the city ramps up their programs. If you go 12 in the Development Office there’s plenty of staffing there to take the torrent of applicants that are 13 coming in commercial and housing. If you need a plan checked the outside people come in and do plow, 14 plan checks. There is no reason that the Planning staff can’t flex for whatever the neighborhoods need. 15 You’ve got Tommy Fehrenbach is the ombudsman for business. There’s no ombudsman on staff for the 16 neighborhoods. And parking is just one thing, what about spillover traffic and all that? Hillary and 17 Jessica have come light years in a very small time frame, but it is inconsistent with other ways that the 18 City staff accommodates development that when there’s a huge run on development projects staff flexes. 19 If there is a huge run on parking permits staff should flex. 20 21 So anyway that’s the way I’m looking at it. That’s the best offer I can make. It’s not my role to even 22 make an offer. I’m just making a forecast about what we’re going to learn after we spend this time. The 23 two hour intrusion unlimited two hour parking has got to be controlled in Phase 2. The parking 24 structures have to be substantially full when Phase 2 starts. Whatever the nuances are of parking and 25 policy and permits and who makes what decisions that has to be completely resolved before Phase 2 26 starts. 27 28 Recently let me just finish, I counted the cars on the fifth and sixth floor of the Webster/Cowper garage 29 fairly frequently. The peak load on the top floor has been four. One day on the fifth and sixth floors 30 there were a total of 13 cars. So something is really wrong about the issuance of parking permits if 31 there’s this kind of demand in the neighborhoods, why aren’t the garages full? Thank you. 32 33 Chair Michael: Thank you Neilson. Elaine Vang [Note-Chair Michael said Wong] followed by John Martin 34 who appears to be our last speaker. 35 36 Elaine Vang: Long night, I’ll try to make this brief. I think a lot of you have said this and you’re right, we 37 need to regulate this. The right incentives, the right conditions can affect good change and behavior. I 38 mean 16 months ago plastic bags were a commonality, a common place thing in all the grocery stores 39 and we’ve since regulated that and that’s a whole new sea change of behavior. Everybody brings their 40 bags. So I think we’re I hope we do this, do this move in the right direction and I hope that cost isn’t a 41 deterrent. There has been some cost numbers, but we have a fantastic opportunity with RPP plus a 42 Transportation Management Association (TMA) or a whole series of TDM programs and we just 43 conservatively think and I think there’s been an estimate of 1,850 cars in the neighborhoods right now. 44 We said if you took the TMA goal of reducing car trips 30 percent that’s 540 cars. And at $60,000 a 45 parking space that’s $32.4 million of parking garages saved right there not to mention all the cars we 46 take out of the system and all the greenhouse gas emissions that we save. 47 48 And I’ll just make one more point on priorities I think this is Page 67 of the staff report and the 49 Resolution Page 4 there’s a list of categories of workers I think that we that we offer, the Resolution 50 offers priority to. I think there may be one category that we may also want to think about in terms of 51 their plight there’s a segment of workers who work outside of the parking assessment district who are 52 not eligible to park in the Downtown garages. And what do we do about them? I would hope that and I 53 also would hope that the RPP in moving forward would also allow us to shift the folks who do park in the 54 in, who park in the neighborhoods and should be parking in the parking assessment district I hope that 55 that helps us improve our utilization there. Thanks. 56 13 1 Chair Michael: Thank you. John Martin. Is John Martin [unintelligible]. 2 3 John Martin: John Martin, 467 Lincoln; again my thanks to the staff and the Commission for your hard 4 work. My point is simple and it amplifies that of our first speaker tonight. I would urge you to amend 5 the boundaries to include the 300 and 400 block of Lincoln. You will find overwhelming support for 6 inclusion in the, in the district and I would encourage you to include us. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Michael: Thank you. Let’s see, so we’re going to come back to the Commission for questions and 9 comments. I’m personally hoping for about a five minute break. Can we do that and then I guess I’m 10 the Chair. So let’s take a short break and then reconvene quickly. 11 12 The Commission took a break 13 14 Chair Michael: And get back to work. We’re going to close the public hearing and come back to the 15 Commission and I’m seeing that Commissioner Alcheck would like to lead off. 16 17 Commissioner Alcheck: Oh, how the crowd has dwindled. Alright so I’m just going to start by saying 18 (interrupted) 19 20 Chair Michael; Hold on just a sec. I’m going to give you like five minutes maybe, maybe that’s enough 21 for one round. 22 23 Commissioner Alcheck: That’s fine. I’ll be really, stay with me. Let me start by saying I will support this 24 Motion as is. That being said I would support some changes as well. I would have supported a three 25 hour time limit as opposed to two hours without a permit. That said I assume that if it wasn’t an issue 26 among the stakeholders they’ve thought it though and if they don’t feel strongly about it then that’s fine. 27 And I’ll add that I would have been more supportive of lengthening that time limit if ultimately you 28 couldn’t re-park in the area. and I’m not thinking of employees here, I’m thinking of residents who have 29 a friend over for a few hours and if your friend has to leave prematurely it just two hours seem tight, but 30 if you can move your car that’s fine. 31 32 I feel pretty confident in predicting that the nos of this secondary boundary will become either original 33 yeses or reluctant yeses within minutes after this program is implemented and I’m not sure why we 34 wouldn’t encourage their inclusion. I think that’s going to be a mistake so I would support their 35 inclusion. And if for some reason we didn’t support their inclusion then I would support their opportunity 36 to buy a permit so at least they could park across the street. Because that, they’re going to need one 37 because they’ll be able to park a few blocks away. 38 39 I’ll say this I think the 33 percent response rate is too low. If it’s apathy there’s not much we can do 40 about it and in this case I wouldn’t let it stop me from supporting the proposal, but I do believe that 41 often residents fail to involve themselves in local politics until they have a problem they need addressed 42 and rarely do we see involvement from residents who are content with the status quo. I’m not going to 43 suggest that that’s why the response rate is so low; I just wish that we had a greater response rate. 44 Some people have suggested that the survey was complicated or confusing. Maybe that was it. I just 45 I’m particularly not happy with that result because I just feel like we’re not adequately judging the [thing 46 here], but that being said I think the stakeholder group has been tremendously involved and it’s not, it’s 47 not a small thing and they’re not uneducated about the issue. They’re, they’re like the foremost experts. 48 They’re our stakeholder group could probably travel. You guys should think about it actually. You may 49 want to sign gigs up and just go from little local urban centers and sell your, sell your trade at this point. 50 51 I share the concern that our speaker mentioned regarding the initial costs for employees and the likely 52 result it will create. You may remember that I suggested in our last meeting on the topic that I would 53 support a trial that was cost free and I did that in an effort to suggest that we should make this 54 appealing. We shouldn’t like scare people off right away from this solution because they’re like screw it, I 55 don’t want to pay anything, I’m not paying anything now. And so that was why I suggested it should be 56 14 cost free for residents to encourage their participation and I’m not entirely sure we should have a 1 different price for employees at this time either, but I will say this that I believe that once we’ve 2 determined that this is a great solution or this is a solution worth implementing the cost should be 3 substantial. It won’t make sense if employees can buy a permit on the street for $400 and a permit in a 4 garage for $2,000. I don’t know what the garage permit costs, but you get my point. It should be more 5 expensive to park on the street than it is in the garage. We should be encouraging the garage 6 substantially and in fact anybody that is like I still want to park on the street that should be a financial 7 hurdle. 8 9 And I agree with this notion of transferability. Employees should be able to purchase them if they work 10 for a business Downtown, but the business owner should have some control over the transfer in the 11 event that he’s got employees working on different days and he’s got employees that maybe go on 12 maternity leave or quit. He shouldn’t lose that, that permit. I think that’s also the case for residents. I 13 want to add that I am in favor of a way for someone who doesn’t own a car registered to his address to 14 obtain a permit. Believe it or not I actually don’t own a vehicle and, but I do drive one and that is 15 facilitated by the fact that I drive a company car. I am not alone in this City. And I also think that 16 certain people like when I lived in San Francisco I used Zipcar once to go to IKEA and I picked something 17 up and I brought it home and if I couldn’t have parked my car in front of my house for more than two 18 hours I wouldn’t have been able to use the Zipcar and that’s another example of sort of being able to use 19 something despite the fact that I didn’t own a vehicle. I think there are bigger issues there. Somebody 20 suggested to me that you could have an affidavit where you company said this is the car and that 21 registered user is and [unintelligible] there should be a way for a person who has a company car to be 22 able to get a permit. 23 24 I also just want to say one last thing. My wife often says perfect is the enemy of good. And I think she 25 says that because she tries [unintelligible] I’m a little bit of a perfectionist. I try to make things perfect 26 instead of just implementing them. And one other thing I mentioned this to some of our staff tonight, 27 the best part about local government is that it’s accessible and we should be quick to try things and we 28 should be quick to tweak them and this I know it’s taken a really long time and it’s a complicated issue, 29 but I am in support of trying these things three months down the road if staff realizes something’s not 30 working try tweak it. Let’s not think that we have to have United States Congressional support for this, 31 this should be, we should be, we should be that kind of local government that is, that is available and 32 quick. So that’s it. 33 34 Chair Michael: So I’d like to try something that would maybe help us get to a Motion and a vote as 35 quickly as possible because there’s a few things about this that I think might be improved slightly that 36 would facilitate getting a recommendation and let me just suggest that if to the extent that we’ve heard 37 something or we have thoughts regarding things that would justify our voting in favor of this Motion we 38 should be as specific as possible in terms of what we’d like to change. So with that on Page 1 of this, 39 which is Page 64, Recital C, you should reference that the Planning Commission met on November 12, 40 2014. Ok? On Page 2, Page 65 of our packet, Section 2 Sub 1 on the fifth line where it says “Shall issue 41 permits to employees” can we have that be change the “to” to “for” employees so if there should for the 42 benefit of employee via the employer and this gets to the question of transferability later on so change 43 “to” to “for.” 44 45 Then on Page 4 of the Resolution, Page 67 of the packet to make the employee permits consistent with 46 the resident permits in that you can have the permit in the form of a scratcher, not necessarily there’s a 47 anyway practicality issue of I think we discussed at the pre-Commission hearing with Jessica, but I think 48 you reference on Page 3 that the daily visitor permit could be a form of a scratcher. If you’re a 49 temporary employee or an employee that works two days a week having a scratcher type permit just like 50 if you were a resident so I just would propose that you add that in this section relating to employee 51 permits. And I would add one, two, three, four would be some language relative to transferability as 52 between employees or between vehicles because I think that comment was made by a number of people 53 including Commissioners and I think it’s a practical enhancement. 54 55 15 There was another issue that was actually I want to credit our former Vice-Chair Keller on permit priority 1 this is Section E on Page 4, 67 of the packet. After lower wage earners at the very end of that the 2 suggestion is that you might also give priority to employees of businesses that are outside the parking 3 assessment district, which reflects the fact that businesses that are within the parking assessment district 4 have, have are involved in that other system. But I would limit my wordsmithing to those things and I 5 think if anybody else has comments that they would like to see this Resolution crafted in a way that we 6 can support quickly then please be as specific as possible. So would someone like to go next? 7 Commissioner Gardias. 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Mr. Chairman. So I have a couple of comments from various areas. 10 So transferability of course yes, I support this. Two hours limit there were a couple of people from the 11 audience that were talk about this. I may offer a perspective from one small business owner that was 12 thinking that two hours being able to re-park to another area is a distraction during the working hours 13 because pretty much it just gives employees excuse to leave premises go re-park the car, come back 14 work for another hour and 45 minutes, leave for another 15 minutes and this way eight hours working 15 day then becomes seven hours working day. So [unintelligible] to their request of just limiting this to two 16 hours within the entire district I would support this limitation two hours within the whole district. 17 18 So we talk in, we talk about phases, Phase 1 and Phase 2 I support a Commissioner Alcheck’s suggestion 19 to make this Phase Number 1 free or at very nominal cost to the parties because we don’t have much of 20 the data. So we should think about the first phase as the data collection and then ground preparation for 21 the Phase Number 2. This would allow us to just to gather the data hopefully you could come back and 22 just present us with your, with the findings. I hope that the data that would be collected during this 23 registration process will be somehow linked to the data that is collected during the business registration 24 exercise so that we can just cross check the data just have a bigger picture about this. This would allow 25 us also to understand how the numbers would work. Some talk about 1,000 cars, some talk about 1,600 26 cars. We would like to have a walk through from the total capacity that this district has. How many cars 27 you would take out of the parking spaces because of this program, what categories specifically those cars 28 taken out would fall into, and where would they go to? So it would be like a mathematical walk through. 29 You start with the 1,600 cars just as an example, you would reduce it to 500 cars that would get a permit 30 so the difference of 1,100 cars must go somewhere, right? It’s not going to evaporate. So some of 31 those would be served probably with the transportation program, somebody mentioned 400. Some of 32 those would be Caltrain commuters, let’s say 100 and then there would be the difference of 500. Where 33 would this go? Maybe they would go to the garages. So we would like to see some a walkthrough 34 through the numbers that would allow us to understand how cars are being taken out and where do they 35 go? 36 37 In the on Page 65, Phase 2 (interrupted) 38 39 Chair Michael: Just a question. So on the, on the Phase 1 cost for employee that would come up on Page 40 5 in Section 6 sub D and you would make that language similar to how they structured the resident 41 permit so that it would be Phase 1 pricing, which would be either nothing or some nominal amount and 42 then you would go Phase 2 you’d go to the full amount? 43 44 Commissioner Gardias: That’s correct. That’s what I propose. 45 46 Chair Michael: So that would be the specific suggestion if it’s accepted at some point. 47 48 Commissioner Gardias: Yes, it’s based on this argument we don’t have enough data and there is lots of 49 there is arguments so be safe on our side we would just have this Phase 1 exploratory, [being] 50 exploratory phase where we would just put facts together. 51 52 Chair Michael: And then my other question is I think your next point was that there’s actually some, some 53 total limit on the amount of permits that would be issuable I think corresponds to the point that Neilson 54 Buchannan was making [that there] must be something for example 40 percent of the total if the total is 55 1,530 it would be some percentage of what’s totally available. In this resolution where would that go? 56 16 1 Commissioner Gardias: [Unintelligible] go to there as, to the Resolution. This would be an observation 2 that we would have during the assessment phase of Phase Number 1 (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Michael: Ok, alright [unintelligible]. 5 6 Commissioner Gardias: It would be nice to have those numbers as a preliminary numbers and we always 7 ask you just to provide them to us because this is the forecast. So we typically would like to have the 8 forecast before an exercise than we can compare this forecast with the more scrutinized actual review, 9 but since we don’t have a forecast we would like to ask you to or at least I would like to ask you just to 10 give us numbers like this at some point of time in the preparation for stage Number 2 when we going to 11 assess stage Number 1. So this would not go to the Resolution, but what it would go to the Resolution 12 and then we talk about this before when we were discussing the Citywide Ordinance there we talk about 13 the permit priority and I think this is the point that I was making and Director Gitelman corrected me I 14 would like to make this point here that there should be an algorithm about how the permits are being 15 allocated and that is I already just talk about this, but let me remind you this is pretty much I see this as 16 a risk. If we don’t have the transparent black and white writing how those permits would be allocated we 17 not only just give ourselves more work we cannot automate this, but also it puts us to risk because some 18 parties may say well, we were not being given the permit on the fair basis. 19 20 So my recommendation would be to and I don’t have a specific language, but this specific Paragraph E 21 needs to be, needs to be revised to have precise language of the permits priority. And then some other 22 items were obvious to me and Lincoln Street blocks 300, 400 they wanted to include themselves so I 23 think we should just pretty much listen to what they ask us to do and just include them in this program 24 and we talk about transferability so thank you. 25 26 Chair Michael: Ok, who is next? Commissioner Fine. 27 28 Commissioner Fine: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will also be supporting the resolution as is and just have 29 a few comments and some questions. One I definitely want to support transferability of these permits I 30 think at the residential and business level is interesting. I was thinking about the costs and I think at 31 least in the trial period it should either be cost free or cost for both. I think you need that kind of 32 comparability between businesses and residents. There’s ups and downs to either one. If it’s free you 33 maybe get full data, you might be a little over parked, but you may also have evasion if people know this 34 is just a six month trial period. If you have costs for both you’re at least easing folks into the reality that 35 they’re going to be paying for parking, but you’ll at least see some equal demand and that it is an at, at 36 surface cost to folks both and businesses. The cost should absolutely encourage garage parking. That’s 37 a resource which we’re not fully using and it would be great to get cars in there rather than on the roads. 38 To Commissioner Alcheck’s point that has to do with the cost of parking and maybe we can look at some 39 comparables in the Bay Area and other areas. I know in the report you guys had mentioned Berkeley, 40 Santa Monica, it would be interesting to see what their costs are. 41 42 One comment from the public mentioned that it may not be appropriate to park residential areas at 85 43 percent and I was wondering at what levels and depending on the level of parking saturation how many 44 permits can we provide actually across the district? That would be an interesting analysis to see quickly. 45 And then the final issue for me was this limitation of two hours. Another colleague, Commissioner 46 mentioned maybe that we should just restrict it to two hours total. I was wondering if it’s worth looking 47 at maybe two sub districts. I know for me like there are definitely times I would come down here from 48 College Terrace during the parking hours and I might be here for more than two hours. I think for other 49 residents of the City it might be important to be able to be here for maybe it’s four hours, two hours on 50 one side of the Downtown district, two hours on another, but I think that also addresses the issue of 51 employers and employees not having to jump out every two hours and go, go move their car. I don’t 52 think that’s quite a feasible reality for most employees to leave their offices every two hours and re-park, 53 but if you provide them maybe two, two hour time limits that that might be feasible. Thank you. 54 55 Chair Michael: Commissioner Downing. 56 17 1 Commissioner Downing: So again I want to thank everyone for coming in (interrupted) 2 3 Chair Michael: Oops, sorry. 4 5 Commissioner Downing: And making comments and getting really detailed and specific about how these, 6 how these policies affect you personally. I really appreciate hearing that and I appreciate hearing the 7 specific stories so I’m glad for all the people who came out and talked. 8 9 I do, I do want to talk about the two hour limit limit. I definitely understand the frustration that the 10 community has with people just employees just moving their cars every two hours, but on the other hand 11 I do have to shed a little bit of a different perspective on this. So I don’t live in the Downtown area I live 12 in Cal Ave., but it happens all the time that I might come here in the morning to get breakfast, go to my 13 go back to home, go back to my office, come back here for lunch, right? So if it’s a two hour limit during 14 that time then it means that’s one fewer business that I and other people like me are not going to visit 15 and I think that’s I think it’s also an issue for retailers as well. Lots of people like coming Downtown, 16 they like having lunch and they like walking up and down University and checking out the little shops and 17 buying themselves a dress, right? Those are people that after two hours after their lunch are going to 18 leave and are not going to go shop. So I don’t necessarily, I don’t think the two hour limit is a very good 19 idea at least not unless you make the garages unrestricted time. It’s got to be one or the other such that 20 somewhere you have these people who can actually spend a lot of time in our business district and spend 21 money here. 22 23 I do want to talk about the people who are service workers who are coming here. They are directly 24 serving our community. They are our baristas, they are our waiters, waitresses, what have you. These 25 people come and they serve our community and we’re asking them for more money, right? They already 26 spend a lot by driving here from wherever it is that they’re coming from. They pay more for gas than the 27 higher income workers. I think that’s kind of a large ask. I’d like to see that number lowered especially 28 because the businesses that they work for are they are low, they are not high margin businesses. You 29 look at a software company they might be making 15 percent profits, 20 percent profits, you look at a 30 restaurant they’re making 3 percent profits, right? That’s a big deal. And for those smaller companies 31 it’s more likely that those employees are paying that out of pocket instead of having their employer pay 32 that. So I would just ask for some consideration around that. 33 34 And lastly as to the issue of transferability I like the idea of transferability, I don’t necessarily think it goes 35 further enough though because let’s say for an example I don’t have my job in Palo Alto anymore, I quit. 36 What’s my incentive to tell you I’m not using that permit anymore, right? If I don’t get my money back 37 from like prorated portion of the year that I’m not using it or I can’t sell it then why would I ever bother 38 telling you, right? So now you’ve got a, you’ve got some number of people who are not using their 39 permits and yet you’re proposing putting a cap as if they are all using their permits. So I think that’s 40 problematic. I’d really like to see to the extent that we have an online system that does parking permits 41 that there is an incentive in that system to go and trade them or to go sell them back. So I think that 42 would really help us measure how many people are actually here instead of trying to guess. 43 44 So that, those are my comments, I otherwise support the Resolution. These are just kind of a more 45 forward looking statements for Phase 2. 46 47 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 48 49 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so I’d like to ask some quick questions and then make a few comments and 50 then I’d like to make a Motion. So first question is one of the speakers I think the person’s not here 51 anymore asked about the legal question whether you can give permits to non-merchants and residents. 52 And can staff quickly, quickly answer that? 53 54 Ms. Silver: Yes, thank you. The Vehicle Code provision does specify that cities can issue sell permits to 55 merchants but it doesn’t contain a definition of merchant so (interrupted) 56 18 1 Commissioner Tanaka: So [unintelligible] a software company that sells nothing, doesn’t have a merchant 2 is still considered a merchant? 3 4 Ms. Silver: There’s no definition of merchant. And so it’s ambiguous. I think the sale of a service 5 probably could be construed as a merchant, but a software company is perhaps deferent. The Vehicle 6 Code also contains another section that allows cities to permit, to sell permits to other organizations and 7 so there is some flexibility there, but the City does need to find that the sale of permits to those groups 8 of people would not have a negative impact on residents and merchants. 9 10 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, great. And then what’s the definition of a car move? Like moving a car so 11 you know you can move the car does it have (interrupted) 12 13 Ms. Sullivan: I know what you mean. 14 15 Commissioner Tanaka: Someone said inches. Is that true? Can you just move it, roll an inch and you’re 16 done or? 17 18 Ms. Sullivan: No, you don’t have to, well you can only stay in the same spot for two hours and then you 19 have to move to a different spot (interrupted) 20 21 Commissioner Tanaka: But if you moved your car one foot is that? 22 23 Ms. Sullivan: No. I mean and you, no. 24 25 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, ok. Ok and then what’s the enforcement frequency? The planned 26 enforcement frequency? 27 28 Ms. Sullivan: So that’s something we’re going to be discussing with the enforcement contractor based on 29 their experience in similar size it’s also going to depend on the technology that we use to enforce the 30 program. 31 32 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, and then for Lincoln Avenue do you have a breakdown of that street itself in 33 terms of and what does that survey say? Is it reflective of what, what’s on the chart up there or is it 34 something different? 35 36 Ms. Sullivan: So the breakdown I mean I don’t have the exact percentages with me, but basically the 300 37 and 400 block, which are the closest to the left are in of the responses we received are about I think they 38 7, between 70 and 80 percent in favor and then if you but when you get to the 500 block it drop I mean 39 it’s it drops to 30, 20 percent in favor. 40 41 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so ok. Ok so maybe that block maybe and the other one. Ok. And then has 42 staff ever done you know we have this extensive graph that the residents have done in terms of counting 43 all the cars. Has staff done that too and how different are the numbers if at all? 44 45 Ms. Sullivan: Yeah, the occupancy maps that I showed earlier in the presentation are essentially our 46 version of that. We don’t color in the blocks the way the residents do because they use Excel and we use 47 engineering software. 48 49 Commissioner Tanaka: [Unintelligible] matches. 50 51 Ms. Sullivan: Yeah, it’s the same idea. 52 53 MOTION 54 55 19 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, good. Ok, so a quick, a few quick comments. So in regards to the survey in 1 College Terrace we did a lot of surveying to both the City did it and also the residents and there was 2 [always] survey flaws, but I would say the survey flaws probably were the same between both in this 3 area and with College Terrace. And so by the time this goes to Council it may be worthwhile to go dig up 4 those College Terrace survey results and the same flawed surveys because they’re both probably equally 5 flawed and see what the results were because I don’t remember it being this close at College Terrace, 6 but I could be wrong. So I guess I would be interested in seeing not for us but for the City Council for 7 that to be as part of the packet I think for City Council. And I think it would also be interesting to know 8 like the cost difference in terms of implementation because it struck me as high, right? Much higher than 9 College Terrace. I think College Terrace was 200K and this is like 600 to 700K. So I think that would be 10 useful for Council to have when they look at this. 11 12 And then in terms of I think the complication for having employee spots on the street is whose, whose 13 house do you put the spot in front of, right? And so I that one’s a little bit, a puzzle to me and I think in 14 regards to the question of equity and trying to get good data I think there’s a big difference between 15 zero and one and what I mean by that is when something’s free that the market dynamics are entirely 16 different than if it’s $1 or $2 versus $50. So I think if we were trying to get good quality, which is why I 17 think the idea of having it free and making it freely available is to get good data I think it would be 18 important that we actually have [unintelligible] and at least charge some sort of nominal fee on the 19 residents’ side as well. And because if you don’t do that then you have these really weird free economics 20 that happen and so I think that’s, that’s important. 21 22 But with that said I agree with my fellow Commissioner that you don’t want to let perfect get in the way 23 of good and I think this is good. This is a good step forward and this is a trial, right? So it’s not etched 24 in stone. We could always improve it. And so I do support it and I want to approve it as is and I also 25 want to leave it open because I think there are some tweaks that we should be making so I want to 26 leave this also open that other members can make friendly or unfriendly amendments to this and so that 27 we could kind of get this going forward. So I would like to make a Motion that we recommend this 28 Ordinance [Note-Resolution] by City Council and that staff has the authority to kind of clean up some of 29 the language in the Ordinance [Note-Resolution]. 30 31 Chair Michael: Is there a second? 32 33 SECOND 34 35 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck, second by Commissioner Alcheck and Commissioner Tanaka do 36 you want to speak any further to your Motion? 37 38 Commissioner Tanaka: No, I think I mean I’ll keep it brief, but basically I think a lot of work has been put 39 into this. It’s been very well thought out, while certainly not perfect it’s, it’s a trial. So we’ll learn from it 40 and we’ll make it better. 41 42 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 43 44 Commissioner Alcheck: I will make one comment, which is to say that I very much would support a 45 friendly amendment to include the grey territory that is not included. And if we don’t get that I would 46 just encourage staff to make this comment to City Council when it goes before them that triangle is going 47 to be begging you for it in minutes and it’s just going to be like a disaster for those people. And so even 48 if they didn’t want it overwhelmingly you’re implementing something right next to them that’s going to 49 impact them negatively. They may be reluctantly opposing the installation of the signs, but they are 50 going to appreciate them after a week. I just think it would be, I would support that friendly amendment 51 and I would encourage staff to make that case so. 52 53 Chair Michael: So Commissioner Tanaka do you accept the friendly amendment? 54 55 20 Commissioner Tanaka: Was that a friendly amendment or just suggesting someone to make the friendly 1 amendment? 2 3 Commissioner Alcheck: I was suggesting somebody make that friendly amendment because I know that 4 there’s other support for this (interrupted) 5 6 Chair Michael: Just go ahead and make it. 7 8 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, I would like to propose a friendly amendment that we include the entirety of 11 that grey portion, not just the 400 block for their sake. 12 13 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, I’m not so quite convinced because I know if you see this kind of survey 14 results and if I mean it’s almost a two to one ratio here. I think there would be a lot of really upset 15 people. So I guess before I reject I would love to get other thoughts on it first. 16 17 Commissioner Downing: Yeah I agree, I mean (interrupted) 18 19 Chair Michael: Wait, Commissioner Downing. 20 21 Commissioner Downing: Sorry. Yeah, I agree with that. I mean we, we took great pains in order to get 22 community input. We asked everyone for their thoughts and opinions. I don’t want to be patronizing to 23 those thoughts and opinions even if we have reason to believe that they may change their mind. I think 24 we should respect what they told us they wanted and if they were wrong that’s ok they’ll come back and 25 they’ll ask us to change it. 26 27 Chair Michael: Commissioner Gardias. 28 29 Commissioner Gardias: So I’d like to make a friendly amendment to include 300 and 400 block of Lincoln 30 in this, that’s Number 1. Number 2 is that (interrupted) 31 32 Chair Michael: So this is a point of order. The, the topic we’re addressing is whether the entire grey area 33 is in or out and where are we on that I’m? 34 35 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 REJECTED 36 37 Commissioner Tanaka: I’m to close it out I’m going to reject that for now. 38 39 Chair Michael: Ok, so now do you want to propose that the 300 and 400 block are in? 40 41 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 42 43 Commissioner Gardias: Yes. Ok, so I’d like to propose this (interrupted) 44 45 Chair Michael: Ok is there (interrupted) 46 47 Commissioner Gardias: 300 and 400 blocks of Lincoln Avenue in this district. 48 49 Commissioner Tanaka: I forgot the exact number, but if that’s the one that staff said voted yes then I am 50 for that. Yes. 51 52 Chair Michael: Ok. 53 54 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 ACCEPTED 55 56 21 Commissioner Alcheck: I accept that. 1 2 Chair Michael: Alright, that’s accepted. 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: I accept that too. Anything is better than nothing. 5 6 Chair Michael: Alright. 7 8 Commissioner Gardias: May I add some? 9 10 Chair Michael: Yes. 11 12 Commissioner Gardias: Just wanted to verify with Commissioner Tanaka because we spoke that first, first 13 phase would be at a nominal cost or free. Does your Motion include this or it was silent on this? If not 14 then I would like to make a friendly amendment just to clarify this. 15 16 Commissioner Tanaka: So I made a bunch of comments but I basically made a clean Motion mainly 17 because I wanted to get other friendly amendments on this. I personally think we should have a friendly 18 amendment to have at least a nominal charge as well as really have transferability, but I want to get 19 other Commissioners input to (interrupted) 20 21 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 22 23 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, so this way for this reason I would like to make a friendly amendment to 24 make this Phase Number 1 either free or for $1. 25 26 Chair Michael: Well, it should say that the language might reflect that it would be a nominal charge to 27 employees during the Phase 1 and if that’s and we won’t say what nominal is, we’ll let staff do that, but 28 Commissioners Tanaka and Alcheck is that language acceptable? 29 30 Commissioner Tanaka: I accept the clarified language from the Chair. 31 32 Chair Michael: Ok. 33 34 Commissioner Alcheck: I thought that there is a charge for employees now? 35 36 Ms. Gitelman: That’s correct. 37 38 Commissioner Alcheck: And that there’s no charge for residents and what I was suggesting earlier was 39 that they, that there should be an equal charge whether it’s free or not. I don’t know if that’s what you 40 were suggesting, but I think right now currently employees pay. 41 42 Chair Michael: Well what we’re on now is the possibility that in Phase 1 that the employee payment 43 would be either nothing or nominal (interrupted) 44 45 Commissioner Alcheck: Oh, this is what you’re (interrupted) 46 47 Chair Michael: Yeah, just to get it started. 48 49 Commissioner Alcheck: I would accept that. 50 51 Chair Michael: Ok. That’s part of the Motion. That it? 52 53 Commissioner Gardias: There is one more. 54 55 Chair Michael: One more. 56 22 1 Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry, so that was accepted as part of the Motion that instead of charging employees 2 what they would charge to park in garages they’re going to get nominal charge (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Michael: In Phase 1 it would be a nominal charge to employees during the first phase. 5 Commissioner Tanaka. 6 7 Commissioner Tanaka: Actually sorry, what I meant earlier was just that if employees are paying and 8 residents are not I think it creates kind of weird economics. So I think both should be paying. 9 10 Chair Michael: Well, but that’s not his point. 11 12 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 REJECTED 13 14 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Oh, then I misunderstood. So yeah, so then I do not accept that. 15 16 Chair Michael: Ok. 17 18 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #4 19 20 Commissioner Gardias: And one more so I’d like to also make a friendly amendment that Section 5, 21 Paragraph E, permit priority would be clarified to provide specific verbiage or algorithm of the permit 22 priority for Phase 2. Not for Phase 1, for Phase 2. So what I’m proposing that this that staff would come 23 back to us before Phase 2 starts with the recommendation how to change this specific paragraph of 24 permit priority and we will discuss and then update this Ordinance [note-Resolution]. 25 26 Chair Michael: Is that acceptable to the maker of the Motion? 27 28 Commissioner Tanaka: So the proposal is that before we go to Phase 2 that it comes back before the 29 Commission. Is that correct? 30 31 Commissioner Gardias: That’s correct, this specific paragraph about permit priority. 32 33 Commissioner Tanaka: I accept that. 34 35 Chair Michael: Ok, Commissioner Alcheck. 36 37 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #4 ACCEPTED 38 39 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m going to accept it, but I just want to suggest that I am in favor of a more 40 streamlined process that doesn’t really require us to review the staff’s suggested changes. I sort of wish 41 we’d enable a more nimble sort of staff on this, but I will accept that. 42 43 Chair Michael: Ok. Has everybody the maker of the Motion and the seconder of the Motion said what you 44 want to say? Commissioner Tanaka. 45 46 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #5 47 48 Commissioner Tanaka: I would like to incorporate, make a friendly amendment to my own Motion, which 49 is that we have transferability. I think that’s an important feature to have. 50 51 Chair Michael: And that would be on Page 4, Section II add a (interrupted) 52 53 Commissioner Tanaka: You know I’m not sure exactly where to put it, but I think staff could probably 54 figure it out. 55 56 23 Chair Michael: Ok. Commissioner Alcheck? 1 2 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #5 ACCEPTED 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: I support that. 5 6 Chair Michael: Ok. 7 8 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #6 9 10 Commissioner Tanaka: My last one is that there at least be a nominal charge for the residents as well. 11 12 Ms. Gitelman: Mr. Chair if I can interject on that? 13 14 Chair Michael: Yeah. 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: Just to impart some of our experience on this survey which everyone has criticized. We 17 got a lot of handwritten notes and suggestions in the course of the survey and one of the overwhelming 18 areas of comment was from residents who thought that they really shouldn’t have to pay. And we 19 agreed in designing this program that at Phase 1 it would, it would not make sense to charge employees. 20 So we would recommend against that unless you wanted to go back to the design of the program that 21 was described in the survey that got so much, I mean that obviously resulted in not as much support as 22 we thought it would. 23 24 Chair Michael: Yeah, so Commissioner Tanaka I think you’ve made an excellent Motion and you’re hoping 25 for a clean Motion. Based on Commissioner, Director Gitelman’s response would you like to withdraw 26 that last addition? 27 28 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #6 WITHDRAWN 29 30 Commissioner Tanaka: I’ll withdraw it because I don’t feel that strongly about it, but I do believe that 31 free gives you, doesn’t give you the best data. 32 33 Chair Michael: Ok. 34 35 Ms. Sullivan: Can I ask a question on the transferability friendly amendment? Is that refer to just 36 employee permits or for resident and employee permits? 37 38 Commissioner Tanaka: I was thinking mainly employee, but I guess that would make sense for both 39 because if residents move out should they still have the permit parking or not? But I haven’t thought 40 about that. I was thinking about employee at the time. 41 42 Commissioner Alcheck: I assume when you say transferability you mean that if for example we’re a 43 couple and we, we were a couple and both of us had cars and one day I parked one of our cars on the 44 street and one of our cars in the garage and another night I swapped I could transfer the permit to a 45 different vehicle that I still owned or that still belonged to me if you will. That’s what I mean by 46 transferability. I don’t mean like the next guy that moves in I hand it to him. I, is that what you mean? 47 48 Ms. Sullivan: Yes, that’s the distinction I wanted to make as well. 49 50 Commissioner Alcheck: So are you suggesting that without that it could only apply to one of your 51 vehicles? 52 53 Ms. Sullivan: I’m suggesting that there should be some way of making sure the permit is tied to a 54 residence rather than just sort of oh, look it’s a valid permit (interrupted) 55 56 24 Commissioner Alcheck: [Unintelligible] without the transferability it would be specific to a vehicle. 1 2 Ms. Sullivan: Specific to a vehicle, a license plate. Yes. 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: I would support that it (interrupted) 5 6 Ms. Sullivan: Right, we don’t want to you know the more you make permits transferrable and not 7 associated with a license plate or vehicle the more I mean permit fraud is a pretty big thing, so we’re 8 trying to avoid that if we can. 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: I would support being able to move it from instead of having to buy two permits 11 I’d rather buy one and have one car on the street that I could swap depending on who came home first, 12 but I’ll just say that I’d support that, but… 13 14 Chair Michael: Commissioner Downing. 15 16 Commissioner Downing: You know if we did support this order of transferability where I move out I don’t 17 need my permit anymore I give it to the next person can we have a transferability wherein there is also a 18 requirement to report the transfer so that if you find a permit but it doesn’t actually match something 19 that’s registered you still get a ticket? Is that really hard to do? 20 21 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I guess we’re a little concerned that we’re making this so elaborate and we’re going 22 to end up creating a market in these permits. People are going to get an extra permit and sell it and 23 we’re going to it’s going to be just get harder and harder to, to keep this… to get good data that we’re 24 going to get if we really know who has permits and who is using them. 25 26 Commissioner Alcheck: That’s sort of different than what I was advocating. I’m not suggesting giving it 27 to somebody else. I’m suggesting putting it in one of my two vehicles, but I guess there’s it’s like a 28 version of a hang tag versus some sticker, right? So I would support that even if we can’t get a second 29 for it hopefully City Council will read our minutes and they’ll know that that was something that we talked 30 about. 31 32 Ms. Gitelman: Ok, so as it stands the Motion wants us to inject this idea of transferability for residents 33 and employees. Am I understanding? 34 35 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 36 37 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, so in terms of what I was thinking was mainly for the employees because I 38 think we have a really good consensus on transferability for employees. It makes a lot of sense. I think 39 in terms of the more advanced transferability of residents at this point I’d like to decline that unless we 40 have more of a I think consensus on this. 41 42 Ms. Gitelman: One thing we could do is insert something about transferability for employee permits and 43 commitment to analyze this further in Phase 1 for the on the residents side. So it wouldn’t be a given, 44 but we would give this some more thought. 45 46 Commissioner Tanaka: This was actually Commissioner Alcheck’s (interrupted) 47 48 Commissioner Alcheck: That’s exactly the right way to go about this. 49 50 RESTATED MOTION ACCEPTED 51 52 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, I accept the new revision. 53 54 Chair Michael: I think we’re ready for a vote. Neilson Buchannan would you like to speak? 55 56 25 Mr. Buchannan: Please explain what you’re about to vote on because the sound system [unintelligible – 1 off microphone] I’m not sure where you are. 2 3 Chair Michael: Ok. So I’m going to actually call on Jessica to I mean you’ve been noting our Motion as it 4 goes through the various processes. What is it that you understand that we have put on the table? 5 6 Ms. Sullivan: So based on my understanding we’re recommending a Motion which includes a few friendly 7 amendments to passing the Resolution or recommendation of passing the Resolution so we will add the 8 300 and 400 block of Lincoln into the proposed boundary for Phase 1, we will clarify the language that 9 currently exists in the Resolution under the permit priority paragraph Section E (interrupted) 10 11 Ms. Gitelman: Saying that staff will come back to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) with 12 that priority rather than the Director determining the priorities. 13 14 Chair Michael: And also there will be priority to employees of businesses outside the parking assessment 15 district. 16 17 Ms. Sullivan: I don’t think that’s part of the Motion is it? I thought it was just clarify the language and 18 make a determination in Phase 1. 19 20 Chair Michael: So I hate it when we get into this kind of a convoluted process, but early on in the 21 discussion there was some comments made to a specific mistakes in the language. The Page 1 you 22 didn’t have the correct dates for the PTC meetings. You got that? This Phase 2 permits to employees, 23 permits for employees? 24 25 Ms. Gitelman: Got that. 26 27 Chair Michael: The availability of scratcher hang tags? 28 29 Ms. Gitelman: That was not included in the Motion to my understanding. 30 31 Chair Michael: Well that way my desire when I raised the point because I think it’s an important point. 32 33 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I understand that you made the comment, but when we got to making the Motion 34 Commissioner Tanaka made a Motion that supported the staff recommendation to recommend the 35 Resolution with the authority to staff to “clean up” and I took that to mean your… the date and the 36 recital and the change the “to” to “for.” I think inserting the idea of employee permits as scratchers is a 37 little more than a clean-up and that would require an amendment to that Motion. 38 39 Chair Michael: Well, I’m going to propose an amendment if that’s necessary because I think that just in 40 terms of the logistics of let’s say you’re a temporary employee and you have to park your car, walk eight 41 blocks to get the tag, walk eight blocks back and then you’ve got to then because you’re only working 42 one day a week rather than and I think if you had the scratcher permit you sort of avoid that logistical 43 nightmare. 44 45 Ms. Gitelman: Well I guess my question is if we have transferability of employee permits why would we 46 have a temporary employee that would need to get a scratcher permit? I understand on the 47 (interrupted) 48 49 Chair Michael: Because they might have to, they might have to (interrupted) 50 51 Ms. Gitelman: Residential side there are going to be guests (interrupted) 52 53 Chair Michael: But let’s say that the permit is actually at the office where he works, but he’s got to park 54 10 blocks away and walk there and then walk back to the car and put it on the dash and then I think a 55 26 scratcher option for employees as well as residents is perfectly reasonable and why is this not 1 acceptable? 2 3 Ms. Gitelman: I guess we weren’t thinking that we would be selling permits on a temporary basis to 4 employees. There’s going to be a limited pool of employee permits (interrupted) 5 6 Chair Michael: But not all employees are five days a week. 7 8 Ms. Gitelman: Ok. I’m, we’re happy to try and accommodate the request (interrupted) 9 10 Chair Michael: Maybe you can [unintelligible] (interrupted) 11 12 Ms. Gitelman: [Unintelligible] a little more. 13 14 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #7 15 16 Chair Michael: Ok. Well, let me go through I would propose that under employee permits as an 17 amendment that we give the City the option [unintelligible] additionally [at any there] as a scratcher, 18 hang tag, or other format. Is there a second for that or is that acceptable to the maker of the Motion? 19 20 Commissioner Tanaka: I think because you make it as an option for the City to explore I think that makes 21 sense and it’s another [tool in the tool belt]. 22 23 Chair Michael: Ok so that’s in as an option. 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: Are you suggesting (interrupted) 26 27 Ms. Gitelman: So… 28 29 Commissioner Alcheck: Are you suggesting that it’s recommended that the City look into it maybe for 30 Phase 2 or are you suggesting that it be an option right away? 31 32 Chair Michael: I don’t care if you need to investigate it further, but I think it should be an option at some 33 point. And to give full credit for the idea this came from former Vice-Chair Keller and I think it was a 34 good point. So that was my last sort of clean up. And I think so we, so the question from the public is 35 do we are we clear what, what we’re voting on? 36 37 Ms. Gitelman: If you wouldn’t mind Chair Michael let me see if I can go through it again. So the Motion 38 is to recommend that the City Council adopt the Resolution with the following changes: we would clean 39 up the recitals to have the appropriate date, we would clean up the paragraph that you pointed to earlier 40 and change the word “to” to the word “for,” we would include the 300 and 400 blocks of Lincoln, we 41 would include transferability of permits for employees and a commitment to analyze transferability for 42 residents in Phase 1, we would change the paragraph on prioritization to make it such that the staff 43 would return to the Planning Commission, PTC with the priorities, and we would ensure that there was an 44 option of hang tags, scratchers, or other format for employee permits. 45 46 Chair Michael: Simon. 47 48 Mr. Cintz: Commissioner Michael [Note-Chair] you had said the exact words that employees there would 49 be a nominal charge or nothing and that was not mentioned Hillary in your list it would be [unintelligible 50 – off microphone]. 51 52 Chair Michael: Ok, and that’s correct. 53 54 Ms. Gitelman: As I understood that amendment was made and was not accepted and is not included in 55 the Motion. 56 27 1 Commissioner Gardias: No, this was, which one? I mean we talk about several things but I made a 2 friendly motion to make Phase 1 free of charge (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Michael: Ok, so let’s just clean that up so to Commissioner Tanaka and Commissioner Alcheck was 5 that acceptable to you? [Unintelligible] getting into the other question. 6 7 Commissioner Tanaka: Sure. So, so the question was or the Motion was to make it free or nominal for 8 employees during Phase 1. 9 10 Chair Michael: Yes. 11 12 Commissioner Tanaka: And I did not accept that, no. 13 14 Chair Michael: Ok. 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: So that is not included in the Motion. 17 18 VOTE 19 20 Chair Michael: Right. Alright, we’re ready for a vote. All in favor? Any opposed? No. it’s unanimous 21 with Commissioner Rosenblum absent [Note-recused]. So thank you to the survivors. Thank you to the 22 staff. 23 24 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum recused) 25 1 Betten, Zariah Subject:FW: RPP From: B Q [mailto:quob@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:25 PM To: Council, City Subject: RPP Honorable City Council Members:    Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create  problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for almost 10 years. My  practice is located at 882A Emerson Street. I serve a large number of Palo Alto residents.    Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less  skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. Some of my highly skilled  employees will probably not qualify for "low wage" status.    It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my  employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a  competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve  my patients. Many of my patients are Palo Alto residents.    I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and  therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees  priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety is not more  important than an other based on how much they make. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking  distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients.  If all  of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be  able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo  Alto.  Thank you,    Brian C. Quo, DDS, MS  Peninsula Pediatric Dentistry         Palo Alto City Council   250 Hamilton Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94301    Dear Sirs,         November 19, 2014    I am contacting you about the recent proposed Parking Permits in Palo Alto.  Since 1978, I have  practiced at 850 Middlefield Road and have become alarmed at the lack of available parking on  the streets around our office due to the influx of apartment dwellers.      So let’s get to the point of where do I and my receptionist park?  First of all, our lot has sixteen  spots and these go to the patients, not us or our employees.  Secondly, I am a prosthodontist  who specializes in highly complex restorative cases which demand superb attention to detail.   Plus, I have one employee who does everything.  I cannot afford to have her run out and move  her car every two hours because this disruption to my practice could be catastrophic.  The  quality of my services would be diminished.      Consequently, if this permit system is instituted, I want special consideration given to my  situation due to the complexity of my practice.  Thank you.    Sincerely,    Gary B. Laine, DDS  1 Betten, Zariah Subject:FW: RPP Permits   From: Eric Kwon [mailto:Eric@boyarskydmd.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:40 PM To: Council, City Subject: RPP Permits November 20, 2014 Dear Honorable City Council Members: Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for over 12 years. My practice is located at 888 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto and it is my privilege to serve many Palo Alto residents. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. My other highly skilled employees will not qualify for "low wage" status. It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients (many of whom reside in Palo Alto). I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety and convenience is not more important than another based on their wages. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Harvey Boyarsky DDS   1 Betten, Zariah Subject:FW: Dec 1 Council Meeting   From: Neilson Buchanan [mailto:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:56 AM To: Council, City Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Sullivan, Jessica; Elaine Uang; Michael Hodos; Gabrielle Layton; John Guislin; Richard Brand; Wynne Furth; Tommy Derrick; Norman H. Beamer; Paul Machado; Villareal, Joe; Chris Donlay; Elaine Meyer; Mary DimitSubject: Dec 1 Council Meeting There are only a few working days left before the Council addresses the permit parking ordinance and resolution. In order to make your time more productive, this morning I will deliver to the City Clerk updated background documents showing parked vehicle parking patterns. Please review these documents and keep them for further analysis during Phase 1. Neighborhood leaders throughout Palo Alto will be presenting parked vehicle trending data during the Phase 1/2 trials. (2015 and 2016) As soon as residents receive the Dec 1 council agenda and staff report, we will analyze the staff report and submit comments in writing as quickly as feasible. Due to the Thanksgiving holiday our comments may be delayed until Friday or on the weekend. I am submitting this data on behalf of residents in Ventura, Evergreen Park, Professorville, Mayfield, Crescent Park, Downtown North, and University South. Please note that Mayfield neighborhood is included with the Evergreen Park data is not broken out for easy analysis. Data does not include spillover potential in South Gate or a small section adjacent to Old Palo Alto Neighborhood's Bowden Park close to the Caltrain Station parking lot. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street 2 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Betten, Zariah Subject:FW: RPP Permits From: Eric Kwon [mailto:ekwondds@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:10 PM To: Council, City Subject: RPP Permits November 20, 2014 Dear Honorable City Council Members: Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for over 12 years. My practice is located at 888 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto and it is my privilege to serve many Palo Alto residents. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. My other highly skilled employees will not qualify for "low wage" status. It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients (many of whom reside in Palo Alto). I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety and convenience is not more important than another based on their wages. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Eric Kwon DDS 1 Betten, Zariah From:Dylan Field <dylan@figma.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 18, 2014 8:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:RPP Dear Palo Alto City Council, My name is Dylan Field and I'm the cofounder + CEO of a technology startup called Figma. I live / work in Downtown Palo Alto, and I'm writing to you tonight about your plan to give low wage workers priority when purchasing RPP permits. I have no issue whatsoever with giving low wage workers discounts on permits; in fact, I think it's a great idea to make permits more affordable. However, I do think it is unfair to give one set of workers purchasing priority over another set of workers. I believe over time this will unbalance the business ecosystem of Palo Alto away from the technology sector and encourage retail businesses. I hope you will consider giving everyone the same chance to obtain an RPP permit. Thank you for your time, Dylan Field 1 Betten, Zariah From:B Q <quob@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:RPP Honorable City Council Members:    Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create  problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for almost 10 years. My  practice is located at 882A Emerson Street. I serve a large number of Palo Alto residents.    Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less  skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. Some of my highly skilled  employees will probably not qualify for "low wage" status.    It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my  employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a  competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve  my patients. Many of my patients are Palo Alto residents.    I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and  therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees  priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety is not more  important than an other based on how much they make. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking  distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients.  If all  of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be  able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo  Alto.  Thank you,    Brian C. Quo, DDS, MS  Peninsula Pediatric Dentistry   1 Betten, Zariah Subject:FW: RPP   ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Roshan Emam [mailto:Office@dremam.com]   Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:35 AM  To: Council, City  Subject: RPP    From: office@dremam.com <mailto:quob@hotmail.com> To:city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: RPP  Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:24:51 ‐0800  Honorable City Council Members:    Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create  problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for almost 10 years. My  practice is located at 882A Emerson Street. I serve a large number of Palo Alto residents.    Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less  skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. Some of my highly skilled  employees will probably not qualify for "low wage" status.    It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my  employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a  competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve  my patients. Many of my patients are Palo Alto residents.    I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and  therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees  priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety is not more  important than an other based on how much they make. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking  distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients.  If all  of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be  able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo  Alto.  Thank you,     Roshan Emam DDS           Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Sirs, Gary Laine, DDS <garylaine.dds@sbcglobal.net> Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:35 AM Council, City Letter regarding Palo Alto parking permits Palo Alto City Council Parking Permit Letter.docx GUY OF PALO ALTO, CA CITY CLERK'S OP'Fll~E I ~ NOV 19 AM II: ~ & Attached is my letter in regards to the parking permit system. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 404!3 13. L~J DDS 850 Middlefield Road, Suite 2 Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)322-4750 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Sirs, November 19, 2014 I am contacting you about the recent proposed Parking Permits in Palo Alto. Since 1978, I have practiced at 850 Middlefield Road and have become alarmed at the lack of available parking on the streets around our office due to the influx of apartment dwellers. So let's get to the point of where do I and my receptionist park? First of all, our lot has sixteen -spots and these go to the patients, nqt us or our employees. Secondly, I am a prosthodontist who specializes in highly complex restorative cases which demand superb attention to detail. Plus, I have one employee who does everything. I cannot afford to have her run out and move her car every two hours because this disruption to my practice could be catastrophic. The quality of my services would be diminished. Consequently, if this permit system is instituted, I want special consideration given to my situation due to the complexity of my practice. Thank you. Sincerely, Gary B. Laine, DDS Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Palo Alto City Council, Dylan Field <dylan@figma.com> Tuesday, November 18, 2014 8:31 PM Council, City RPP GUY Glf PALO ALT0. GA €lTY CtERK'S OFPI@E 14 NOV 19 AH 7: 41 My name is Dylan Field and I'm the cofounder + CEO of a technology startup called Figma. I live I work in Downtown Palo Alto, and I'm writing to you tonight about your plan to give low wage workers priority when purchasing RPP permits. I have no issue whatsoever with giving low wage workers discounts on permits; in fact, I think it's a greatidea to make permits more affordable. However, I do think it is unfair to give one set of workers purchasing priority over another set of workers. I believe over time this will unbalance the business ecosystem of Palo Alto away from the technology sector and encourage retail businesses. I hope you will consider giving everyone the same chance to obtain an RPP permit. Thank you for your time, Dylan Field Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: B Q <quob@hotmail.com> Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:25 PM Council, City RPP Honorable City Council Members: C:I'TY OF PALO ALTO. CA CiTY CLERK'S Of:P'IGE I~ NOV 19 AH 7: ~~ Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for almost 10 years. My practice is located at 882A Emerson Street. I serve a large number of Palo Alto residents. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. Some of my highly skilled employees will probably not qualify for "low wage" status. It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients. Many of my patients are Palo Alto residents. I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety is not more important than an other based on how much they make. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Brian C. Quo, DDS, MS Peninsula Pediatric Dentistry Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear PA city council, CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA · PlTY CLERK'S @FflGE Margaret Lee <performance2010@icloud.com> I 4 NOV I g ~H 1: 41 Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:45 AM Council, City Parking!!!!! As a lifetime resident of PALO ALTO it is very disturbing to me the changes that we've seen in our city. A change that deeply concerns me and you don't seem to be addressing it is the parking problems were having. I thought this it was just a downtown problem not a midtown problem. But yesterday when I went to go to the shoe repair store,at 2 pm,on California Avenue I was shocked to find that that I could not find a place to park. Finally, I parked near the bottom of CA ave( my cobbler is near the top of CA ave) Discovering that lack of parking in the commercial cores is no longer limited to Univ Ave but has now come California Ave was a shock. Clearly the business commercial core needs its own parking solution . With the invasion of start ups and the incredible growth without seeming regard to traffic or parking, causes long time PaloAitans, like myself, to feel unheard and unwelcome in our city. Growth without long term planning and solutions to traffic congestion and parking is not the way Palo Alto used to function . Care for our future used to be a primary concern of our council... Thoughtful planning and approval of projects needs to be a brought back into focus .. Please, please look at what growth means to the quality of life we who live here desire. Growth is not always in the best interest of the many, although it lines the pockets of the few ..... . Sincerely yours, Margie Lee 500 Colorado Ave Palo alto, CA 94306 \ Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Simon Cintz <simoncintz@gmail.com> Tuesday, November 25, 2014 4:45 PM Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Berman, Marc; Klein, Larry; Price, Gail (internal); Schmid, Greg; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Shepherd, Nancy (internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Holman, Karen (internal) Gitelman, Hillary; Rodriguez, Jaime; Sullivan, Jessica; Fehrenbach, Thomas; City Mgr CAUTION: RPP Employee Permit Transferability Permit Transferabiltiy -Staff Presentation to PTC 12Nov2014 -Slide 16.PDF Honorable City Council Members: I ask that you be EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS when considering employee RPP permit transferability as a permanent part of the proposed Downtown RPP Resolution. The issue of whether or not employee RPP permits should be transferable is best left to the development of the Administrative Regulations as City Staff, residents, and businesses gain experience with how RPP really works during Phase Two ofthe trial program. It is PREMATURE at this time to make transferability a REQUIRED characteristic of the Downtown employee RPP program. I am one of the business representatives on the Downtown Stakeholders group. I bring this issue to your attention at this time because it was never properly debated by our group in it's currently proposed form. (See Note #3 below.) At the recent PTC meeting (Nov 12th), the Commissioners recommended that transferability of employee RPP permits be included in the Downtown Resolution, yet none of the Commissioners raised any of the potentially negative consequences of such an action. At that meeting, Staff did not proyide sufficient detail on how an employee RPP permit transferability program might work in practice. The potential danger of making RPP employee permits transferable is the following: Large areas of the downtown residential neighborhoods closest to the Downtown could be PERMANENTLY RESERVED for only a few Downtown businesses that have large numbers of employees. This will eventually damage the vitality of the Downtown business community that serves all of Palo Alto, especially the introduction of new small businesses. There are two key elements that when combined have the potential ofPERMANENTLY RESERVING neighborhood streets for the benefit of a limited number of Downtown businesses. Both of these elements appear on Slide #16 of Staffs presentation to the PTC on Nov 12 (See attached slide.): "* Business Pool Permits: Allow businesses to purchase permits for employees that are transferable if employee leaves * Employee permits would be assigned to a specific area" (Bold underlining emphasis added by me.) Individually, each of these may be workable ideas, but when put together they potentially create a mixture that may result in long term damage to the Downtown business community. Here's how: 1. Available RPP employee permits will be "assigned to a specific area". Based on current estimates, there may be only 2 to 4 employee permits available on each residential blockface. Those employee permits will only be valid in that area and no other area of the Downtown. (See Note #1 below.). 2. Businesses will most likely purchase RPP permits on those blocks that are closest to their place of business. 3. Businesses needing many employee RPP permits are likely to to purchase large numbers of permits which will comprise areas that could take up dozens of mostly contiguous residential blocks because there are only a small number of permits that are assigned per each block. A large area of the residential neighborhoods will be reserved for "Company A"; another large area will be reserved for "Company B"; and so on. (See Note #2 below.) 4. WITH TRANFERABILITY, "if[an] employee leaves", these large areas will be PERMANENTLY RESERVED for each business as long as that business exists, possibly for decades. 5. WITHOUT TRANSFERABILITY, as employees leave, these spaces would become available to other businesses and the Downtown RPP district would eventually have a mix of permits available both near and far for all businesses, both new and old. Every healthy business community must encourage change. If large existing businesses are allowed to reserve many residential blocks nearest the Downtown for their own exclusive parking use for decades, this will make it very difficult for· new businesses to replace old businesses. (See Note #4 below.) As I personally read the proposed Downtown Resolution presented to the PTC on Nov 12, I see nothing in that resolution that explicitly prohibits "transferability" of employee permits. The Council should not add the REQUIREMENT of employee permit transferability to the Resolution. This issue should be left to the Administrative Regulations, as are most aspects of how employee permits will be issued. If the City Council now makes transferability a requirement written into the resolution, it will be painting itself into a comer with potentially disastrous outcomes for our Downtown business community in the long term. Just to be clear ... I am NOT AGAINST transferability of employee permits. I am only asking that the Council NOT REQUIRE transferability in the Resolution. It is wiser to simply allow City Staff, residents, and businesses the flexibility to decide this issue in the Administrative Regulations once we've gained experience with how RPP actually works in the neighborhoods. It may turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing. At this time we just don't know. ********* Notes Referenced Above ************ Note #1: Assigning a permit to a specific area means that the permit holder may ONLY park in that area. This "area" most likely will be a specific block; e.g., a permit for the "900 block of Ramona" will only allow that employee to park on that block and on no other block. (Resident permit holders will be able to park anywhere in the district.) Resident stakeholders have frequently requested an upper limit of 20% of the spaces allocated for employees. This means that many areas may only allow a maximum of 2 -4 employee permits per blockface leaving the vast majority of street spaces for resident use. Note #2: Employee permit sales will be done online allowing computer processing of dozens of permit requests per minute. Since permits are "assigned by area", existing businesses will be motivated to "grab" those spaces nearest their place of business ASAP. Large businesses that requires many dozens of RPP permits will naturally attempt to get as many spaces as they require that are nearest their place of business. Since there may be only a few employee permits allocated per blockface, a company will likely be motivated to reserve areas that comprise many contiguous residential blocks to obtain the dozens of employee permits they require for their own business. In the future, only outlying areas furthest from the Downtown will be available for permit sales, thereby making it difficult for new businesses to locate in the downtown. Note #3: The Stakeholder group supported employee transferability for "curb marked" employee spaces on residential streets. Curb marked spaces allow for parking on a daily "first come, first serve" basis. Since all curb marked spaces are open to ALL employee permit holders each day, no one company can reserve a group of spaces for itself. At our last Stakeholder meeting (Oct 23), Staff announced that the resident survey did not support the stakeholder proposed "curb marked spaces" and that employee permits would instead be assigned to a "specific area". Since this was our last meeting of the year, our group understandably did not have time to properly debate the pros and cons ofhow transferability might work when permits are assigned by area as opposed to the stakeholder group supported "curb marked" system. The implications of employee permits being "assigned by area" has many implications that were not discussed in our Stakeholder group because the announcement that the resident survey rejected "curb marking" was made at our very last meeting. This last meeting required the presentation and discussion of many other new and important issues not giving us adequate time to debate issues in detail. Note #4: Every healthy business community must accommodate change. (I am NOT referring to growth, but simply to change ... one business leaving and another business replacing it.) By allowing large employers to permanently hold transferable permits that consume large swaths of the nearby residential streets, it only leaves the outlying areas as parking for newcomers to the Downtown. Overtime, this will stagnate the business community causing it to lose much of its current vitality. This will hurt all of Palo Alto. Permit transferability for employees is not simply an "added benefit" for some businesses. It has the potential for being a "game changer" for the long term health of the Downtown business community. Please proceed cautiously when considering making "employee permit transferability" a requirement in the Downtown RPP Resolution. Thank you, Simon Cintz Cintz Commercial Properties, LP P.O. Box 1216 Palo Alto, CA 94302 831-247-2387 . .• .. · Pool Pannits: Allow bus:inessaS. to pyrchasa permits for ernployeeSthat are transfe¥able ifemployee leaves • Employee permits would be assigned to a specific area ~+Q~ t;- ~ 7; k <?_ "'\ .· .-+ VOLK\ ff<Zf~vt~ -.{-~_~ ov--/\Lnr I 21 2_ Ol'i. 16 Carnahan; David From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Mary Conway <exec@mpds.org> Monday, November 24, 2014 3:05 PM Council, City Palo Parking Situation PaloAitoParking.pdf CtTY OF PALO ALTO. CA GtTY CLERK'S OFFICE I~ NOV 24 PH 3: 21 Thanks so much for your consideration, I am acting on behalf of our membership that practice in Palo Alto. Happy Thanksgiving, Mary Mary Conway, Executive Director Mid-Peninsula Dental Society 220 Main Street, Ste 208A Los Altos, CA 94022 650-328-2242 650-331-0541 FAX "MovingForward, Together" Website-MPDS.ORG llPU.)mina ~:_vents Januai'Y 23•·d-lnfectiun Ctlntl'd/Uental V1·actice Act ~: 7/te ?1CP?)S ~ 0«/t ~in~ ad,~~' adWe ~ etMc ~ tlte leeattlt o& 0«/t ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ad,~~ MIQ .. J)ENINSULA DENTAL SOCIETY 22Q Main Street, Suite 20SA Los )Utos, CA ·94022 650/328,.2242 Fax 650/331 w0541 Subject: RPP Date: Friday, November 20,2014 Subject: RPP Honorable City Council Members: S.erving: Palo Alto Menlo Park Atherton Los Altos Mountain View Creating a higher priority status for "low wage11 employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for almost 10 years. My practice is located at 882A Emerson Street. I serve a large number of Palo Alto residents. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages, Some of my less skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage!' status. Some of my highly skilled employees will probably not qualify for "low wage" status. It m$:es no sense to give some of my employees priority and not :give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits< I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients. Many of my patients are Palo Alto residents. I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP pennits because they earn less money and therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. :However, I do not s:u,pport giving .some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP p~nnits. In the end, one.person's safety is.not more important than an other based on how much they make. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and Serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking .distance from my office, I Will.not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area pl)Ssible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Mid-Peninsula Dental Society LeeJ>anec President k:en S~hweiller - Vlc~·President Reza R,iahi Treasurer I Secret~ry Joyce dien,g .. Chtistilpher Joy Editors Carnahan, David · From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: GITY OF PALO AliO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> I 4 NOV 24 AM II: II Monday, November 24, 2014 8:56AM Council, City Gitelman, Hillary; Sullivan, Jessica; Elaine Uang; Michael Hodos; Gabrielle Layton; John Guislin; Richard Brand; Wynne Furth; Tommy Derrick; Norman H. Beamer; Paul Machado; Villareal, Joe; Chris Donlay; Elaine Meyer; Mary Dimit Dec 1 Council Meeting There are only a few working days left before the Council addresses the permit . parking ordinance and resolution. In order to. make your time more productive, this morning I will deliver to the City Clerk updated background documents showing parked vehicle parking patterns. Please review these documents and keep them for further analysis during Phase 1. Neighborhood leaders throughout Palo Alto will be presenting parked vehicle trending data during the Phase 1/2 trials. (2015 and 2016) As soon as residents receive the Dec 1 council agenda and staff report, we will analyze the staff report and submit comments in writing as quickly as feasible. Due to the Thanksgiving holiday our comments may be delayed until Friday or on the weekend. I am submitting this data on behalf of residents in Ventura, Evergreen Park, Professorville, Mayfield, Crescent Park, Downtown North, and University South. Please note that Mayfield neighborhood is included with the Evergreen Park data is not broken out for easy analysis. Data does not include spillover potential in South Gate or a small section adjacent to Old Palo Alto Neighborhood's Bowden Park close to the Caltrain Station parking lot. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: From: office@dremam.com Roshan Emam <Office@dremam.com> Monday, November 24, 2014 10:35 AM Council, City RPP T o:city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: RPP Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:24:51 -0800 Honorable City Council Members: CHY Of PALO ALTO. CA GI1'Y CLERK'S OFFIGE 14 NOV 2~ AM n: ffl Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for almost 1 0 years. My practice is located at 882A Emerson Street. I serve a large number of Palo Alto residents. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. Some of my highly skilled employees will probably not qualify for "low wage" status. It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients. Many of my patients are Palo Alto residents. I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety is not more important than an other based on how much they make. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impos.sible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Roshan Emam DDS Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council Members, Kathryn Jurosky <pulpfinley@gmail.com> Thursday, November 20, 2014 10:17 PM Council, City RPP permits lt. NOV 2t. AH 1:35 I feel small healthcare offices (under 10 employees) serving Palo Alto residents should be exempt from parking permit mandates for their employees. Our dental office, located at the comer of University Avenue and Middlefield Road, has served the Palo Alto community for over 30 years. We already provide parking for our patients to minimize their impact on the nearby community. Many of our elderly patients appreciate the parking we provide. If these parking mandates are to be imposed, then perhaps small medical/dental office employees should have priority· for these permits. I strongly disagree with the tiered access and payment schemes under consideration for these permits because we cannot apply this equally across the 5 employees in our small business. Should an older employee who has been with our office for 17 years have to park further away that a younger less skilled employee at a lower pay scale? I don't think so. Palo Alto is becoming more inhospitable to small businesses, especially those that directly serve the communities healthcare needs. - Thank you, Kathryn J urosky · Board Certified Endodontist 500 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Reza Ria hi < reza@rezariahidds.com> Friday, November 21, 2014 5:37 AM Council, City Downtown RPP CITY OF PALO ALJ'Q,CA QIIX C! FBK'$ Q(ElffiE 14 NOV 24 AH 7: 35 Honorable City Council Members: I am voicing my concern regarding the manner of implementation of the Downtown RPP program. I am an Endodontist who has been in practice in the city of Palo Alto since 2008. I have been treating mostly Palo Alto residents during this period with the help of a highly skilled and trained staff. My dental team is comprised of front staff and assistants all of which are women and their safety is a top priority for me. As these employees are highly skilled in their respective positions their compensation rates are equal high. The present implementation scenario the Council is entertaining could mean some of my staff may have to walk across town to get to their parking spaces. This is highly concerning since we have extended work day hours most days as we frequently see emergency patients at the end of the day. My staff and I often leave when it's already dark. I am, and the Council should be very concerned about the safety of these healthcare workers to and from their vehicles so far from their workplace. As an employer it will become very difficult to retain the staff that I already have or attract the skilled employees I will need as my practice grows. It would not surprise me to see some smaller practices or businesses leaving Palo Alto if the RPP is implemented in such a way that employees can't have parking at a safe distance from their work. It is incomprehensible to me how we could give a group priority over other based on income. Is the safety of a group more important than the other based on how much money they make? Perhaps a better solution would be offering a lower rate to the lower income individuals is a sliding scale, while offering parking at a safe distance to work for everyone. As I've mentioned before healthcare providers have irregular work hours and we often don't leave until sundown. For the safety of all of us and our employees who are by vast majority female I join the other to ask the Council to offer permits close to workplace for everyone or at least consider an exemption for the healthcare workers. Reza Riahi DDS, MMSc Palo Alto Endodontic Center 85 0 Middlefield Road, Suite 4 Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Phone (650) 485-2514 Fax (650) 485-2511 Sincerely, 'Reza Riahi, DDS, MMSc Palo Alto Endodontic Center Carnahan, David .From: Sent: To: Subject: November 20,2014 Eric Kwon <Eric@boyarskydmd.com> Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:40 PM Council, City RPP Permits Dear Honorable City Council Members: CHY Of Pt'\LO A~Hl. QA CITY CLERK'S OPFWE I~ NOV 20 PH 5: I~ Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for over 12 years. My practice is located at 888 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto and it is my privilege to serve many Palo Alto residents. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. My other highly skilled employees will not qualify for "low wage" status. It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients (many of whom reside in Palo·Alto). I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and therefore . should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety and convenience is not more important than another based on their wages. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Harvey Boyarsky DDS Carnahan, David from: Sent: To: 'Subject: November 20,2014 Eric Kwon <ekwondds@gmail.com> Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:10 PM Council, City RPP Permits Dear Honorable City Council Members: CITY Of PALO ALT~.GA CITY CLERK'S @Pf'ICE lt. NOV 20 fM t: t~ Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for over 12 years. My practice is located at 888 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto and it is my privilege to serve many Palo Alto residents. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. My other highly skilled employees will not qualify for "low wage" status. It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients (many of whom reside in Palo Alto). I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety and convenience is not more important than another based on their wages. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide·care, retain staff and serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to fmd an office in another area possible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Eric Kwon DDS Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: A. Lakha <azeemer@aol.com> Wednesday, November 19, 2014 5:19 PM Council, City Palo Alto Parking Honorable City Council Members: CITY OF PALO Al,..TO. CA Ct"Y C! fRt<'S OEf'kE 14 NOV I ~ PH 5: 2 5 Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my Oral Surgery practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for almost 27 years. My practice is located at 720 Cowper Street has been in the same location since 1972. Our practice has been serving several generation of Palo Residents for over 40 years It is becoming increasingly difficult for small businesses like dental offices to attract qualified employees because they cannot afford to live in or near Palo Alto. Imposing a parking cost on these employees is an additional burden they cannot afford. Sirice 2000, an increasing number of dentists have relocated out of Palo Alto. Few of you may know that Palo Alto is Mecca for high quality dental care. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Because most of our employees are highly skilled and live an hour or further away from Palo Alto, I am afraid that costly parking permits will dissuade them from commuting to Palo Alto. We are having enough trouble attracting affordable and competent employees. It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety is not more important than an other based on how much they make. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Azeem K Lakha, DMD Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 720 Cowper Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E:hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Simon Cintz [mailto:simoncintz@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 4:45 PM To: Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Berman, Marc; Klein, Larry; Price, Gail (internal); Schmid, Greg; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Shepherd, Nancy (internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Holman, Karen (internal) Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Rodriguez, Jaime; Sullivan, Jessica; Fehrenbach, Thomas; City Mgr Subject: CAUTION: RPP Employee Permit Transferability Honorable City Council Members: I ask that you be EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS when considering employee RPP permit transferability as a permanent part of the proposed Downtown RPP Resolution. The issue of whether or not employee RPP permits should be transferable is best left to the development of the Administrative Regulations as City Staff, residents, and businesses gain experience with how RPP really works during Phase Two of the trial program. It is PREMATURE at this time to make transferability a REQUIRED characteristic of the Downtown employee RPP program. I am one of the business representatives on the Downtown Stakeholders group. I bring this issue to your attention at this time because it was never properly debated by our group in it's currently proposed form. (See Note #3 below.) At the recent PTC meeting (Nov 12th), the Commissioners recommended that transferability of employee RPP permits be included in the Downtown Resolution, yet none of the Commissioners raised any of the potentially negative consequences of such an action. At that meeting, Staff did not provide sufficient detail on how an employee RPP permit transferability program might work in practice. The potential danger of making RPP employee permits transferable is the following: Large areas of the downtown residential neighborhoods closest to the Downtown could be PERMANENTLY RESERVED for only a few Downtown businesses that have large numbers of employees. This will eventually damage the vitality of the Downtown business community that serves all of Palo Alto, especially the introduction of new small businesses. Page 1 of 4 11/26/2014file:///C:/Users/dtamale/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20... There are two key elements that when combined have the potential of PERMANENTLY RESERVING neighborhood streets for the benefit of a limited number of Downtown businesses. Both of these elements appear on Slide #16 of Staff's presentation to the PTC on Nov 12 (See attached slide.): "* Business Pool Permits: Allow businesses to purchase permits for employees that are transferable if employee leaves * Employee permits would be assigned to a specific area" (Bold underlining emphasis added by me.) Individually, each of these may be workable ideas, but when put together they potentially create a mixture that may result in long term damage to the Downtown business community. Here's how: 1. Available RPP employee permits will be "assigned to a specific area". Based on current estimates, there may be only 2 to 4 employee permits available on each residential blockface. Those employee permits will only be valid in that area and no other area of the Downtown. (See Note #1 below.). 2. Businesses will most likely purchase RPP permits on those blocks that are closest to their place of business. 3. Businesses needing many employee RPP permits are likely to to purchase large numbers of permits which will comprise areas that could take up dozens of mostly contiguous residential blocks because there are only a small number of permits that are assigned per each block. A large area of the residential neighborhoods will be reserved for "Company A"; another large area will be reserved for "Company B"; and so on. (See Note #2 below.) 4. WITH TRANFERABILITY, "if [an] employee leaves", these large areas will be PERMANENTLY RESERVED for each business as long as that business exists, possibly for decades. 5. WITHOUT TRANSFERABILITY, as employees leave, these spaces would become available to other businesses and the Downtown RPP district would eventually have a mix of permits available both near and far for all businesses, both new and old. Every healthy business community must encourage change. If large existing businesses are allowed to reserve many residential blocks nearest the Downtown for their own exclusive parking use for decades, this will make it very difficult for new businesses to replace old businesses. (See Note #4 below.) As I personally read the proposed Downtown Resolution presented to the PTC on Nov 12, I see nothing in that resolution that explicitly prohibits "transferability" of employee permits. The Council should not add the REQUIREMENT of employee permit transferability to the Resolution. This issue should be left to the Administrative Regulations, as are most aspects of how employee permits will be issued. If the City Council now makes transferability a requirement written into the resolution, it will be Page 2 of 4 11/26/2014file:///C:/Users/dtamale/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20... painting itself into a corner with potentially disastrous outcomes for our Downtown business community in the long term. Just to be clear ... I am NOT AGAINST transferability of employee permits. I am only asking that the Council NOT REQUIRE transferability in the Resolution. It is wiser to simply allow City Staff, residents, and businesses the flexibility to decide this issue in the Administrative Regulations once we've gained experience with how RPP actually works in the neighborhoods. It may turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing. At this time we just don't know. ********* Notes Referenced Above ************ Note #1: Assigning a permit to a specific area means that the permit holder may ONLY park in that area. This "area" most likely will be a specific block; e.g., a permit for the "900 block of Ramona" will only allow that employee to park on that block and on no other block. (Resident permit holders will be able to park anywhere in the district.) Resident stakeholders have frequently requested an upper limit of 20% of the spaces allocated for employees. This means that many areas may only allow a maximum of 2 - 4 employee permits per blockface leaving the vast majority of street spaces for resident use. Note #2: Employee permit sales will be done online allowing computer processing of dozens of permit requests per minute. Since permits are "assigned by area", existing businesses will be motivated to "grab" those spaces nearest their place of business ASAP. Large businesses that requires many dozens of RPP permits will naturally attempt to get as many spaces as they require that are nearest their place of business. Since there may be only a few employee permits allocated per blockface, a company will likely be motivated to reserve areas that comprise many contiguous residential blocks to obtain the dozens of employee permits they require for their own business. In the future, only outlying areas furthest from the Downtown will be available for permit sales, thereby making it difficult for new businesses to locate in the downtown. Note #3: The Stakeholder group supported employee transferability for "curb marked" employee spaces on residential streets. Curb marked spaces allow for parking on a daily "first come, first serve" basis. Since all curb marked spaces are open to ALL employee permit holders each day, no one company can reserve a group of spaces for itself. At our last Stakeholder meeting (Oct 23), Staff announced that the resident survey did not support the stakeholder proposed "curb marked spaces" and that employee permits would instead be assigned to a "specific area". Since this was our last meeting of the year, our group understandably did not have time to properly debate the pros and cons of how transferability might work when permits are assigned by area as opposed to the stakeholder group supported "curb marked" system. The implications of employee permits being "assigned by area" has many implications that were not discussed in our Stakeholder group because the announcement that the resident survey rejected "curb marking" was made at our very last meeting. This last meeting required the presentation and discussion of many other new and important issues not giving us adequate time to debate issues in detail. Note #4: Every healthy business community must accommodate change. (I am NOT referring to growth, but simply to change ... one business leaving and another business Page 3 of 4 11/26/2014file:///C:/Users/dtamale/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20... replacing it.) By allowing large employers to permanently hold transferable permits that consume large swaths of the nearby residential streets, it only leaves the outlying areas as parking for newcomers to the Downtown. Overtime, this will stagnate the business community causing it to lose much of its current vitality. This will hurt all of Palo Alto. Permit transferability for employees is not simply an "added benefit" for some businesses. It has the potential for being a "game changer" for the long term health of the Downtown business community. Please proceed cautiously when considering making "employee permit transferability" a requirement in the Downtown RPP Resolution. Thank you, Simon Cintz Cintz Commercial Properties, LP P.O. Box 1216 Palo Alto, CA 94302 831-247-2387 Page 4 of 4 11/26/2014file:///C:/Users/dtamale/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20... Downtown Resolution, cont. permit sales will be regulated during this Phase Two: 12 months + phase of the program in accordance with data gathered during Phase 1. Resident Permits: First permit, So/year, Second permit, $50/year, Third permit, S50/yeat Fourth permit, Pool Permits: Allow businesses to purchase permits for emplovees that are transferable if gmplovee' '------------'+reaves " Employee permits would be assigned to a specific area !'iTY O I,,tlr:tij",i) ;id!,'i'{} T,E,^S*,,^s+"+ +-. Y Lot?. +--.Qrt() taru,a*.. -t-c o''-"'u-.- 1V'-- 12, 1 Ellner, Robin From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, November 08, 2014 8:26 AM To:Doug Greene Cc:jessica.sullvan@cityofpaloalto.org; Gitelman, Hillary; Planning Commission Subject:Re: all of those dates work for me. I blocked off all three days/time from 6- 8pm. I will bring handouts and 2-3 easels with large posters to show parking intrusion. Let me know what day/time is best and then you can publicize the meeting internally. Do you have sound system? Not vital but helpful. What is your estimate of lowest and highest number of resident who may turn out? The Nov 12 Planning Commission may stimulate interest when newspaper cover the first public reaction. I would like to review the permit program with you in advance so that you can give me some guidance. Phase 1 is very imperfect but probably has the greatest benefit for 101 since Caltrain vehicles are concentrated around your building. While writing this email I just thought of one new issue previously overlooked. Will the city include the train track side of Alma (from Everett to Palo Alto Avenue) in the permit parking district and thus allow only downtown workers and residents to park there. I strongly advise you to ask this question immediately to the two key staff persons. Here are their emails. Those 30+ spaces are crticial parking supply that should be included in parking space capacity for resident and downtown workers. The worst decision would be to dedicate all of those thirty spaces for 2 hour commercial parking and/or reserved solely for worker permit parking. 2 jessica.sullvan@cityofpaloalto.org jessica.sullvan@cityofpaloalto.org Hillary Gitelman hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org Planning Commission planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Please be advised that there is and will be a perpetual battle for parking spaces. The critical element is that the city wants to sell unlimited number of parking permits and we resident want to restrict designated non-resident parking spaces to a fixed allocation equally distributed across our neighborhood. I personally hope (and pray) that the city will realize that no more than 500-600 parking spaces within DTN can be allocated to non- residents. The city can sell as many parking permits at any price, but they cannot use more than 40% of all spaces for commercial parking lot. We residents clearly need 40% of the spaces during the day for our own vehicles, repairmen, nannies, visitors, family, home remodel workers, etal. Our goal must reserve 20% simply to have vacant places to park when the 80% is taken. This good example of why I want to brief you so you can help me with some of the questions that will arise. This formula of 40-40-20 space planning is my own position and it could be adopted in Phase 2. Phase 1, for better or worse, allows the city to sell unlimited number of parking permits within our neighborhood. This is an imperfect, but reasonable way to initial the trial but only for 6 month commencing April 1. Finally I strongly advise your Board to develop a formal opinion and express a formal position at the Dec 1 City Council meeting At the Nov 12 Planning Commission you and your leaders may not feel fully informed and prepared. However, it is important for someone at 101 Alma to make a 2 minute statement during public comments. As a minimum it is critical, in my opinion, you all could state that residents in 100 units (150+ drivers) are negatively impacted by the current city 3 parking policy AND that you want the city council to commence a solution not later than April 1. Thanks for getting involved. This is a simple problem with very complex, 30 month solution...the details above are the simplest!!!! Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com From: Doug Greene <pacoa101@yahoo.com> To: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 2:58 PM Subject: Re: My apologies for the phone tag the building has me jumping today. How would one of these dates work? 11/20, 11/24 or 11/25. I was thinking 6pm -7pm or 6:30pm - 7:30pm. Would any of those days work? Many thanks Doug From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> To: Doug Greene <pacoa101@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 1:48 PM Subject: I keep missing you on the phone. i will be on grandson shuttle duty 230- 500 and may not pick up cell phone immediately but will return your call. 4 Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Ellner, Robin From:MEGAN BARTON <megbarton@me.com> Sent:Monday, November 10, 2014 6:04 PM To:Planning Commission; Harris Barton Subject:RRP for Lincoln Avenue Hi‐  We live at 334 Lincoln Avenue and strongly support the implementation of the RRP on our blocked.  We are inundated  with cars parked in front of our home on a daily basis during the work week, often until 7:00pm and are tired of having  to park around the corner.  The weekends are wide open.  We have heard rumors that you may not include  neighborhoods east of Bryant Street, which would be an absolute nightmare for us.  We voted in favor of the RRP, as did  our neighbors‐ please hear our voices and support our needs.  Harris and I are unable to make the planning meeting  tomorrow night, but wanted to make sure you knew where we stand.  Yes for parking permits!!!    Sincerely,  Megan and Harris Barton  1 Ellner, Robin From:layton, thomas <thomas@redjuice.com> Sent:Monday, November 10, 2014 8:04 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:RRP for 300 block of Lincoln Ave Hi Folks - We live at 365 Lincoln Ave. and support an RRP for our block. Please add us to the plan so that we can park on our own block! Thomas Layton 1 Ellner, Robin From:Chop Keenan <chopkeenan@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:42 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Sullivan, Jessica; Fehrenbach, Thomas; Neilson Buchanan; Simon Cintz Subject:RPP Concerns Attachments:RPP Concerns.docx dear members, attached are some comments on the proposed city wide rpp ordinance and the greater downtown rpp. all the stakeholders have worked hard to get to this point, but without a couple of changes to the trial rpp we will end up with the same range war situation that occurred a couple of years ago with the professorville rpp which failed at the council. the two phase downtown rpp trial is a way forward to a robust downtown rpp without the jarring consequence of imposing restrictions day one, which is what will happen if you charge non residents $233 for the six month trial. anyway, thanks for your consideration of these comments, chop RPP Concerns Re: Ordinance and Resolution November 5, 2014 RPP is a critical element of a holistic downtown parking solution. Transportation Demand Management, zoning, parking supply, and parking technology, (meters, wayfinding, parking app), are all integral to a successful RPP and avoiding negative, unintended consequences ie: the toothpaste effect. I am supporting RPP Trials for Phase I and Phase II with the following caveats: 1. There is general agreement among all Stakeholders regarding the Phase I data collection except for charging employees for a parking permit. Free for residents, while charging non- residents ($233 for most and $50 for “low wage”) will skew Phase I data and be a total waste of time and money. All Phase I permits should be free. Permit tags need to be color coded by work or neighborhood location: who’s parking where? This phase eliminates non- district commuters ie: Cal Trans, Stanford, PAMF, T&C, and Paly, while at the same time getting empirical data on neighborhood on-street parking. We will then know what the addressable problem is in each neighborhood. 2. All workers should have equal permit priority. I strongly support the discounted permit pricing for “low wage” workers. Equal permit priority is favored by major employers such as Whole Foods and St. Mike’s Restaurant, among others. 3. I am in accord on Phase II with residents and staff, that permit allocation by neighborhood and count will be interative based on data from Phase I and Phase II however, setting maximum permits now is premature. 4. In every draft of the city wide RPP ordinance there was a provision for a postal survey vote to form the district. The provision provided for a 50% response rate and 70% support of the respondents. This provision has been eliminated in the last draft. Please re-insert the postal vote to occur after the Phase II trial, (section 10.05.050, paragraph (d)(2)). Staff did circulate a straw poll, but it didn’t have the benefit of the Phase I and II trials so that residents could make a decision based on their trial period experience. It simply asked if they favored an RPP but there was no resolution upon which to base their opinion. The straw poll was roughly 50-50 for and against even with gerrymandered district lines. 1 Ellner, Robin From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 11, 2014 7:11 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Sullivan, Jessica; Chop Keenan (chopkeenan@yahoo.com) (chopkeenan@yahoo.com); Simon Cintz; Susan Nightingale; Rob George; Brett Somers (bsomers@palantir.com); Richard Brand; Neilson Buchanan; Gabrielle Layton; meh6467; Elaine Uang Subject:Comments on RPP Letter to the PTC from J. Guislin Chop Keenan generously shared his comments on the proposed RPP program so I am doing the same here, sending to all Stakeholders and PTC members. Phase 1 of RPP is a minimally acceptable step in the right direction. It is highly unlikely that it will improve the quality of life for residents nearest the downtown commercial core. Streets will still be parked at 80 -100% during the busiest times of day. Yes, it will eliminate some number of commuters from Stanford, PALY, etc. who will not have access to permits, but with demand for parking steadily increasing, any small benefit will be temporary. The most important criticism of the current the proposal is that far too many critical details are left to the yet-to- be-written Administrative Guidelines. As is often true, the devil is in the details and in this case the details are in the administrative guidelines. The most serious omission of detail is that the Director of Planning be allowed to set the acceptable rate of commercial parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods. This is disrespectful to the citizens who have worked long hours to propose a threshold for commercial parking and undemocratic in granting too much power to an unelected official. The threshold for commercial parking intrusion must be set by our elected representatives in consultation with interested parties. With regard to Chop’s proposal that all permits be free during Phase 1 - When you make something free you are saying either that it is worthless or, if you are launching a new product or service, you are trying to build demand. In our case, we already have excessive demand for parking in the residential neighborhoods and have no new service to offer. To give commercial parkers the right to park there for free by permit is legitimizing what has become a serious degradation of neighborhood quality of life. Once you grant someone a free city permit to park, it is problematic to take it away and/or raise the price. In the case of residential parking, free makes no sense at all. 2 With regard to Chop's proposal to take priority permit access away from low wage workers – The citizens on the Stakeholder group were happy to make parking concessions to support our downtown retail environment. Among these concessions are both the pricing and priority access to permits for low wage workers. What most are not willing to do is to support the high-wage VC’s, large tech companies, law offices etc. whose workers can afford higher priced permits and whose companies have the resources to acquire or build parking capacity if they choose. Offering them permits that are a bargain based on their resources will not encourage them to create alternatives. With regard to Chop’s proposed hurdle of 70% support for permit parking – Today, elections are often won by razor thin margins. There is no valid justification for making the hurdle for permit parking higher than a simple majority. Sincerely, John Guislin 1 Ellner, Robin From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:09 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Sullivan, Jessica; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:RPP Staff Proposal Dear Commissioners: While as one of the Stakeholders participating in the challenging meeting sessions chaired by Jessica Sullivan's I will be in attendance at your meeting Wednesday night, I am moved to send this pre-meeting comment. One of my RPP stakeholder colleagues, Mr. Keenan who lives in Woodside and not a resident, has sent you a note regarding his choices for the permit program. Let me tell you that most of we stakeholders, like Mr. Keenan, had RPP options that we wanted to see in the final Staff ordinance. But in the best elements of a consensus based group, in the end we all agreed that the outcome, while not what I wanted in full, was worth the effort. The record will show that Mr. Keenan earlier proposed to the Stakeholder group, his 3 items listed in his letter to you. They were fully considered by our committee but in the end, found lacking to support the charter put to us by the Council/Staff and were not supported by a positive vote of the Stakeholder group. Again, I made proposals to the Stakeholder committee that were not accepted, but I abide will abide by the consensus of the group as a part of a necessary process. Therefore I ask you to support the Stakeholder program put forth by the Staff and move it forward to the Council for final implementation. Richard C. Brand RPP Stakeholder and Palo Alto Citizen 1 Ellner, Robin From:Michelle Arden <michelle@arden.org> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:36 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Residential Parking Program: Include Lincoln Ave. Dear Planning Commission, We live on the 400 block of Lincoln Ave and want to make sure that the new RPP includes Lincoln in its boundaries. Please include Lincoln Ave. Michelle Arden 405 Lincoln Ave. Michelle Arden michelle@arden.org Work: (650) 329-8440 Home: (650) 326-0962 1 Ellner, Robin From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:44 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:info for new commissioners Attachments:121116 Kicking The Can Editorial PA Weekly 001.pdf I should have known that the two new commissioners will be acting on RPP tonight, but I had erroneously assumed that the turnover of commissioners coincided with Council turnover in January. Here are 4 "critical path" time points to orient the new Commissioners.  Citizen Frustration and Appeal to Council for over 10 years  Summer/Fall 2012 Collapse of Professorville Permit Trial  November 16, 2012 "Kicking The Can" Opinion Piece in the PA Weekly is attached. Other newspaper coverage available upon request.  January 27, 2014 Council Direction to Staff to develop RPP (Noted in Staff Report)  April 1, 2015 Probable Start Date for RPP Phase 1 This morning the City Clerk directed me to take my documents to the Planning Dept. You will find documents for Commissioners in each of the 7 mailing tubes. I hope each of you have time to scan my late submission. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell 2 cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Ellner, Robin From:Gabrielle Layton <strop@redjuice.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:21 PM To:John Guislin Cc:Planning Commission; Sullivan, Jessica; Chop Keenan (chopkeenan@yahoo.com) (chopkeenan@yahoo.com); Simon Cintz; Susan Nightingale; Rob George; Brett Somers (bsomers@palantir.com); Richard Brand; Neilson Buchanan; meh6467; Elaine Uang Subject:Re: Comments on RPP Letter to the PTC from Gab Layton As a participant on the RPP stakeholder committee I wish to support John’s comments. I have always understood the point of the RPP was to a) to provide relief and improve the quality of life for the residential neighborhoods affected, and b) to create a system that effects change in commuting behavior to the betterment of the environment and congestion in the city of Palo Alto. At the same time there was general agreement amongst the stakeholders and in the broader community that the RPP should not be overly burdensome on the (men and women) retail/service workers who serve this community. With those objectives in mind, pricing of commuter permits is a non-negotiable part of phase 1. There are only two levers at our disposal to change commuter behavior - pricing and caps. Pricing is the phase 1 lever. Caps is phase 2. The proposed pricing works out at 40cents/day for hourly workers, and less than $2/day for salaried workers. It’s akin to asking people to pay 10cents a bag at the grocery. It’s a minimal hurdle to effect change in commuter behavior. Separately, priority for these permits should be given both in price and access to hourly workers. A vibrant retail and a range of services contribute greatly to our sense of community, and help create the Palo Alto identity. We need to reduce the retail to office turnover in this city, and one way to help is to give these businesses every chance to survive. I think it was clearly established in the very first RPP meeting that a level of 70% support was unprecedented and undemocratic. Respectfully, Gab Layton On Nov 11, 2014, at 7:10 PM, John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> wrote: Letter to the PTC from J. Guislin Chop Keenan generously shared his comments on the proposed RPP program so I am doing the same here, sending to all Stakeholders and PTC members. 2 Phase 1 of RPP is a minimally acceptable step in the right direction. It is highly unlikely that it will improve the quality of life for residents nearest the downtown commercial core. Streets will still be parked at 80 -100% during the busiest times of day. Yes, it will eliminate some number of commuters from Stanford, PALY, etc. who will not have access to permits, but with demand for parking steadily increasing, any small benefit will be temporary. The most important criticism of the current the proposal is that far too many critical details are left to the yet-to- be-written Administrative Guidelines. As is often true, the devil is in the details and in this case the details are in the administrative guidelines. The most serious omission of detail is that the Director of Planning be allowed to set the acceptable rate of commercial parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods. This is disrespectful to the citizens who have worked long hours to propose a threshold for commercial parking and undemocratic in granting too much power to an unelected official. The threshold for commercial parking intrusion must be set by our elected representatives in consultation with interested parties. With regard to Chop’s proposal that all permits be free during Phase 1 - When you make something free you are saying either that it is worthless or, if you are launching a new product or service, you are trying to build demand. In our case, we already have excessive demand for parking in the residential neighborhoods and have no new service to offer. To give commercial parkers the right to park there for free by permit is legitimizing what has become a serious degradation of neighborhood quality of life. Once you grant someone a free city permit to park, it is problematic to take it away and/or raise the price. In the case of residential parking, free makes no sense at all. With regard to Chop's proposal to take priority permit access away from low wage workers – The citizens on the Stakeholder group were happy to make parking concessions to support our downtown retail environment. Among these concessions are both the pricing and priority access to permits for low wage workers. What most are not willing to do is to support the high-wage VC’s, large tech companies, law offices etc. whose workers can afford higher priced permits and whose companies have the resources to acquire or build parking capacity if they choose. Offering them permits that are a bargain based on their resources will not encourage them to create alternatives. With regard to Chop’s proposed hurdle of 70% support for permit parking – Today, elections are often won by razor thin margins. There is no valid justification for making the hurdle for permit parking higher than a simple majority. Sincerely, 3 John Guislin 1 Ellner, Robin From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:35 PM To:Neilson Buchanan; Planning Commission Cc:Sallyann Rudd; Richard C. Brand; Elaine Uang; Gabrielle Layton; Michael Hodos; John Guislin; Wynne Furth; Tommy Derrick; Furman, Sheri; Paul Machado; Malcolm Beasley; Michael Griffin; Linda Anderson/Bert Page; D. Michael Griffin; Stump, Molly; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:Re: Control of permit parking spaces located on city property Neilson, here are the comments I provided to staff on Monday.    1. There is some benefit to removing Stanford and Caltrain parkers, but that won't solve the whole problem.    2. Businesses located outside the parking assessment district are not eligible to obtain permits in the parking structures.   Therefore, they should be in the second priority for permits (behind residents, but ahead of businesses in the parking  assessment district).    3. If one goal is to support part‐time hourly workers, floating hanging tags does not accomplish this goal. Are you  expecting someone who works on Tuesdays and Fridays to park, walk to work to pick up a floating permit, walk back to  the car to place the permit, and then walk back to work.  And at the end of the shift (when it may be dark), walk to the  car to pick up the permit, walk back to work to drop it off, and then walk back to the car to leave?  Or to park near work  to pick up the permit and later to drop it off?  We need business daily scratchers for both part‐time employees that  businesses can buy for their employees and all‐day visitors (pre‐tax) rather than requiring part‐time employees to pay  for the permits after tax.    4. Permits should be applied for, even if residents initially pay nothing for the permits.  Business permits should cost  something from the start, particularly for businesses located in the parking assessment district.  The alternative to these  businesses parking outside the assessment district is to have these businesses pay for added parking within the district.   And if businesses within the assessment district have to pay, then why shouldn't businesses located outside the district  (who would have higher priority for being outside the district)?    Best regards,  Arthur (not in any official capacity)    ‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Experienced advisor to leading edge startups and accomplished expert witness on patent infringement cases.    Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303‐4507 tel +1(650)424‐0202, fax +1(650)424‐0424      On 2014‐11‐11 21:38, Neilson Buchanan wrote:  > Thanks, everybody, for the flood of advice today. I am getting closer   > to the root of the problem. In January we must urge the new mayor and   > City Council to convene a study session on commercial core parking   > policy, pricing and marketing.  >   > I now am making an educated guess that Chop and the independent   2 > organization known as Parking Assessment District have total fiscal   > control over bond payment schedules and permit pricing...this is based   > on district officers' interpretation of the bond covenants. Does   > anyone know who has fiduciary responsibility for the assessment   > district? I further assume this legal position has implicit support   > from the various mayors and city attorneys over the past years. The   > structure is legal and perhaps totally private enterprise.  >   > There is something more to discover about refinancing the bonds a few   > years ago...but this is mere speculation at this point.  >   > One of the top issues in 2015 will be city hall optics and what new   > parking policies the Council can negotiate in the light of day, ie in   > publicly open study session. If the City Council cannot guide   > marketing and pricing of all‐day parking spaces in the garages... then   > all this RPP stuff is simply BS.  >   > Neilson Buchanan  > 155 Bryant Street  > Palo Alto, CA 94301  >   > 650 329‐0484  > 650 537‐9611 cell  > cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com  >   > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  >  FROM: Sallyann Rudd <sallyann_r@yahoo.com>  >  TO: Richard C. Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>  > CC: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Elaine Uang   > <elaine.uang@gmail.com>; Gabrielle Layton <strop@redjuice.com>;   > Michael Hodos <mehodos@mac.com>; John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>;   > Wynne Furth <wynne.furth@gmail.com>; Tommy Derrick <tommy@lynnde.com>;   > Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net>; Paul Machado   > <plmachado@gmail.com>; Malcolm Beasley <beasley@stanford.edu>; Michael   > Griffin <jazzbuff@sbcglobal.net>; Linda Anderson/Bert Page   > <b‐l‐page@pacbell.net>  >  SENT: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 8:08 PM  >  SUBJECT: Re: Chop Keenan Opinion  >   > Lordy lordy.  >   > Chop seems to be coming at the issue as if the point of the RPP is to   > provide parking for downtown workers, whereas its supposed to move   > downtown workers out of the neighborhoods and into parking garages and   > alternative commute situations. Did I miss something?  >   > Awful lot of trouble just to eliminate Stanford/ Caltrain parkers,   > especially since we already know by their approximate geographic   > locations who these people are already.  >   > I would argue that making all phase I permits free is likely to have   > disastrous effects on the RPP, it will (a) allow downtown workers to   3 > continue to park where they are currently parking (b) create the   > expectation that downtown workers can continue to park in   > neighborhoods (c) delay the creation of alternative commute habits (d)   > contribute only data which is already known by car counts (e) delay   > implementation of a revenue stream from downtown parking, while   > creating costs. Can just see that slide coming up at a future   > discussion on this topic. What’s the point?  >   > I’m sceptical of his claims by Wholefoods and St. Michael’s Alley that   > they support one cost of all permits, since both are Chop’s tenants   > and likely to say whatever he wants them to say. Quite frankly I don’t   > care if low wage workers get cheaper permits, I thought this was to   > please the merchants. Ok then lets charge them all the max!  > I’ve always thought RPP is a blunt intstrument to solve low wage   > worker parking, because very few low wage workers work Monday ‐ Friday   > 9am ‐ 5pm, most of them are working early/ late shifts 8am ‐ 12pm, 3   > days a week etc etc it would be much more convenient for these workers   > if there was “pay to park” options for them in the downtown core.  > Can’t understand why city is so slow to implement this, instead they   > want to give these cheap but all‐day every‐day parking permits which   > is more than most of them require.  >   > Sally‐Ann Rudd  >   > On Nov 11, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Richard C. Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>  > wrote:  >   >>   >   > I support none of his comments which are the same ones he made to the   > CAC and were rejected.  > Richard  >   > Sent from my iPhone  >   > On Nov 11, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>  > wrote:  >   >> Chop is clear about his opinion and caveats for the RPP. See   >> attachments. I appreciate his openness.  >>   >> I am asking each of the six resident stakeholders to let me know if   >> they would be supporting any of the following three issues raised by   >> Chop. I think we are or were unified in positions against the   >> recommendations Chop is making.  >>   >> If you have changed your position, please let me know at once. I am   >> totally opposed to all three suggestions.  >>   >> I understand why any developer requiring tenant parking in a   >> residential neighborhood would want these restrictions on our   >> fledgling RPP, but each suggestion independently assures that quality   4 >> of our neighborhoods continue to deteriorate. One of the most   >> promising provisions for Phase 1 is immediate quality improvement and   >> initiation of long‐term continuous quality improvement. We must make   >> our position clear to the Planning Commission and City Council.  >>   >> We strongly oppose Mr. Keenan's caveats  >>   >> * That unlimited number of Phase 1 non‐resident permits be issued on   >> a "no cost" basis.  >>   >> * That priorities of non‐resident permits in residential   >> neighborhoods be eliminated for lower income workers  >> * That thresholds be established requiring 50% response rate and 70%   >> positive support  >>   >> Any serious consideration and adoption whatsoever by the current   >> Planning Commissioners would assure complete failure of the 2‐year   >> RPP process proposed by City Staff.  >>   >> Neilson Buchanan  >> 155 Bryant Street  >> Palo Alto, CA 94301  >>   >> 650 329‐0484  >> 650 537‐9611 cell  >> cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com  >>   >> ‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐  >> FROM: Chop Keenan <chopkeenan@yahoo.com>  >> TO: "Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org"  >> <Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org>  >> CC: Jessica Sullivan <jessica.sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org>; tommy   >> fehrenbach <thomas.fehrenbach@cityofpaloalto.org>; Neilson Buchanan   >> <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Simon Cintz <simoncintz@gmail.com>  >> SENT: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:42 AM  >> SUBJECT: RPP Concerns  >>   >> dear members, attached are some comments on the proposed city wide   >> rpp ordinance and the greater downtown rpp. all the stakeholders have   >> worked hard to get to this point, but without a couple of changes to   >> the trial rpp we will end up with the same range war situation that   >> occurred a couple of years ago with the professorville rpp which   >> failed at the council. the two phase downtown rpp trial is a way   >> forward to a robust downtown rpp without the jarring consequence of   >> imposing restrictions day one, which is what will happen if you   >> charge non residents $233 for the six month trial. anyway, thanks for   >> your consideration of these comments, chop  >   >> <RPP Concerns.docx>  >   >> <Chip Keenan RPP Concerns submitted to PTC Nov 11 2014.docx>  1 Ellner, Robin From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:57 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Fwd: RPP Boundary Attachments:RPP Boundary FYI, here is a copy of a message I recently sent to Jessica Sullivan concerning the proposed RPP area boundary.  I hope  you find it useful.    Best regards,  Allen Akin  1 Ellner, Robin From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:48 AM To:Sullivan, Jessica Cc:Michelle Arden Subject:RPP Boundary Attachments:Fwd RRP Boundary Hi, Jessica.  As you can see from the attached messages, there's some discussion going on at the 300 and 400 blocks of  Lincoln Ave about the proposed boundary for the RPP area.    Personally, I'm more worried about traffic issues than parking.  However, I accept that the two are closely linked.    Tom DuBois and I have spent a good bit of time talking about priorities and measurement, and the two of us have also  been to see Jaime Rodriguez about our concerns.  I documented some of my early work from that period at  http://arden.org/traffic/ .    I mention all this because my traffic observations also show that parking density on the 300 and 400 blocks of Lincoln is  increasing rapidly.  The work by Eric Filseth and Neilson Buchanan strongly suggests that we can expect this to continue over the RPP  implementation period as downtown projects already in the pipeline are completed.  If RPP excludes those blocks, it's  certain that overflow from areas closer to downtown will immediately saturate them.  Therefore I don't think the  exclusion is viable.  At this point, downtown parking demands have grown so large that the only boundary that really  makes sense is Embarcadero; all the blocks north of it should have the opportunity to participate in RPP.    I realize this is Jaime's responsibility rather than yours, but the traffic implications of the exclusion are also daunting.   Lincoln already carries an average of 1400 cars a day, exceeding the levels at which the neighborhood traffic calming  program applies.  At my house, 405 Lincoln, 4200 cars a day currently pass through the intersection of Lincoln and  Waverley.  If the RPP area doesn't include it, I would expect traffic in the intersection to increase by several hundred cars per day, predominantly on Lincoln.  As far as I know there is no measurement program proposed to see what the traffic  effects of the RPP will be.  I'll make measurements occasionally, but results from Planning would be broader, better‐quality, and more acceptable  to policy makers.    Best regards,    Allen Akin  1 Ellner, Robin From:Michelle Arden <michelle@arden.org> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:37 AM To:akin@arden.org Subject:Fwd: RRP Boundary I forgot to tell you about this, but the Weekly said last week that they are considering stopping the RPP at Lincoln, and I agree that this would be suboptimal for us. I sent a note to the two email addresses below. Michelle Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 22:52:48 -0800 From: Kelli Tomlinson <k_tomlinson@me.com> Subject: Fwd: RRP Boundary To: Lois and Eddie Anderson <loisanderson43@gmail.com>, Steffan Tomlinson <steffan_c_tomlinson@yahoo.com>, Lynn Martin <lynnjohnmartin@gmail.com>, Nancy Huber <njh451@att.net>, Nancy Huber <njh451@comcast.net>, Ruth Letts <ruthlletts@yahoo.com>, "Dinda, Mahooya" <mahooya.dinda@intel.com>, "michelle@arden.org" <michelle@arden.org>, ardenaiken@arden.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68,1.0.28,0.0.0000 definitions=2014-11-12_04:2014-11-11,2014-11-12,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1408290000 definitions=main-1411120061 Dear 400 Block Lincoln Neighbors, I am forwarding a message chain that was sent through the 300 Block earlier today originated by Megan Barton. Gabrielle Layton (resident of 300 block) has been working on the parking issue for the last few years, which is culminating most likely in a Residential Parking Permit Program which will roll out for a six month trial come January. There is a Planning and Transportation Committee meeting tomorrow night and a City Council Meeting on December 1st where this will be discussed and open for public comment. The boundaries of the RPP are in flux at this point and it looks like our block (and the 300 block) may be drawn out of the pilot, just barely outside the border. Regardless of how you feel about an RPP, I think this outcome is the worst possible as I imagine our blocks will fill up immediately if we are not included and the pilot goes forward all around us. I know that we still seem to be one block removed from the higher density day time parking, but I don't expect this to last much longer with or without a program. Whatever your views, if you are so inclined, send an email to Jessica Sullivan who is working tirelessly on this program for the City: Jessica.Sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org and the Planning Commission: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org and/or come to the PTC Meeting tomorrow night. The ordinance is scheduled for 7:30 and the Resolution will be later, probably between 8 and 9pm. 2 Here is a link to the staff report on the issue which is quite detailed: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44671 Also, I have copied Mahooya above who just bought the house next door to Ruth and Jack. She and her husband have children at Addison and will move in post renovation. Could someone also send this to the Trinidads? I don't have their email addresses. Kind Regards, Kelli Begin forwarded message: From: MEGAN BARTON <megbarton@me.com> Subject: Fwd: RRP Boundary Date: November 11, 2014 at 8:00:03 AM PST To: Gabrielle Layton <strop@redjuice.com>, Kelli Tomlinson <k_tomlinson@me.com>, Harris Barton <harris@bartonam.com> Megan Barton 415-309-4979 Please pardon any typos- Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Barbara Wallace <bdgw@pacbell.net> Date: November 10, 2014 at 11:47:49 PM PST To: MEGAN BARTON <megbarton@me.com> Cc: Michele Dulik <mdulik6@gmail.com>, Nicole Hawkins <nicpovey@gmail.com>, Carolyn Foss <carolynfoss@mac.com>, Caroline Flexer <cflexer@gmail.com>, Michael Flexer <michael.flexer@gmail.com > Subject: Re: RRP Boundary Thanks, Megan! Seems crazy for the 300 block of Lincoln to be excluded in phase 1. But I see that the RPP boundary map in the staff report to the Planning Commission indicates just that: "Does not include Lincoln Avenue or Bryant Street at boundary." https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44671 A pretty definite statement from staff, seems to me, to be presented to PTC and City Council. So yes, Lincoln voices need to be heard if we want to be part of phase 1. Thanks for the alert. —Bardy On Nov 10, 2014, at 11:43 AM, MEGAN BARTON wrote: 3 I just emailed this woman, Jessica Sullivan, who is charged with making the RRP happen. She is very nice, but has the difficult job of trying to roll this out. The boundaries are a bit fluid right now and they have been discussing leaving the 300 block of Lincoln out ( everything east of Bryant Street to make it simple) for phase 1. I won’t email any more- except about the Dec 1st meeting. Please let me know if you want me to leave you off these emails. I will not be offended! Meg Begin forwarded message: From: MEGAN BARTON <megbarton@me.com> Date: November 10, 2014 at 11:36:57 AM PST Subject: RRP Boundary To: Jessica.Sullivan@CityofPaloAlto.org, Harris Barton <harris@bartonam.com> Hi Jessica, We live at 334 Lincoln Avenue, between Bryant and Waverley. I’ve heard that you are helping with the RRP boundaries. We want to make sure we are included in the first phase as we have heard that there may be some shifting of which streets are included in the initial rollout and that our block may be excluded. From our neighborhood discussions, I believe all of the homes on our block voted to be part of the RRP. Parking is close to impossible every weekday- we are ready to have our neighborhood back. Thank you for all your work on this. Sincerely, Megan and Harris Barton Michelle Arden michelle@arden.org Work: (650) 329-8440 Home: (650) 326-0962 Downtown Resolution, cont. permit sales will be regulated during this Phase Two: 12 months + phase of the program in accordance with data gathered during Phase 1. Resident Permits: First permit, So/year, Second permit, $50/year, Third permit, S50/yeat Fourth permit, Pool Permits: Allow businesses to purchase permits for emplovees that are transferable if gmplovee' '------------'+reaves " Employee permits would be assigned to a specific area !'iTY O I,,tlr:tij",i) ;id!,'i'{} T,E,^S*,,^s+"+ +-. Y Lot?. +--.Qrt() taru,a*.. -t-c o''-"'u-.- 1V'-- 12, 1 Tamale, Diana Subject:FW: Parking permits downtown   From: Lois Anderson [mailto:loisanderson43@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:22 AM To: Sullivan, Jessica Cc: Planning Commission Subject: Parking permits downtown Ms. Sullivan- I live on Waverley at the corner of Lincoln and see cars parked in front of my house on Waverley and around the corner in the 400 block of Lincoln, also in the 300 block of Lincoln towards Bryant, belonging to people who then ride their bikes or walk downtown, . The blocks south of Lincoln between High and Bryant are also filled with cars. Many are badly parked, blocking sidewalks and impeding the view at corners for oncoming traffic, especially at Alma and Lincoln on the southern corner. Please reconsider the boundaries to a less arbitrary line and extend to a landmark, so to speak, such as Embarcadero if you really want people to use parking facilities. Lincoln is a very busy thoroughfare that invites people to use it and the streets off it as well. As a side note, the 400 block of Lincoln also has the cars parked that belong to a Menlo Park resident who can't park in the street overnight in that town! Lois Anderson 1101 Waverley St 1 Ellner, Robin From:Karen White <kwhite.karenl@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 07, 2014 8:24 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Keene, James; jennifer.sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Sept. 10th Planning Commission Agenda - Proposed Draft of RPP Ordinance Please include this email in the Commissioner's September 10 packet. Hon. Members of the Palo Alto Planning Commission: Regarding your RPP agenda item, I have several concerns regarding the language, as a resident and property owner for 23 years in the University South neighborhood. I am referring specifically to Attachment D, which starts on page 107 of the first set of attachments on this subject. As to the title of the subject, which Palo Alto City employee or elected official(s) made the decision to change the meaning of the acronym RPP from "Residential Permit Parking" to "Residential Preferential Parking"? First, this term is a misnomer in that all of the proposals before the Commission have included preferred parking in the designated impacted area for non-resident employees as well as residents. If those who oppose RPP wish to change the wording of RPP to some loaded term, why not just decide to call it "Residential Privileged Parking"? Please return to the phrase used by most other cities. Regarding the draft of the proposed Palo Alto City Ordinance concerning RPP, the first section, 10.50.030, does not establish RPP in Palo Alto. Perhaps City Council incumbents might say in the November election that they have adopted such a program, but this is only a vaguely worded set of criteria that must be met before the Council might take such action. Take a good look at this Rorschach of phrases: 10.50.030 RPP Designation Criteria The council may designate an area as a Residential Preferential Parking District based upon the following criteria: (1) That non‐resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on‐street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents; (2) That the interference by the non‐resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly; (3) That the non‐resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life; (4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical. So, this is not an ordinaace for RPP, just one that allows, under freshman legal language, to perhaps, some day, vote for RPP. 2 However, the residents of the City should not fret if the City Council (freshly re-elected on the promise of an RPP) ends up turning it down - there is always the incredible language of the proposed Palo Alto City Ordinance. It goes on, but here is the meat of the draft of Palo Alto Ordinance 10.50.050: 10.50.050 Initiation by Neighborhood Petition Residents may request the formation of an RRP District in their neighborhood. The request shall be made, and considered, in the following manner: (a) Form of Application. (1) The director shall establish a standard form for the application for the formation of a new RPP District, as well as a list of submittal requirements for use by interested residents. These requirements shall include a narrative describing the nature and perceived source of non‐residential parking impact, as well as suggested district boundaries. The director shall also approve a standard form for use in demonstrating resident support for the application. (2) Residents shall initiate a request for establishment of an RPP District by neighborhood petition by completing the official application form. (3) Residents are encouraged to consult with the employers and employees thought to be the source of the parking impact as they develop their proposals. (b) Timing and Review of Applications. Each calendar year, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall review all applications received prior to March 31st of that year to determine whether the RPP District criteria established in this Chapter are met. I am not sure if this language needs much explanation, other than that it would make it virtually impossible to petition an RPP zone if a few individuals on the staff of City Hall opposed RPP. Please reject this language and instruct the City staff to bring to the Palo Alto Planning Commissioners an Ordinace draft that creates RPP in the mapped area. Sincerely, Karen L White Palo Alto 1 Ellner, Robin From:Sallyann Rudd <sallyann_r@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:04 PM To:Elaine Uang Cc:AP; Neilson Buchanan; D. Michael Griffin; Malcolm Beasley; Eric Filseth; Planning Commission; Gabrielle Layton; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:Re: Follow up to Nextdoor posts Yes! Why can’t I post pictures? The Weekly sent me a .pdf about their school board debate and I had to copy the information and type it in because I couldn’t just cut and paste the pdf. Sally-Ann On Sep 3, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com> wrote: Alex, and All, I have a call scheduled tomorrow morning with Yeoh-Ping Koh, a Next Door product manager who lives in the Willows. I reached out to him because I had some thoughts about product features they could create to improve community outreach. Do any of you have suggestions for him too? Or would any of you like to speak with him directly? Elaine On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM, AP <apanelli@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi Neilson, Thanks for the follow-up note, got it. I do think that the Nextdoor service has helped with civic engagement -- unfortunately, most of the initial posts are spurred by Post or Daily articles that often don't have enough space to fully describe and flesh out the issues. I used to give Gennady grief about this, but eventually I came to understand the limits placed on he and his peers by the editors and the realities of newspaper publishing. I actually gave Gennady a lot of praise for his very detailed history of the Maybell project...I wish that we could get something similar for Downtown parking/traffic problems. One of the things that you and I agreed on very early (back when I was still on the PTC) was the importance of measuring the problem...I've observed some tangible movement on this front from Jaime/Jessica, I hope that they are afforded the opportunity and resources to expand this effort, which can automate, process and synthesize complete information using sensors. Improving the quality of the data set I think will ultimately result in a better solution (and it will also force agreement from all parties on the actual numbers, rather than each group collecting its own data sets). I will reiterate, the RPP must be made a campaign issue if we really want any significant progress on implementation. AP 2 On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:30 PM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote: Alex, see page 8 of the December 2011 staff report. I personally think the RPP can will be kicked down the road again for at least 6-12 months. I havent made my mind up to accept this brutal reality, but it might be the most constructive way to reach a compromise RPP. Until impact of current and future parking intrusion is fully disclosed by City and Staff, our busy neighbors in the large permit district will not be informed and engaged. Thus far, City Staff and Council have avoided this disclosure and fumbled basic stewardship of their office. RPP wont be acceptable to most residents and voters until they understand the consequences of having no RPP protection. PS Thanks for staying engaged. Your perspective and experience on the Planning Commission is evident. I wonder if the massive increase of DTN Nextdoor postings is resulting in more informed citizens. What do you think? Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF  21ST CENTURY MATHEMATICS  LEGAL AND ILLOGICAL     425 + 429 = 98 – 41 ‐ 4 = 53 space deficit  240 + 248 ≠   45 or 60 – 3 or 4 = 41 or 57 space deficit  411 + 437= INCALCULABLE!     Properties located at 425 and 429 University Avenue properties will be merged into one new  building with 45 on‐site, subterranean parking spaces.  Normally 98 parking spaces would be  required, but in reality developer has actual requirement to provide 41 spaces.  Furthermore, in  this case the developer “offers” to build 4 additional spaces.  Bottom line: City exempts developer  from providing 53 parking spaces.  WHERE WILL THOSE TENANTS AND CUSTOMERS PARK?      240 and 248 Hamilton Avenue properties will be merged into one new building t with 3‐4 on‐site  parking places.  Parking requirements range from 45‐60 spaces resulting in parking space deficit of  41‐57 new parking spaces.  WHERE WILL THOSE TENANTS AND CUSTOMERS PARK?      411 and 437 refers to two properties to be developed on Lytton Avenue.  The parking space  equation is pending scientific research by Downtown North resident mathematicians and  physicists.    ***Full disclosure to fuzz up the math: It is impossible to predict the number of tenants who will actually occupy any Palo Alto  building.  Will a building prove “low occupancy” luxury offices for venture capitalists and lawyers?  Or will a building serve “high  occupancy”  laptop teams collaborating around work tables?  The Planning Department requires for one parking space per 250 sq ft  regardless of type of future tenant or their mode of travel to and from work. City of Palo Alto (ID # 2354) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 12/19/2011 December 19, 2011 Page 1 of 9 (ID # 2354) Summary Title: Downtown Parking Program Activities Title: Update on Downtown Parking Program Activities From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment This is an informational report and no Council action is required. Executive Summary This staff report provides an update to the City Council on the status of the Parking Program elements underway and planned for 2012 including a schedule of key milestones. The City began an analysis of the City’s Parking Program in Spring 2011 to identify strategies to help more efficiently manage the City’s parking infrastructure in the City’s Downtown and California Avenue parking assessment districts. Current efforts to date have been focused in the Downtown, including assessing the use of surface lots, parking garages, and on-street parking. Program elements in Downtown and outreach to the California Avenue Business District will continue into next year as outlined in this report with Council consideration of the Residential Permit Parking Program no later than July 2012. A Downtown Parking Community Group of business representatives and Professorville and other nearby residents will work collaboratively and in parallel with staff to access the impacts of parking on in downtown residential areas and to develop recommendations for the Residential Permit Parking Program. Background The City has two parking assessment districts, one in the Downtown (University Avenue) and one in the California Avenue area. Each district has developed unique strategies to manage its parking supply and demand, including the use of permit parking for employees within each district, designated parking spaces for permit holders, and hourly parking enforcement. The City is responsible for the oversight and development of parking management strategies. In addition, the Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Business and Professional Association -Parking Committee (Downtown Parking Committee) and the California Avenue Business District (BACA) help guide the development of parking strategies with staff. Attachment A provides additional information on the City’s current parking management system, and roles of the PAD Downtown December 19, 2011 Page 2 of 9 (ID # 2354) Parking Committee and the California Avenue Business District in developing the City’s parking management program. Many residents of the Downtown District, Professorville neighborhood and nearby streets are affected by non-residential neighborhood traffic and parking and have voiced strong concerns to the City about parking overload in the neighborhoods. Visitor parking along the streets prevent residents from parking in proximity to their homes affecting neighborhood livability. Staff’s parking analysis supports the contention that these streets are heavily parked during weekday working hours, and believe that most of the overflow is coming from downtown or SOFA employees. The business community has also voiced strong concerns about the availability of on-street parking and maximizing the efficiency of parking resources to support the vitality of the downtown business district. An analysis of the City's parking management strategies began in April as part of the Transportation Work Plan for 2011. Staff held a study session with the Planning and Transportation Commission in August 2011, a Study Session with Council in September 2011, and a series of meetings with the community to solicit input on parking strategies. Staff identified and began work on a number of enhancements, primarily focused on elements in the Downtown District, to make the City’s Parking Program more efficient, allow for improved enforcement, provide more accessibility to employees who rely on parking availability, preserve valuable on-street parking for patrons of each district, and to preserve the quality of life of adjacent residential neighborhoods. Discussion Since the City Council Study Session on September 12, 2011, staff has continued to advance a number of elements of the City’s Parking Program. An update on the development of the Residential Permit Parking Program, California Avenue Parking Program, current and planned parking management enhancements, and the schedule for developing the ongoing elements planned for 2012 are discussed below. Residential Permit Parking (RPP) Program During the City Council Study Session on the parking management strategies held in September 2011 several Council members expressed interest in the formation of a Downtown Parking Community Group to help provide direct feedback to staff on proposed parking management strategies and to allow residents an opportunity to share their insight regarding the potential parking intrusion impacts to their quality of life directly to merchants. Staff initiated the formation of a Downtown Parking Community Group and has outreached to select residents to participate on a new group. The PAD Parking Committee has also expressed interest in participating in the new group and has identified representatives. The first meeting of the new Downtown Parking Community Group is scheduled for December 22, 2011. The timing of the new Downtown Parking Community Group aligns with the parking management work plan for the new year outlined in this report. December 19, 2011 Page 3 of 9 (ID # 2354) The Downtown Parking Community Group’s schedule of work will proceed in parallel to other parking management objectives and the purpose of the group is to: ·Monitor the effects of parking strategies developed and implemented by the City; ·Evaluate the reasons that people are not using existing parking; ·Outline options to pursue, including pilot RPP approaches; and ·Developing an RPP Policy that outlines participation requirements, fee structure, process, and how to treat various land use types other than single-family residential (multi-family, commercial, institutional). The Downtown Parking Community Group will be comprised of up to five members from the Downtown residential neighborhoods (self-appointed) and up to five members from the Parking Committee or other downtown businesses (appointed by Palo Alto Downtown and the Chamber of Commerce). Staff members from the Department of Planning and Community Environment, the Police Department, Administrative Services, and the Manager’s Office would participate as needed. Staff also expects that any program, if implemented, would be revenue- neutral to the City, as directed previously by Council. Staff will also seek input from other neighborhoods, particularly Downtown North, but the focus of this effort will be Professorville, since there is a strong core interest among residents there. At the initial meeting of the Downtown Parking Community Group a schedule for future meetings will be discussed. Staff expects that the group to meet three to four times and then staff will report to the Planning and Transportation Commission and present recommendations to the City Council no later than July 2012. Staff believes that the Downtown Parking Community Group can provide valuable insight to help build consensus within the community on projects before they are considered for policy implementation. California Avenue Parking Program The California Avenue Business District does not currently have a business committee similar to the Downtown Parking Committee, through which parking strategy and policy can be easily discussed. Staff believes that the newly formed Business Association of California Avenue (BACA) will be a valuable partner in helping to provide a forum for merchants to meet regularly on projects of interest and for staff to solicit insight and merchant perspective on proposed projects. Staff is working with the new BACA representatives to schedule regular meetings at which Parking Management Strategies can be discussed. Staff anticipates developing recommendations for California Avenue parking strategies in October 2012. Prior to the formation of BACA, staff conducted outreach to California Avenue area merchants in July to discuss potential parking management strategies for their consideration including wayfinding signage and permit distribution solutions. The input from merchants was extremely valuable and there was a strong interest in collecting more data to help make better informed December 19, 2011 Page 4 of 9 (ID # 2354) decisions. Since that initial meeting staff has collected additional parking occupancy and permit use data that will be shared upon the first BACA meeting in the year. Parking Program elements to be discussed with the California Avenue community will include: ·Parking Permit Management System, which will also cover California Avenue permits ·Parking Wayfinding Banners and Signs, similar to that proposed for Downtown ·Enhancing the number of spaces available off-street and in garages ·Limited day permit use distribution to minimize abuse and misuse with the current system ·Improved distinction between permit and visitor parking spaces to make most efficient and equitable use of each Parking Permit Management System Replacement The City completed a Request for Proposals process in November 2011 and selected Progressive Solutions to develop and implement its Parking Permit Management System for Palo Alto. Existing permit holders from Downtown will, in the first quarter of 2012, be asked to update their contact and Downtown employer information. Possession of a parking permit in Downtown is a benefit to the businesses located within the Parking Assessment District. The City has never validated the Downtown employment status of permit holders. Having accurate parking permit holder data as part of the new system implementation is absolutely critical in making the distribution of permits more efficient and ensures that additional parking strategies can be considered for discussion with stakeholders such as the PAD Parking Committee. The updated system is also just a necessary improvement independent of parking permit space usage to demonstrate effective parking management. Permit holders who cannot validate their downtown employer status will not be renewed at their renewal date. The City anticipates the new permit management system to be completed and implemented by Spring 2012. The new system will offer permit holders an online renewal option and potential permit holders will be able to register online. Currently, existing permit holders and potential permit holders may register for a Wait List for any two parking facilities. After the system implementation, Wait List registration will be limited to one facility only to help ensure more efficient distribution of permits. The new system will automatically notify persons on the Wait List of their permit availability. The new system will provide the City’s two Parking Assessment Districts to explore opportunities for new parking permit fee structures previously not feasible due to technology limitations. The PAD Parking Committee will be asked to consider several new parking permit distribution strategies in the spring 2012 so that new policy recommendations can then be considered by the City Council as part of the new Fee Schedule Program for 2012-13: ·Top Floor Only Permits:These permits can be offered at a discount to persons whom are not able to pay for a normal permit but restrict their parking to the top floor of a parking garage. December 19, 2011 Page 5 of 9 (ID # 2354) ·Employer Bank of Permits:These permits introduce an opportunity for permits to be registered to a business rather than an employee so that as the company grows its staff, new employees can immediately begin parking at permit facilities rather than having to wait for distribution off a Wait List. Larger employers in Downtown have already expressed an interested in this type of permit to accommodate growth and visitor needs. As gate control systems are introduced into parking facilities, Employer Bank of Permits also offer flexibility for multiple permits to be distributed but with limited access to accommodate business employee shift requirements. ·Fleet Vehicle Permits:Provide for employers with vehicle fleets that require overnight storage within a parking structure. ·Non District Permits:Proposed for distribution on a trial basis with the support of the Parking Assessment Districts, can provide access to selected parking structures to benefit employees in the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) district which has seen increased office use over the past several years. Employees in SOFA currently cannot obtain parking permits. ·Tiered Hourly Parking:Tiered pricing allows visitors to park in facilities beyond the 3-hour Free parking limit for a fee up to the maximum $16.00 per day fee. The rate structure for parking beginning in the 4th hour will require merchant and parking assessment district input. ·Tiered Permit Fee Cost:Permits are currently offered on a quarter or annual basis. Pricing for monthly permits will be introduced and considerations for the continuation of annual discounts discussed to ensure maximum distribution flexibility to new employees of the Parking Assessment Districts. December 19, 2011 Page 6 of 9 (ID # 2354) Way-Finding Signage to Parking Facilities On November 3, 2011, the Architectural Review Board reviewed and approved the design of new banners designed to highlight the location of Free Public Parking facilities at surface lots and parking garages, see Figure 3 –Downtown Parking Banner Sample. The Phase I deployment of the new parking banners will be installed in December 2011 and be placed on streetlights within the surface lots and adjacent to streetlights at parking garages. Staff estimates that approximately 50 banners will be installed as part of Phase 1 deployment. Phase 2 will include the installation of banner poles at locations where existing streetlights were not available or feasible for use as part of Phase I. Phase 2 will benefit facilities such as Ramona/University (Lot B) and the 801 High Street garages located beneath retail or residential structures. In the Spring of 2012, staff will return to the Architectural Review Board for their input on wayfinding signage to replace the existing industry standards “White P on Green Background” signs. The new signs will match the color and modern architecture of the new banners, laying the foundation for the development of new marketing materials to highlight parking facilities. For the California Avenue Business District, the use of similar banners and wayfinding signage will be proposed to merchants and members of the new Business Association of California Avenue (BACA) in January 2012. Daily Parking Permit Distribution Beginning in January 2012 the City will be replacing its existing paper Daily Permit forms sold to businesses or persons seeking daylong parking at on-or off-street facilities. During discussions with Community Service Officers (CSOs) who conduct parking enforcement in the City, the use of illegally fabricated paper Daily Permits was identified as a frequent occurrence. The new Coded Scratcher Daily Permits will allow for only one day use and easier validation by CSOs. This modification is being implemented immediately to help ensure that the City’s parking management program is managed efficiently. The new Coded Scratcher Daily Permits will be used for both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. Within Downtown, two parking garages currently have Day Permit distribution machines that allow visitors to purchase a Day Permit on-site at a fee of $16 per day. The machines are currently located in the Bryant St Garage (Lots S/L) and the Cowper/Webster Garage (Lot CW). The distribution of additional Day Permit distribution machines has been discussed with the Figure 3Downtown ParkingBanner Sample December 19, 2011 Page 7 of 9 (ID # 2354) Parking Committee. Staff is recommending the deferral of additional machines until Pilot Gate Control and Hourly Parking Fee Structures are considered by the PAD Parking Committee because if gate control systems would provide the same function as the Day Permit distribution machines. As technology is researched it will be presented to the PAD Parking Committee for input prior to the distribution of Requests for Proposals from vendors. Pilot Gate Control and Hourly Parking Fee Structure The existing Downtown Palo Alto Color Zone Parking Management System provides for three- hour parking within Visitor parking spaces in garages. Staff will work with the Parking Community Group and the PAD Parking Committee to consider the installation of gate access controls to at least one parking garage next year, the Bryant Street Garage (Lot S/L). The gate controls will allow visitors to park beyond the existing three hour parking limit for a fee, beginning with the fourth hour and up to the daily parking rate of $16/day, allowing for longer stays within the downtown for shopping activities. The tiered hourly fee structure will also be included in the discussions with the Parking Committee and the PAD Parking Committee. Permit holders within garages with gate controls would gain entry through either a manual scan card or automatic card reader,depending upon a selected system vendor. Color-coded permit stickers affixed to vehicles will still be required initially to easily identify normal permit holders, new Top Floor Only permit holders, and to discourage permit holder use of Visitor parking spaces. A policy restricting permit holder parking in Visitor parking spaces will be required. Access gate controls also offer the benefit of estimating parking garage capacity to help develop and implement Parking Guidance System (PGS) Signage technology discussed below. Depending upon the final resolution of the various proposed parking fee structures with the Parking Committee in the Spring, proposals for the pilot access gate control projects will be solicited in the Summer for implementation of a pilot project in the Fall. A two-year pilot may be necessary to monitor and measure effects of the system. Parking Guidance System (PGS) Technology Development Staff is currently researching technology that will allow the City to monitor the time-use of both on-street and off-street parking spaces. Parking data collected by staff to-date has been focused on “occupancy” to determine the number of vehicles parked on the street or in off- street facilities during various times of the day. The City has no data or cost-effective method to determine how long vehicles are parked. Existing technology from companies such as Streetline networks (www.streetline.com) allow for the monitoring and distribution of parking space availability information to users of the system through smartphone applications. The City has investigated the use of such a system for Palo Alto, but the system requires a monthly fee for parking spaces monitored. Palo Alto does not currently charge a fee for on-street parking and allows time-limit free parking at off-street December 19, 2011 Page 8 of 9 (ID # 2354) facilities, making the use of such a system infeasible due to cost with no offsetting revenues. Staff is researching the development of its own monitoring infrastructure that is built on the National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol (NTCIP), allowing for potential integration with separate traffic signal management system projects scheduled for the calendar year 2012. Parking Occupancy Monitoring Staff has completed the collection of parking occupancy data for both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts for the spring 2011 and fall 2011 seasons. Additional parking occupancy data for off-street parking facility in Downtown for the Holiday shopping season is being collected in December. Data collection on parking trends and driver behavior is critical as decisions on future parking strategies are developed. The City is committed to providing accurate data to the PAD Parking Committee, future BACA members, and City Council so that we can work in partnership with each other to manage our resources. Timeline A timeline for implementing the Parking Program update reflecting the various tasks above is provided in Table 1. below and included as Attachment B. Table 1. Parking Program Activities Schedule & Key Milestones ACTIVITY SCHEDULE City Council Study Session September 2011 Permit Management System September 2011 -February 2012 Fall Occupancy Data Collection #2 October 2011 Parking Banners October 2011 -January 2012 Winter Occupancy Data Collection #3 December 2011 Residential Permit Parking (Working Group)December 2011 -July 2012 Way Finding Signage January 2012 -April 2012 California Avenue Parking Strategies January 2012 -October 2012 Permit Fee Development February 2012 -September 2012 Downtown Community Meeting March 2012 Garage Access Controls Pilot April 2012 -October 2012 Parking Monitoring June 2012 -April 2013 City Council Considers Residential Permit Parking Program July 2012 Install Bike Parking and Corrals Ongoing Parking Technology Research & Development On-going December 19, 2011 Page 9 of 9 (ID # 2354) Resource Impacts The Parking Program Update 2012 effort is primarily funded through the City’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP PL-12000, Parking & Transportation Improvements) and Downtown Parking Assessment District funds. Moving forward into 2012, the same fund sources will be used to further advance new parking management strategies. As program enhancements are identified and approved for implementation within the California Avenue Business District, the California Avenue Assessment District may also be used to help fund improvements. Environmental Review The Parking Program Update 2012 outlined in this report does not at this point require review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As individual parking program projects are approved for implementation, they will be evaluated for compliance with CEQA as necessary. Attachments: ·Attachment A (PDF) ·Attachment B: Parking Program Timeline 2012 (PDF) Prepared By:Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Attachment A Page 1 The following provides additional information on the City’s current parking management system, and roles of the PAD Downtown Parking Committee and the California Avenue Business District in developing the City’s parking management program. Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Business and Professional Association –Parking Committee In the Downtown, the PAD Parking Committee guides the development of parking strategies with staff and helps to provide perspective regarding the performance and trends of the Downtown economic engine so that it can be taken into consideration during the development of policy. This collaboration with the PAD Parking Committee is on-going through monthly meetings to discuss varying types of concerns including on-street and off-street parking, public safety, etc. The Downtown Parking Committee was instrumental in the development of the existing Color Zone Parking Management System which was designed to prevent employee parking in the downtown area and to increase the supply o f convenient customer parking Employee parking is provided in the seven parking garages in and around Downtown and the twelve surface lot facilities at a fee of $135 per quarter or on an annual discount basis of $420 per year. Figure 1 and Table 1highlight the Downtown Palo Alto Color Zone Parking Management System boundaries and Number of Parking Spaces in Off-Street Parking Facilities, respectively. Business Association of California Avenue (BACA) The California Avenue Business District has recently reconstituted its business association, which will hopefully provide input on parking strategies in the coming year.Staff will be organizing monthly meeting with BACA starting next year to build a partnership similar to the PAD Parking Committee to allow an open communication forum for parking and other issues of interest to merchants on and along California Avenue. Figure 1 Downtown Palo Alto Color Zone Management System Attachment A Page 2 Table 1 Number of Parking Spaces in Downtown Off-Street Parking Facilities Garages Surface Lots Letter Name Hourly Permit Total Letter Name Hourly Permit Total Q Alma/High (North)-134 134 O Emerson/High 78 -78 R Alma/High (South)77 134 211 A Emerson/Lytton 68 -68 S/L Bryant St 381 307 688 C Ramona/Lytton 18 32 50 WC Cowper/Webster 201 388 589 F Florence/Lytton 46 -46 CC City Hall 187 519 706 T Lytton/Kipling 25 25 50 B Ramona/University 63 -63 H Cowper/Hamilton 90 -90 800 High Street 10 53 63 D Hamilton/Waverly 86 -86 Totals:919 1,535 2,454 E Gilman/Bryant - 34 34 G Gilman/Waverly -53 53 P High/Hamilton 51 -51 K Lytton/Waverly 15 42 57 N Emerson/Ramona 48 -48 525 186 711 Within the California Avenue Business District, the Permit Management program does not include restrictions on where vehicles are permitted to park, with the exception of the Sherman Avenue & Ash Street surface parking lot,where 30 designated parking spaces exist. Vehicles with designated placards may park at all other sites within any parking space. The permit cost in the California Avenue Business District is $43 per quarter or may be purchased on an annual discount basis of $123 per year. Figure 2 and Table 2 highlight the California Avenue Business District Parking Facilities and Number of Parking Spaces in Off-Street Parking Facilities respectively. Figure 2 California Avenue Off-Street Parking Facility Locations Attachment A Page 3 Table 2 Number of Parking Spaces in California Avenue Off-Street Parking Facilities Garages Surface Lots LOT Name Hourly Permit Total LOT Name Hourly Permit Total 3 Cambridge West 183 183 1 Cambridge/Park 27 -27 5 Cambridge East 157 157 2 Cambridge/Birch 27 -27 Totals:340 340 4 Cambridge/Birch 89 89 6 Sherman/Park 154 -154 7 Sherman/Birch 161 161 8 Sherman/Ash 89 30 119 9 Birch/Cambridge 28 -28 575 30 605 Sep-11 Apr-13 Oct-11 Jan-12 Apr-12 Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 2012 Parking Program Activities Permit Management System Residential Permit Parking (Working Group) Permit Fee Development Way Finding Signage Parking Monitoring Garage Access Controls Pilot Install Bike Parking and Corrals Sep-11 City Council Study Session Oct-11 Fall Occupancy Data Collection #2 Dec-11 Winter Occupancy Data Collection #3 Mar-12 Downtown Community Meeting Jun-12 City Council Considers Residential Permit Parking Program Parking Banners California Avenue Parking Strategies Parking Technology Research & Development Downtown Parking Committee meets Monthly with Staff WHO PROVIDES AND PAYS FOR PARKING? We have apparently arrived at a new time in Palo Alto’s planning, community development and design, a much more urban approach not based on traditional standards of responsibility or on infrastructure capacity. In the past throughout most parts of our country the standards for development included, NO, demanded that developments pay for the infrastructure and impacts they created. Not always perfect, zoning and land use codes tended to require fair contribution to street and other infrastructure improvements, adequate fire suppression capabilities and meeting community design standards. Fundamentally, they all required providing parking solutions (usually on‐site or collectively as part of a district) adequate to meet the expected needs of their employees, guests and customers. These mandated standards required parking for use by employees, clients and service needs; and helped ensure that the impact of such developments did not overflow and burden the community, their neighbors or other businesses. These requirements reinforced the idea that the rest of the community, neighboring uses or the public at large should not, would not, subsidize development projects, directly or indirectly. These zoning requirements implemented the suburban General Plans and other City Policies that helped define the character of a town, refining a mix of uses and protecting properties from the abuses that could be caused by another. These standards apply in the Stanford Research Park and throughout most of the town. However, at certain, generally lean, times downtown developers and property owners lobbied that only government “help” would provide a bridge to building. They lobbied that the development community should have development/redevelopment “incentives” and bonuses to help meet “loftier” goals of the community. City planners, Planning Commissions and City Council’s listened to the claims of the development community and gave out enormous incentives that made projects not only possible but outrageously lucrative to a small group of property owners. In a sense these “gifts and exceptions” were asking the broader community to subsidize new development by placing the burden on the uses and integrity of others, by placing a shadow tax on the rest of the community. I am most familiar with the issues in Palo Alto, California related to Parking. In the downtown and in certain other commercial districts the coin of the realm has become parking. A range of bonuses, exceptions and special rules were layered on to simple code requirements for parking removing the responsibility of owners to provide parking to support their ever‐increasing intensity of uses. These special provisions have created a significant parking deficit forcing an overflow of employee parking into surrounding neighborhoods. A perhaps unconscious conspiracy of the city staff and developers turned parking rules over to the property owners who quickly recognized that if they eliminated the parking needed to support their new buildings they could increase the size of the buildings and reap even greater profits, letting others pick up and subsidize the cost of parking. They created institutional corruption – by city code legal, but none‐the‐less corrupt. At this time the City of Palo Alto places the cost of building parking structures at over $60,000 per space. If this number is used a 10,000 square foot exemption saves 40 parking spaces (at the 1:250 ratio) or almost $2.5 million. At the same time the actual parking demand is increasing as more and more jobs are housed in existing and new buildings due to the nature of the high tech tasks and the escalating cost of office space in Palo Alto – estimated at $7 to $8 per square foot per month. Could owners and developers afford to pay for parking to support their projects? Of Course, but owners and developers have assumed these subsidies are theirs by right. Why forgo a good deal? Come to the table, assess yourselves and pay to not only provide the parking needed for new projects but assess yourself to make up for the deficit – you must be crazy. Why should we pay when we can convince city officials to allow the practice to continue and have staff continue to look at ways the rest of the community will pay even more for partial feel‐good solutions? The downtown commercial districts have parking, some private, some in “public lots and structures” but, who pays for this parking. If private, you would think the property owner does, but no, he passes on the costs to tenants, forcing all but a few to find parking elsewhere. In the public lots and structures the tenants, not the property owners, pay for the assessment district costs, less than 10 cents per square foot in addition to $7 rents plus insurance, maintenance, taxes etc covered by “triple net” rents. Employees can enter a lottery for the few spaces reserved for employees and if lucky, pay $400 a year for parking. In the end the developers and property owners avoid paying for virtually all parking related costs, except for the time spent lobbying officials where they still continue to complain about “their” costs. Can you imagine this taking place in the Stanford Industrial area where the City parking standards requires parking adequate for the uses? More parking in the form of new, efficient structures is definitely needed to address just the deficit. With over 3.5 million square feet of downtown development reported there should be the equivalent of 14,000 spaces at the 1:250 blended ratio promised when the assessment district was established. Today there is about half that amount including all private onsite, structures, lots and commercial on‐street options. Yes, there can be TDM options to reduce the need for building parking structures – public transit, ride‐sharing, valet parking in existing lots, satellite lots, more efficient, high tech approaches to existing facilities, etc. But, the bottom line still has to go back to the basic policy on parking, no matter the approach, that developers and property owners pick up the cost for their properties – not the adjoining neighborhoods, not the public‐at‐large, not the employees, not other nearby commercial uses. Ken Alsman May 25, 2014 Attachment H Palo Alto City Council established this second neighborhood permit parking program on August 13, 2013. This program was designed to improve neighborhood quality negatively impacted by noise and trash. The Council broadened the program on Oct 6, 2014 with boundaries noted above. The program will remain in trial status to September 2015. College Terrace is the beneficiary of Palo Alto’s first neighborhood permit parking program. It has been successful and stable for many years. The goal of this permit parking is to limit intrusion from Stanford University and spillover from commercial office buildings. It does accommodate some of the commercial parking issues arising from the commercial zones on El Camino Real. Source: Consent Calendar Oct 6, 2014 Council Meeting. For further information: Contact Neilson Buchanan cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com