HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2407-3203CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, August 12, 2024
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
6.Adoption of Resolutions Amending the Evergreen Park-Mayfield and Southgate
Residential Preferential Parking Program Districts to Remove Parking Spots on El Camino
Real Due to Caltrans’ Repaving and Bikeway Project and Moving Employee Permits to
Other Locations in Each District; CEQA status - categorically exempt. Council Member
Questions, Public Comment, Presentation
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: August 12, 2024
Report #:2407-3203
TITLE
Adoption of Resolutions Amending the Evergreen Park-Mayfield and Southgate Residential
Preferential Parking Program Districts to Remove Parking Spots on El Camino Real Due to
Caltrans’ Repaving and Bikeway Project and Moving Employee Permits to Other Locations in
Each District; CEQA status - categorically exempt.
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to City Council direction on June 18, 2024 to amend the RPP Districts affected by
Caltrans' El Camino Real Repaving and Bikeway project, which will remove most of the parking
on El Camino Real, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions to
(1) remove the parking spots located on El Camino Real from the Evergreen Park-Mayfield and
Southgate RPP Districts; (2) reallocate 50 employee permits from El Camino Real (Zone G) to
Zones A-D in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield (EPM) Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) district;
(3) reallocate 20 employee permits from El Camino Real (Zone S1) into Zone S in the Southgate
(SG) RPP district.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Parking will be removed along El Camino Real through the Caltrans State Route 82 El Camino
Real (ECR) Repaving and Bikeway project. Employee parking in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield
(EPM) and Southgate (SG) RPP programs along ECR will not continue due to the installation of
bicycle lanes. In order to mitigate the parking loss, the City is pursuing a multifaceted strategy
to reduce parking demand and accommodate needed parking where capacity exists.
One element of this strategy is to allow current employee permit holders to park in other zones
within the two RPPs through 2024. Staff will measure and evaluate Zone and block parking
capacity within the two RPP programs later this calendar year. Beginning in January 2025,
additional employee spaces will be distributed within the two RPP program zones based on that
measurement and evaluation of parking capacity.
Additionally, the City is undertaking work to ensure adequate parking near ECR for customers,
visitors, and other stakeholders through the evaluation of different parking options and
corresponding curb designations.
BACKGROUND
The Caltrans El Camino Real (ECR) Repaving and Bikeway project will remove on-street parking
on ECR throughout Palo Alto as part of establishing ECR as a regional bikeway throughout the
Peninsula and South Bay. In order to mitigate the impact of this parking loss on the Palo Alto
community, the City is undertaking multifaceted actions:
Staff is engaging with ECR businesses:
o To provide short-term parking designations on cross streets immediately adjacent to
ECR.
o To facilitate requests for the installation of additional bicycle parking.
o To provide information about the garage and lot employee permits available at a
lower cost than employee RPP permits.
The Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) is engaging with ECR
businesses to offer employees transit passes, bicycle incentives, and alternatives to single-
occupancy vehicle parking, including the Palo Alto Link.
Work continues with Caltrans and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to ensure bus
stops are integrated into the bikeway and maximize safety and usability for riders and
cyclists.
Limited employee parking previously provided on ECR will be relocated into RPP zones
where capacity exists.
Staff will review parking occupancy in the impacted RPP programs in the Fall and will
conduct further outreach before any additional adjustments are determined for the new
RPP sales cycles in 2025.
The EPM RPP currently has available 40 employee permits in Zone G along El Camino Real with
an additional 10 held in reserve if needed. In EPM total of 48 employee permits have been sold
in the current cycle. The SG RPP currently has available 20 employee permits in Zone S1 along El
Camino Real. In SG a total of five (5) employee permits have been sold in the current cycle.
With the Caltrans El Camino Real Repaving and Bikeway project, El Camino Real will no longer
have parking spaces available in these RPP districts.
The EPM RPP previously made up to 250 permits available to employees in Zones A-F, but these
were removed in 2022 at Council’s direction (SR # 11795). Previous ordinance development
activities are detailed in the Council-approved resolutions (RESO 9739 and RESO 9741).
ANALYSIS
Approximately 130 total parking spaces are being removed from the two impacted RPP
programs. Adjustments now and in the future will account for both employee parking and
increased business visitor usage.
EPM RPP
In 2022, Evergreen Park – Mayfield Zones A-F employee permits were reduced to zero. When
parking is removed on ECR for the Caltrans project, staff proposes allowing Zone G holders to
park in Zones A-D until the new permit cycle begins in January 2025. At that time, 40 permits,
with 10 in reserve, will be distributed among Zones A-D according to parking availability. Staff
will work to minimize significant impact on any particular block (occupancy above 65%) by
ensuring that it is distributed evenly across the zones. Zones E and F are unnecessary for
adjustments as these zones are easily served by new capacity provided by the new garage at
350 Sherman Ave. in the California Ave. parking district. Daily, quarterly, and annual passes are
available at costs lower than those available in the RPP districts.
Table: Historical staff recommendations for impacted Evergreen Park employee zones
Employee
Zones
2021
Employee
Permit Cap
2022 Employee
Permit Cap
Potential 2025
Recommended
Employee Permit Caps
Total Parking
Spaces Available
A 20 0 8 112
B 55 0 22 228
C 30 0 12 208
D 20 0 8 176
Annual counts taken in Spring 2023 in the EPM RPP suggest the neighborhood zones can
accommodate the 40 to 50 employee permits and the increased 2-hour business customer
visits. See Attachment A. While some blocks saw usage over 65%, the majority of blocks were
below 65%. Zero blocks were over 85%, which is the threshold at which a block is considered to
have high parking occupancy.
SG RPP
For the SG RPP, staff propose reallocating the 20 available Zone S1 permits into Zone S.
Evaluation in October will help determine whether this new availability is needed and whether
Southgate Zone S needs additional reconfiguration to maintain parking availability prioritized
for residential uses.
The City will measure and evaluate the levels of use later this calendar year. (It is anticipated
that this work will occur in October 2024). The process will consist of counting available parking
spaces on each block face to measure activity levels at various times of the day. These activity
levels will be cross-referenced against prior activity counts. This data will inform the proposed
allocation of parking permits from Zone S1 into Zone S.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
This specific action is not likely to incur a significant fiscal impact, however, there will be some
anticipated reduction in the number of employee permits sold. Staff are actively engaged in
helping businesses in this area rely less upon neighborhood parking resources. As noted
previously, there are currently 48 employee permits active on the ECR Zone G in EPM, and 5 on
the ECR Zone S1 in SG. Options to lessen reliance on neighborhood parking resources for these
permits include increased collaboration with the Palo Alto Transportation Management
Association, to provide transit passes to employees, and reallocating business adjacent curb
space. Curb space immediately perpendicular to ECR and immediately in front of business uses
will be revised to have yellow or green curb restrictions and/or 2-hour commercial
designations, as appropriate. If successful, these two options will decrease employee permit
sales thereby decreasing revenues in these two districts. This would entail a minor increase in
the General Fund financial support of this program reflective of the decrease in employee
permit sales achieved.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff met with Chamber of Commerce representatives in May. In July, staff met with some
businesses and residents, and continued discussions with others via email. A light survey was
also distributed to businesses along the ECR corridor. Businesses in the corridor were generally
disappointed with the Caltrans project and worried about how the loss of parking would impact
their customers’ and employees’ access to their businesses. Residents of RPP zones of the
impacted RPP programs in Southgate and Evergreen Park are generally unsupportive of the
measures proposed by staff as they increase the business and daytime occupancy of
neighborhood parking resources.
The recommended actions are an intermediate step toward balancing competing interests of
finite curb space availability. Staff value the feedback given thus far, noting that the
preponderance of both business and resident feedback is not in alignment with the
intermediate steps recommended. Staff will continue to meet with impacted businesses and
residents through the remaining calendar year, will assess impacts of the recommended actions
on parking availability in each impacted neighborhood block with a Fall count, and will conduct
further outreach before any additional adjustments are determined for the new RPP sales
cycles in 2025, and then again before any additional changes following the end of the fiscal
year.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
These resolutions are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation
of this resolution may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that
this proposed resolution will have a minor impact on existing facilities
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: IDAX Parking Occupancy Spring 2023 EPM-SG
Attachment B: Resolution Amending and Restating the Evergreen Mayfield RPP District to
Remove Parking Spots on El Camino Real and Reassign Employee Parking Permits within the
District
Attachment C: Resolution Amending and Restating the Southgate RPP District to Remove
Parking Spots on El Camino Real and Reassign Employee Parking Permits within the District
APPROVED BY:
Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official
Attachment 1: IDAX Parking Occupancy EPM-SG October 2023
IDAX #Street Between Side Area 2019 Supply ###################Notes
1 Mariposa Ave Churchill and Miramonte NE Southgate 30 1 3%0 0%6 20%
2 Mariposa Ave Miramonte and Castilleja NE Southgate 28 8 29%9 32%8 29%
3 Castileja Ave Sequoia and Castilleja SE Southgate 5 1 20%0 0%0 0%
4 Sequioa Ave Castilleja and Escobita SE Southgate 10 3 30%3 30%4 40%
5 Sequioa Ave Escobita and Madrono SE Southgate 9 2 22%6 67%1 11%
6 Sequioa Ave Madrono and Portola SE Southgate 12 1 8%0 0%2 17%
7 Portola Ave Miramonte and Sequoia SW Southgate 17 3 18%5 29%4 24%
8 Miramonte Ave El Camino Real and Portola SE Southgate 9 2 22%2 22%2 22%
9 El Camino RealMiramonte and El Camino Real NE Southgate 15 0 0%0 0%0 0%
10 Miramonte Ave El Camino Real and Portola NW Southgate 8 3 38%2 25%2 25%
11 El Camino RealChurchill and Miramonte NW Southgate 20 4 20%0 0%1 5%
12 Churchill Ave El Camino Real and MadronoSE Southgate 18 12 67%13 72%4 22%
13 Churchill Ave Madrono and Castilleja SE Southgate 9 4 44%4 44%4 44%
14 Churchill Ave Castilleja and Mariposa SE Southgate 4 0 0%0 0%1 25%
15 Park Blvd El Camino Real and Park NW EPM 19 9 47%11 58%8 42%
16 Park Blvd Birch and Castilleja NW EPM 15 4 27%4 27%4 27%
17 Park Blvd Castilleja and Park NE EPM 4 1 25%1 25%0 0%
18 Park Blvd Leland and Stanford NE EPM 16 11 69%2 13%2 13%
19 Park Blvd Stanford and Oxford NE EPM 11 4 36%6 55%5 45%
20 Park Blvd Oxford and College NE EPM 14 4 29%3 21%2 14%
21 Park Blvd College and Cambridge NE EPM 12 3 25%4 33%7 58%
22 Park Blvd Cambridge and California NE EPM 12 4 33%5 42%5 42%
23 California Ave Park and Loop NW EPM 7 5 71%1 14%6 86%
24 California Ave Park and Loop SE EPM 15 6 40%9 60%9 60%
25 Park Blvd California and Sherman NE EPM 11 8 73%8 73%8 73%
26 Park Blvd Sherman and Grant NE EPM 9 5 56%3 33%5 56%
27 Park Blvd Grant and Sheridan NE EPM 10 3 30%3 30%4 40%
28 Sheridan Ave Birch and Park SE EPM 11 6 55%5 45%1 9%
29 Sheridan Ave Ash and Birch SE EPM 9 5 56%7 78%9 100%
30 Ash St Sheridan and Oregon Expressway NE EPM 0 0 #####0 #####0 #DIV/0!
31 Ash St Sheridan and Oregon Expressway SW EPM 8 5 63%6 75%7 88%
32 Sheridan Ave El Camino Real and Ash SE EPM 18 6 33%8 44%7 39%
33 El Camino Real Sheridan and Oregon Expressway NE EPM 4 0 0%0 0%0 0%
34 El Camino Real Grant and Sheridan NE EPM 14 3 21%1 7%0 0%
35 El Camino Real Sherman and Grant NE EPM 12 4 33%5 42%3 25%
36 El Camino Real California and Sherman NE EPM 10 2 20%4 40%8 80%
37 El Camino Real Cambridge and California NE EPM 6 1 17%0 0%4 67%
38 El Camino Real College and Cambridge NE EPM 12 3 25%2 17%0 0%
39 El Camino Real Oxford and College NE Southgate 13 3 23%4 31%0 0%
A B C D E F G H I J K L M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Attachment 1: IDAX Parking Occupancy EPM-SG October 2023
40 Castilleja Ave Churchill and Manzaanita SW EPM 3 1 33%1 33%0 0%
41 El Camino Real Stanford and Oxford NE EPM 12 9 75%7 58%8 67%
42 El Camino Real Leland and Stanford NE EPM 8 4 50%1 13%4 50%
43 El Camino Real Park and Leland NE EPM 12 13 108%7 58%12 100%
44 Castilleja Ave Churchill and Manzaanita NE Southgate 4 0 0%0 0%1 25%
45 Castilleja Ave Manzanita and Miramonte SW Southgate 17 0 0%2 12%2 12%
46 Castilleja Ave Manzanita and Miramonte NE Southgate 16 0 0%0 0%0 0%
47 Castilleja Ave Miramonte and Sequoia NE Southgate 22 2 9%4 18%2 9%
48 Mariposa Ave Miramonte and Sequoia SW Southgate 35 4 11%3 9%3 9%
49 El Camino RealPark to Park NE EPM 10 7 70%8 80%1 10%
50 Mariposa Ave Churchill and Miramonte SW Southgate 28 2 7%3 11%3 11%
51 Castilleja Ave Miramonte and Sequoia SW Southgate 18 4 22%3 17%5 28%
52 Sequoia Ave Escobita and Castilleja NW Southgate 9 1 11%3 33%1 11%
53 Escobita Ave Miramonte and Sequoia NE Southgate 21 5 24%3 14%3 14%
54 Escobita Ave Miramonte and Sequoia SW Southgate 17 3 18%4 24%6 35%
55 Escobita Ave Manzanita and Miramonte NE Southgate 20 4 20%1 5%3 15%
56 Escobita Ave Manzanita and Miramonte SW Southgate 17 3 18%3 18%4 24%
57 Madrono Ave Churchill and Manzaanita NE Southgate 7 0 0%0 0%0 0%
58 Madrono Ave Churchill and Manzaanita SW Southgate 9 1 11%1 11%2 22%
59 Madrono Ave Manzanita and Miramonte NE Southgate 14 3 21%2 14%3 21%
60 Madrono Ave Manzanita and Miramonte SW Southgate 13 2 15%2 15%6 46%
61 Madrono Ave Miramonte and Sequoia NE Southgate 16 2 13%3 19%2 13%
62 Madrono Ave Miramonte and Sequoia SW Southgate 17 4 24%3 18%5 29%
63 Sequoia Ave Madrono and Escobita NW Southgate 7 1 14%1 14%1 14%
64 Sequoia Ave Portola and Madrono NW Southgate 7 1 14%1 14%1 14%
65 Portolo Ave Miramonte and Sequoia NE Southgate 14 2 14%4 29%3 21%
66 Miramonte Ave Portola and Madrono SE Southgate 9 1 11%0 0%0 0%
67 Miramonte Ave Portola and Madrono NW Southgate 10 0 0%1 10%2 20%
68 Miramonte Ave Madrono and Escobita SE Southgate 9 1 11%2 22%0 0%
69 Miramonte Ave Madrono and Escobita NW Southgate 9 0 0%1 11%1 11%
70 Miramonte Ave Escobita and Castilleja SE Southgate 10 1 10%1 10%0 0%
71 Miramonte Ave Escobita and Castilleja NW Southgate 6 2 33%2 33%1 17%
72 Miramonte Ave Castilleja and Mariposa SE Southgate 10 1 10%1 10%2 20%
73 Miramonte Ave Castilleja and Mariposa NW Southgate 9 3 33%3 33%3 33%
74 Manzanita Ave Escobita and Castilleja SE Southgate 3 0 0%0 0%0 0%
75 Manzanita Ave Escobita and Castilleja NW Southgate 3 0 0%0 0%0 0%
76 Manzanita Ave Madrono and Escobita NW Southgate 10 2 20%1 10%2 20%
77 Manzanita Ave Madrono and Escobita SE Southgate 10 2 20%1 10%3 30%
78 Manzanita Ave Portola and Madrono NW Southgate 9 4 44%5 56%4 44%
79 Manzanita Ave Portola and Madrono SE Southgate 8 2 25%2 25%2 25%
80 Portola Ave Manzanita and Miramonte NE Southgate 13 3 23%3 23%2 15%
81 Portola Ave Manzanita and Miramonte SW Southgate 11 1 9%1 9%2 18%
82 Park Blvd El Camino Real and Park SE EPM 13 5 38%5 38%3 23%
83 Park Ave El Camino Real and Park NW EPM 18 11 61%11 61%4 22%
84 Park Ave El Camino Real and Ash SE EPM 3 3 100%3 100%1 33%
85 Park Ave Ash and Birch SE EPM 11 6 55%5 45%5 45%
A B C D E F G H I J K L M
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Attachment 1: IDAX Parking Occupancy EPM-SG October 2023
86 Ash St Park and Leland SW EPM 13 2 15%5 38%5 38%
87 Ash St Park and Leland NE EPM 12 7 58%5 42%5 42%
88 Ash St Leland and Stanford SW EPM 11 4 36%4 36%7 64%
89 Ash St Leland and Stanford NE EPM 12 3 25%3 25%4 33%
90 Ash St Stanford and Oxford NE EPM 10 1 10%1 10%1 10%
91 Ash St Stanford and Oxford SW EPM 11 0 0%0 0%0 0%
92 Ash St Oxford and College NE EPM 12 9 75%10 83%11 92%
93 Ash St Oxford and College SW EPM 11 3 27%3 27%5 45%
94 Ash St California and Sherman NE EPM 5 5 100%3 60%5 100%
95 Ash St California and Sherman SW EPM 11 8 73%9 82%11 100%
96 Ash St Sherman and Grant NE EPM 0 0 #####0 #####0 #DIV/0!
97 Ash St Sherman and Grant SW EPM 9 6 67%5 56%7 78%
98 Ash St Grant and Sheridan NE EPM 0 0 #####0 #####0 #DIV/0!
99 Ash St Grant and Sheridan SW EPM 9 4 44%3 33%5 56%
100 Birch St Park and Leland SW EPM 10 1 10%1 10%1 10%
101 Birch St Park and Leland NE EPM 10 2 20%1 10%1 10%
102 Birch St Leland and Stanford SW EPM 12 8 67%8 67%7 58%
103 Birch St Leland and Stanford NE EPM 11 3 27%3 27%3 27%
104 Birch St Stanford and Oxford SW EPM 12 1 8%0 0%0 0%
105 Birch St Stanford and Oxford NE EPM 12 2 17%1 8%0 0%
106 Birch St Oxford and College NE EPM 9 2 22%2 22%3 33%
107 Birch St Oxford and College SW EPM 9 2 22%3 33%3 33%
108 Birch St College and Cambridge NE EPM 9 6 67%4 44%7 78%
109 Birch St College and Cambridge SW EPM 9 4 44%3 33%6 67%
110 Birch St Cambridge and California NE EPM 8 5 63%3 38%9 113%
111 Birch St Cambridge and California SW EPM 7 4 57%3 43%3 43%
112 Birch St California and Sherman NE EPM 0 0 #####0 #####0 #DIV/0!
113 Birch St California and Sherman SW EPM 8 8 100%4 50%8 100%
114 Birch St Sherman and Grant NE EPM 6 1 17%1 17%3 50%
115 Birch St Sherman and Grant SW EPM 9 3 33%0 0%4 44%
116 Birch St Grant and Sheridan NE EPM 9 3 33%0 0%1 11%
117 Birch St Grant and Sheridan SW EPM 12 3 25%3 25%2 17%
118 Sheridan Ave El Camino Real and Ash NW EPM 13 5 38%9 69%8 62%
119 Sheridan Ave Ash and Birch NW EPM 9 5 56%5 56%3 33%
120 Sheridan Ave Birch and Park NW EPM 10 4 40%5 50%4 40%
121 Park Blvd Grant and Sheridan SW EPM 0 0 #####0 #####0 #DIV/0!
122 Park Blvd Sherman and Grant SW EPM 7 3 43%2 29%0 0%
123 Park Blvd California and Sherman SW EPM 5 3 60%2 40%4 80%
124 Park Blvd Cambridge and California SW EPM 7 0 0%1 14%1 14%
125 Park Blvd College and Cambridge SW EPM 9 2 22%5 56%0 0%
126 Park Blvd Oxford and College SW EPM 12 1 8%1 8%2 17%
127 Park Blvd Stanford and Oxford SW EPM 11 2 18%2 18%2 18%
128 Park Blvd Leland and Stanford SW EPM 13 3 23%2 15%0 0%
129 Park Blvd Birch and Leland SW EPM 22 3 14%2 9%2 9%
130 Leland Ave Birch and Park NW EPM 8 1 13%1 13%0 0%
131 Leland Ave Birch and Park SE EPM 9 4 44%4 44%3 33%
A B C D E F G H I J K L M
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
Attachment 1: IDAX Parking Occupancy EPM-SG October 2023
132 Leland Ave Ash and Birch SE EPM 19 9 47%6 32%7 37%
133 Leland Ave Ash and Birch NW EPM 21 5 24%6 29%6 29%
134 Leland Ave El Camino Real and Ash SE EPM 8 4 50%2 25%5 63%
135 Leland Ave El Camino Real and Ash NW EPM 8 6 75%5 63%5 63%
136 Stanford Ave El Camino Real and Ash NW EPM 12 4 33%5 42%5 42%
137 Stanford Ave El Camino Real and Ash SE EPM 11 8 73%6 55%6 55%
138 Stanford Ave Ash and Birch SE EPM 16 7 44%8 50%5 31%
139 Stanford Ave Ash and Birch NW EPM 16 9 56%8 50%8 50%
140 Stanford Ave Birch and Park SE EPM 17 5 29%7 41%7 41%
141 Stanford Ave Birch and Park NW EPM 18 2 11%3 17%2 11%
142 Oxford Ave Birch and Park NW EPM 15 3 20%5 33%6 40%
143 Oxford Ave Birch and Park SE EPM 16 8 50%5 31%6 38%
144 Oxford Ave Ash and Birch SE EPM 23 5 22%1 4%3 13%
145 Oxford Ave Ash and Birch NW EPM 20 4 20%3 15%3 15%
146 Oxford Ave El Camino Real and Ash SE EPM 14 4 29%2 14%6 43%
147 Oxford Ave El Camino Real and Ash NW EPM 14 5 36%4 29%5 36%
148 College Ave El Camino Real and Ash NW EPM 18 6 33%5 28%4 22%
149 College Ave El Camino Real and Ash SE EPM 16 3 19%5 31%7 44%
150 College Ave Ash and Birch SE EPM 9 4 44%6 67%4 44%
151 College Ave Ash and Birch NW EPM 19 5 26%6 32%6 32%
152 College Ave Birch and Birch SE EPM 10 3 30%1 10%4 40%
153 College Ave Birch and Park SE EPM 17 6 35%7 41%6 35%
154 College Ave Birch and Park NW EPM 17 6 35%8 47%11 65%
155 Cambridge AveBirch and Park SE EPM 20 10 50%8 40%10 50%
156 Cambridge AveBirch and Park NW EPM 17 4 24%6 35%4 24%
157 Cambridge AveMimosa and Birch SE EPM 16 12 75%5 31%12 75%
158 Cambridge AveMimosa and Birch NW EPM 17 10 59%6 35%8 47%
159 Cambridge AveEl Camino Real and MimosaNW EPM 11 7 64%6 55%8 73%
160 Cambridge AveEl Camino Real and Mimosa SE EPM 13 13 100%11 85%12 92%
161 California Ave El Camino Real and Ash NW EPM 12 0 0%0 0%0 0%Road Closed
162 California Ave El Camino Real and Ash SE EPM 15 0 0%0 0%0 0%Road Closed
163 California Ave Ash and Birch SE EPM 13 0 0%0 0%0 0%Road Closed
164 California Ave Ash and Birch NW EPM 13 0 0%0 0%0 0%Road Closed
165 California Ave Birch and Park SE EPM 19 16 84%19 100%19 100%
166 California Ave Birch and Park NW EPM 16 14 88%9 56%15 94%
167 California Ave Park and Park NW EPM 4 0 0%1 25%3 75%
168 Sherman Ave Park and Dead End NW EPM 0 0 #####0 #####0 #DIV/0!
169 Sherman Ave Park and Dead End SE EPM 0 0 #####0 #####0 #DIV/0!
170 Sherman Ave Birch and Park SE EPM 0 0 #####0 #####0 #DIV/0!
171 Sherman Ave Birch and Park NW EPM 0 0 #####0 #####0 #DIV/0!
172 Sherman Ave Ash and Birch SE EPM 10 4 40%4 40%8 80%
173 Sherman Ave Ash and Birch NW EPM 9 7 78%4 44%9 100%
174 Sherman Ave El Camino Real and Ash SE EPM 22 14 64%6 27%12 55%
175 Sherman Ave El Camino Real and Ash NW EPM 14 8 57%9 64%7 50%
176 Grant Ave El Camino Real and Ash SE EPM 25 4 16%5 20%10 40%
177 Grant Ave El Camino Real and Ash NW EPM 16 7 44%6 38%8 50%
A B C D E F G H I J K L M
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
Attachment 1: IDAX Parking Occupancy EPM-SG October 2023
178 Grant Ave Ash and Birch SE EPM 12 7 58%4 33%6 50%
179 Grant Ave Ash and Birch NW EPM 15 2 13%0 0%2 13%
180 Grant Ave Birch and Park SE EPM 0 0 #####0 #####0 #DIV/0!
181 Grant Ave Birch and Park NW EPM 35 13 37%15 43%3 9%
182 Castilleja Ave Mariposa and Park NEEPM/Southgate 0 0 #####0 #####0 #DIV/0!
183 Castilleja Ave Mariposa and Park SWEPM/Southgate 9 3 33%1 11%1 11%
184 Grant Ave Park and Corner NW EPM 4 2 50%3 75%2 50%
185 Grant Ave Park and Corner SE EPM 7 1 14%5 71%5 71%
A B C D E F G H I J K L M
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
Attachment 1: IDAX Parking Occupancy EPM-SG October 2023
A B C D E F G H I J K L M
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
*NOT YET APPROVED*
Resolution No. ____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Restating
Resolution 9997, Continuing the Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential
Preferential Parking District (RPP) Program to Remove El Camino Real from the
District
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.On December 15, 2014, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding Chapter
10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which established the
city-wide procedures for (RPP) Districts in the city.
C.On May 9, 2016, the City Council directed City staff to implement a Residential
Preferential Parking program in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield area.
D.In July 2016, a stakeholders’ group comprised of Evergreen Park residents and
business interests met two times and made its recommendations to the City on the particular
rules to be applied to the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP District.
E.On December 14, 2016, the Planning and Transportation Commission held a public
hearing to consider the proposed Evergreen Park-Mayfield residential preferential parking
program.
F.On January 23, 2017, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9663, which established
the Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program pilot and rescinded
existing parking restrictions that conflicted with the restrictions established by this RPP district.
G.In October and November 2017, the City conducted a parking occupancy study in
the Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program District and met with
residents and stakeholders to receive program feedback. The study found occupancies below
60% in Employee Parking Zones A and B, with areas of higher occupancy closer to businesses. In
addition, some businesses were unable to receive Employee Parking Permits under the current
limits.
H.It is the goal of the City to reduce the impacts of non-resident overflow parking
from the commercial areas on the surrounding neighborhoods.
I.On February 5, 2018, the Council adopted Resolution 9739, which continued the
Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program as an ongoing program with
modifications to address issues identified in the pilot.
1
115_20240731_ts24
*NOT YET APPROVED*
J.On November 1, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 9997 to eliminate
employee parking permits in certain zones, allow the use of virtual permits, and update outdated
procedures.
K.The City Council now desires to amend and restate Resolution 9997 to remove El
Camino Real from this district due to Caltrans’ elimination of parking spaces on El Camino Real.
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 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code for designating a Residential Preferential Permit Zone have been met as follows:
A. That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or
alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents in that based on observation there are
few available parking spaces available midday, while the streets are relatively unoccupied
at midnight thus demonstrating the parking intrusion is largely by nonresidents.
B. That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent
intervals, either daily or weekly, in that the parking intrusion is most severe during
daytime hours during the regular workweek.
C. That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the District create traffic congestion,
noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their
visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life in that based on information from residents and
other city departments the vehicle congestion is interfering with regular activities.
D. Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical in that the City has
implemented a series of alternative parking strategies in the past and concurrently and
there is still a shortage of parking available.
SECTION 2. Definitions.
A. “Dwelling Unit” shall have the same meaning as it is defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 10.50.020.
B. “Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program District” or “District”
shall be that area as shown in Exhibit A to this Resolution.
C. “Parking Zones” shall be those areas within the District as shown in Exhibit A to this
Resolution.
SECTION 3. Parking Restrictions within the District.
2
115_20240731_ts24
*NOT YET APPROVED*
A. Two-hour Parking Limit and No Re-parking. In the areas within the District listed in Table
1, no person shall park a vehicle adjacent to any curb for more than two hours. Re-
parking a vehicle more than two hours after initially parking on the same day in the same
Parking Zone is prohibited. These restrictions shall be in effect Monday through Friday
from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, except holidays as defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
2.08.100. Vehicles properly displaying a valid Parking Permit as described in Section 4
of this Resolution are exempt from these restrictions.
TABLE 1
STREET BLOCKS
Park Blvd.1700, 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2200-
2211, 2555-2599, 2600
100Park Ave.
Leland Ave.
Stanford Ave.
Oxford Ave.
College Ave.
Birch Ave.
200, 300, 400
200, 300, 400
200, 300, 400
200, 300, 400
1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2200-2288,
2518-2575, 2600
Ash St.1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2502-2599,
2600, 2700
Grant St.
Sheridan Ave.
100, 200, 300, 400
200, 300, 400
B. Exempt vehicles. Vehicles exempt from parking restrictions as described in Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 10.50.070(d) are exempt from the restrictions in this section.
SECTION 4. Parking Permits.
A. Employee Parking Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits for use by
employees working in the District. Employee Parking Permits shall be subject to the
following regulations:
a. Duration. Employee Parking Permits shall be available in the form of monthly
and/or six-month permits (as determined by the Chief Transportation Official).
b. Form of Permit. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits in any form it deems
practicable.
c. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are valid only when used by
employees who are working within the District on the day the permit is used.
d. Zones. Employee Parking Permits shall be specific to a Parking Zone(s) as specified
in Exhibit A and shall entitle the permit holder to park only in the Parking Zone(s)
designated on the Employee Parking Permit.
3
115_20240731_ts24
*NOT YET APPROVED*
e. Maximum Number of Permits Issued. A maximum of 40 Employee Parking Permits
shall be granted at any given time to employees who work within the Evergreen
Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking District. An additional 10 Employee
Parking Permits shall be held in reserve, and may be released for sale, in whole or
in part, upon approval of the Chief Transportation Official, in accordance with this
subsection e.
f. Daily Employee Parking Permits. Daily Employee Parking Permits shall not be
issued beginning January 1, 2022.
B. Resident Parking Permits. The City may issue Resident Parking Permits to residents of
dwelling units within the District. Resident Parking Permits shall be subject to the
following regulations:
a. Duration. Resident Parking Permits shall be available in the form of annual
permits and one-day permits.
b. Form of Permit. The City may issue Resident Parking Permits in any form it deems
practicable, including stickers, hangtags, and/or virtual permits.
c. Zones. Resident Parking Permits shall not be restricted to a specific Parking Zone.
Resident Parking Permits shall be valid only in the areas listed in Table 1.
d. Maximum Number of Permits per Dwelling Unit. Each dwelling unit within the
District shall be limited to five Annual Resident Parking Permits at any given time.
These permits may be used by residents or guests within the District.
e. Daily Resident Parking Permits. Each dwelling unit shall be limited to 50 Daily
Resident Parking Permits annually. These permits may be in the form of scratcher
hangtags, an online issuance system, or such other form as the City determines.
Physical permits will state the date through which it is valid.
SECTION 5. Parking Permit Fees. The fee for Parking Permits in the District shall be set by the
City’s Municipal Fee Schedule.
SECTION 6. Existing Parking Restrictions.
A. Section 2 of Resolution 4051 is repealed and replaced with the restrictions in this
Resolution.
B. 2 Hour Parking. The 2 Hour Commercial Area parking restrictions as identified in Exhibit
A shall remain in effect.
C. Conflicting Restrictions. In the event City staff should, at a later time, discover conflicting
parking restrictions within the District that conflict with the restrictions of this
4
115_20240731_ts24
*NOT YET APPROVED*
resolution, but are not expressly rescinded, the RPP restrictions of this resolution shall
control. However, existing parking restrictions indicated by painted curbs and
implemented pursuant to Vehicle Code section 21458 are not superseded by this
Resolution and remain in effect.
SECTION 7. Supersede. To the extent any of the provisions of this Resolution are inconsistent
with the regulations set forth in Resolution 9997, this Resolution shall control.
SECTION 8. CEQA. This Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption
and implementation of this resolution may have a significant effect on the environment and
Section 15301 in that this proposed resolution will have a minor impact on existing facilities.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon the elimination of the
parking spaces along El Camino Real that are within the former Zone G (as defined by Resolution
9997). Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 of Title 10 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk
__________________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED:
_______________________
Assistant City Attorney
___________________________
City Manager
___________________________
Chief Transportation Official
5
115_20240731_ts24
Exhibit A ALMA STREET
NOGAL LANE
Legend
Zone A STAUNTON COURT
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Zone F
2 Hour Commercial Area
abc RPP Zone Labels
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
116_20240731_ts24
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Restating
Resolution 9998 To Continue the Southgate Residential Preferential Parking
District (RPP) Program to Remove El Camino Real from the District
R E C I T A L S
A. On December 15, 2014, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding Chapter
10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which established the
city-wide procedures for Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts in the city.
B. On May 9, 2016, the City Council directed City staff to implement a Residential
Preferential Parking program in the Southgate area.
C. In July 2016, a stakeholders’ group comprised of Southgate residents and business
interests met and made its recommendations to the City on the particular rules to be applied to
the Southgate RPP District.
D. On April 26, 2017, the Planning and Transportation Commission held a public
hearing to consider the proposed Southgate Residential Preferential Parking program.
E. On June 19, 2017, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9688, which established the
Southgate Residential Preferential Parking program pilot and rescinded existing parking
restrictions that conflicted with the restrictions established by this RPP district. The pilot program
was twice amended in 2018 by Resolution Nos. 9742 and 9756.
F. On October 7, 2019, the Council adopted Resolution 9859 to continue the
Southgate Residential Preferential Parking program as a permanent program with modifications
as detailed in that Resolution, including increasing the number of employee parking permits in
Zone S1 to twenty and limiting the number of daily parking permits available to employees to
twenty-four per six-month period.
G. On November 1, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution 9998 to make minor
modifications to this RPP program: to allow monthly employee parking permits and to clarify that
the permit fees are set by the Municipal Fee Schedule.
H. The City Council now desires to amend and restate Resolution 9998 to remove El
Camino from this District due to Caltrans’ elimination of parking on El Camino Real.
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 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code for annexing the areas described in this Resolution as part of the Southgate Residential
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
116_20240731_ts24
Preferential Parking Program District have been met as follows:
A. That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of
on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents, in that, based on
observation, there are few available parking spaces available midday, while the
streets are relatively unoccupied at midnight, thus demonstrating the parking
intrusion is largely by non-residents.
B. That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent
intervals, either daily or weekly, in that the parking intrusion is contained to the
daytime hours during the regular workweek.
C. 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, in that
based on information from residents and other city departments the vehicle
congestion is interfering with regular activities.
D. Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical in that the City
has implemented a series of alternative parking strategies in the past and
concurrently and there is still a shortage of parking available.
SECTION 2. Definitions.
A. “Dwelling Unit” shall have the same meaning as it is defined in Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 10.50.020.
B. “Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program District” or “District” shall be
that area as shown in Table 1 to this Resolution.
C. “Employee Parking Zones” shall be those areas specified in Exhibit A to this
Resolution.
Table 1
Area of the Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program District
STREET BLOCKS ENFORCED
Castilleja Avenue 1500 and 1600
Churchill Avenue 12 to 100
Escobita Avenue 1500 and 1600
Madrono Avenue 1500 and 1600
Manzanita Avenue 200 and 300
*NOT YET APPROVED*
3
116_20240731_ts24
Mariposa Avenue 1500 and 1600
Miramonte Avenue 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500
Portola Avenue 1500 and 1600
Sequoia Avenue 200, 300, and 400
SECTION 3. Parking Restrictions within the District.
A. Two-hour Parking Limit and No Re-parking. Within the District, no person shall
park a vehicle adjacent to any curb for more than two hours. Re-parking a vehicle more than two
hours after initially parking on the same day in the District is prohibited. These restrictions shall
be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, except holidays as defined in Palo
Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.100. Vehicles properly displaying a valid Parking Permit as
described in Section 4 of this Resolution are exempt from these restrictions.
B. Exempt vehicles. Vehicles exempt from parking restrictions as described in Palo
Alto Municipal Code Section 10.50.070(d) are exempt from the restrictions in this section.
Electric vehicles parked at and using an electric charging station within the District are also
exempt from the restrictions in this section. Official vehicles belonging to the State of California
are exempted when parked on that section of El Camino Real that is within the District.
SECTION 4. Residential and Employee Parking Permits.
A. Duration. Resident Parking Permits shall be available on an annual basis.
One-day Resident Parking Permits shall also be available. Employee Parking
Permits shall be available on a one-month and/or six-month basis.
B. Purchase of Permits. Requirements and eligibility for purchase of both Resident
Parking Permits and Employee Parking Permits shall be subject to the provisions
of this Section 4 and also to any administrative guidelines, as approved by the
Chief Transportation Official.
C. Parking Permit Sales.
1. Resident Parking Permits. Resident Parking Permits shall be subject to the
following regulations:
a. Annual Resident Parking Permit. Each dwelling unit within the
District may obtain up to six (6) annual Resident Parking Permits.
b. Daily Resident Parking Permits. Each dwelling unit within the
District may purchase up to 50 Daily Resident Parking Permits annually,
which may be used on any vehicle including household visitor vehicles.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
4
116_20240731_ts24
2. Employee Parking Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits
for use by employees working in the District. Employee Parking Permits shall be
subject to the following regulations:
a. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are for the exclusive
use by employees working for businesses within the District while
commuting to work.
b. Duration. Employee Parking Permits shall be available in one-
month and/or six-month permits (as determined by the Chief
Transportation Official).
c. Employee Parking Permit Cap. No more than thirty (30) Employee
Parking Permits shall be granted at any given time, and shall be allocated
between the Employee Parking Zones as specified in Exhibit A.
d. Employee Parking Permit Priority for Low-income Employees.
Preference will be given in the sale of Employee Parking Permits to
employees who qualify for reduced price permits based on hourly or
annual income.
e. Employee Parking Zones. Employee Parking Permits shall be
specific to one of the Employee Parking Zones shown in Exhibit A and shall
entitle the permit holder to park only in the Employee Parking Zone
designated on the Employee Parking Permit.
f. Daily Employee Parking Permits. Daily Employee Parking Permits
shall not be sold beginning January 1, 2022.
SECTION 5. Fees. The fee for Parking Permits in the District shall be set by the City’s Municipal
Fee Schedule.
SECTION 6. CEQA. This resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption
and implementation of this resolution may have a significant effect on the environment and
Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities.
SECTION 7. Supersede. This Resolution supersedes Resolution 9998.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
5
116_20240731_ts24
SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon the elimination of the
parking spaces along El Camino Real that were previously in this District (as indicated by
Resolution 9998). Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 of Title 10 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
_________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Chief Transportation Official
*NOT YET APPROVED*
6
116_20240731_ts24
Exhibit A
EMPLOYEE ZONES AND PERMIT ALLOCATION
Zone
Name
Maximum
Number of
Employee
Permits
STREET BLOCKS ENFORCED
S
30 permits
Castilleja Avenue 1500 and 1600
Churchill Avenue 12 to 100
Escobita Avenue 1500 and 1600
Madrono Avenue 1500 and 1600
Manzanita Avenue 200 and 300
Mariposa Avenue 1500 and 1600
Miramonte Avenue 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500
Portola Avenue 1500 and 1600
Sequoia Avenue 200, 300, and 400
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see staff responses below for questions from
Council Member Tanaka on the Monday, August 12 Council Meeting.
Item 4: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept on Behalf of the City
of Palo Alto a Grant of Funds from the County of Santa Clara for the 2023 Emergency
Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Program and Approve FY 2025 Budget Amendments
in the General Fund; CEQA Status: Not a Project
1. In light of the staff report's lack of clear performance indicators, what specific metrics or
benchmarks will the city use to evaluate the success and effectiveness of the new
technology equipment in the EOC? How will these metrics ensure that the $20,000
investment translates into measurable improvements in emergency management
capabilities?
Staff response: The addition of docking stations and monitors to enable a staff member to
improve the basic performance of a laptop computer is difficult to objectively evaluate with
metrics. Most individuals have experienced the limitations of a single laptop when
performing complex tasks sometimes using multiple software systems. In our current EOC
we do not have these additional workstations and have seen how this can hamper the work
efforts of staff members. In some cases, staff have brought additional monitors to the EOC
to enhance their work efforts.
2. Given the staff report outlines immediate technology upgrades but does not address
long-term sustainability, provide a detailed strategy for the ongoing maintenance and
eventual replacement of the new EOC equipment. Include specific funding sources and
budget allocations to ensure these future costs do not detract from other essential city
services.
Staff response: As this equipment is not expected to be used daily, staff will keep
electronics off unless testing or used during training/actual activations to extend the life of
the equipment. Replacement of this equipment will occur over an estimated 5-6 year cycle
and likely will involve a few systems at a time. Staff will attempt grant funding sources for
replacements first, and if not available, will use allocated general funds that do not detract
from other essential services. We also anticipate that costs for these systems will be less in
the 5-6 year replacement window as technology matures.
Item 6: Adoption of Resolutions Amending the Evergreen Park-Mayfield and Southgate
Residential Preferential Parking Program Districts to Remove Parking Spots on El Camino Real
Due to Caltrans’ Repaving and Bikeway Project and Moving Employee Permits to Other
Locations in Each District; CEQA status - categorically exempt.
1. Considering the staff report acknowledges business concerns but provides limited
economic solutions, what specific compensatory measures are planned to support
businesses facing significant parking losses on El Camino Real? Additionally, how will the
city address potential revenue impacts on these businesses, incorporating direct
feedback from local business owners and proven mitigation strategies from other cities
with similar experiences?
Staff response: Staff is taking measures to mitigate the loss of parking for local businesses.
This includes providing information about 1) Requesting short-term parking designations
on cross streets. 2) The TMA is prepared to provide transit passes, bicycle incentives, and
alternatives to single occupancy vehicle parking. 3) Council action is recommended to allow
employee permit holders to park in neighborhood zones. 4) Additional re-distribution of
employee permit holders will be evaluated for 2025. 5) Additional bike parking can be
requested via 311.
2. The staff report does not thoroughly address potential legal or regulatory risks. What
specific legal and regulatory challenges are anticipated with reallocating public space and
modifying traffic patterns? Explain the city's strategy for mitigating these risks, including
a comprehensive risk assessment of potential lawsuits or regulatory issues and ensuring
adherence to all relevant local, state, and federal regulations.
Staff response: Caltrans controls El Camino Real and is responsible for the design of the
roadway. This includes the final decision to remove parking and create bike lanes. The City
does not have the ability to regulate parking on El Camino Real without Caltrans' approval.
3. The staff report emphasizes short-term monitoring and adjustments but lacks a detailed
long-term sustainability plan. Outline the specific long-term strategies to ensure the
effectiveness of the new parking and transportation arrangements beyond the initial
monitoring period. Include measures to sustain alternative transportation incentives over
the next five to ten years and contingency plans if these solutions fail to meet the
evolving parking needs of both residents and employees.
Staff response: The RPP’s are established to direct staff to put in place measures to reduce
daytime occupancy of program streets to ~65% or lower. Where blocks are impacted by
business intrusions putting occupancy above 65% or higher, staff will consider reallocating
employee permit availability to other nearby zones with more availability.
From:Keith Ferrell
To:Council, City
Cc:Baird, Nathan; Kamhi, Philip; City Mgr
Subject:El Camino Repaving/RPP
Date:Friday, August 9, 2024 10:13:43 AM
Attachments:Meetings409Action Minutes_2022120810301918 (1).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
All,
I'd like to first point out some discrepancies in the work done by Nathan Baird and city staffwith regards to the El Camino repaving project and the suggestion to move parking into the
Evergreen Park/Mayfield and Southgate neighborhoods.
1) In the June 17/18 meeting discussing the permits Baird states that there have only been 2permits in the SG1 zone on ECR.
https://www.youtube.com/live/eGFWM8qjqB8?si=MxLLsiE9GIYnQNBG&t=5376In the staff report, also attached, it states that there have been 5 permits sold.
2) The staff report suggests moving 20 permits into the narrow streets of Southgate. However,
the total allotment of permits for SG1 is 15.
3) The staff report states that the city is engaging with business to determine the impact. Whatabout the residents?
The first two items are basic careless errors that should never occur. If my numbers are
incorrect, please let me know the real numbers. However, if staff is providing misleading andincorrect information on simple facts, how can the rest of the report be taken seriously? It
shows a disregard for the residents and the businesses to provide shoddy work to council andexpect them to make an informed decision.
Going back to the permits for Southgate. There are 15 permits available in SG1 on ECR. In
addition to this there are 10 allotted for the neighborhood. Baird states that only 2 of the ECRpermits have been sold. Why then does staff suggest moving 20 permits (more than the
amount of permits allotted in the original RPP resolution) into the neighborhood? Theresidents worked hard to keep parking out of the narrow streets of Southgate. Adding more
cars makes it more difficult for delivery trucks, sanitation trucks, emergency vehicles, etc... toget through the streets.
I would also like to note that the original RPP for Southgate did not include the 15 permits on
ECR. The original resolution was approved for only 10 permits inside Southgate. My requestis that we return to the original resolution.
Given that only 2 permits were sold for ECR, is it not reasonable to expect the businesses to
absorb those two cars onto their lots? This is a Residential PREFERENTIAL Permit program,however, it appears that the city is bending over backward for the businesses at the expense of
the residents.
Staff is suggesting increasing the number of permits in the Southgate neighborhood by 200%,even though the demand is 10%. (10% using Baird's inflated 20 permits on ECR. Using the
actual number of 15%, the demand is 13.3%) Why is staff recommending increasing by200%?
This is not needed and only increases work on the part of the city staff. Given the mistakes
made in this report, it would seem that staff might already be overworked, so maybe councilcan decrease its workload by rejecting any movement of SG1 permits and return the RPP to its
original status with 10 permits in the SG zone.
Thank you.Keith Ferrell
Meetings409Packet_2022120807424802 (1).pdf
From:Lisa Tayeri
To:Transportation; Council, City
Subject:El Camino Real RPP
Date:Tuesday, August 6, 2024 7:44:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Nathan,
As both a home owner/resident and an employer with a business on El Camino Real, I
would hope that the city would allow as many employee permit spaces as are being
taken away from El Camino Real. This should include both sides of the street. I have
three employees who park on the west side of El Camino Real (where permits are not
necessary) and cross the street to come to work. They do not buy permits because they
only come to work in this office one or two days a week (they work in our San Jose office
the rest of the week). This model of working at different sites on different days of the
week is common in medicine.
The employee permit process has never had an allowance for employees who only need
to park in the area part time, though we have asked for one before. A hanging tag, rather
than a sticker, would allow part time employees to share a permit. We also have two
employees who carpool (and trade which car they use every week). They park on the
'free' side of ECR so that they did not have to pay for two permits.
I am sure that there are far more than 70 parking spaces that will be turned into bike
lanes. The neighborhoods are nowhere close to overparked on the northern end of El
Camino where we work. Please also remember that we are almost all medical services
on the northern end of El Camino. We are providing necessary medical care and most of
our patients are Palo Altans. We are some of the few private practices still operating in
Palo Alto that have not been gobbled up by Sutter/PAMF or Stanford. We are small,
locally-owned and family-owned businesses, the kind that Palo Alto should be
supporting.
Yes, we have a parking lot but at our busiest times there are not enough spaces for both
staff and patients. We reserve the spaces for our patients as some have procedures that
require over two hours in office (they would be ticketed if they parked in the RRP zones).
Please advise the council to allow more than 70 additional employee parking spots in
the ECR RRP zones. With out them, Palo Alto may lose even more independent
businesses and medical resources.
Thank you,
Lisa Tayeri
Palo Alto Eye Group
1805 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306
p: 650-324-9200
f: 650-326-5793
paloaltoeye.com
fiatlux.org
From:Keith Ferrell
To:Council, City
Cc:Kamhi, Philip; Baird, Nathan
Subject:Re: Evergreen Park and Southgate RPP
Date:Monday, August 5, 2024 3:41:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Following up on this. According to the March 5, 2018 city council meeting, the number ofpermits in the S1 zone is 15 and not the 20 mentioned in the staff report for the Aug 12, 2024
meeting.
Given that only 5 are purchased, even 15 would be far too many to move into theneighborhood. Our stance remains that zero move into the neighborhood for the same reasons
that were given back in 2018. I am happy to furnish you with several of the emails that weresent to council back in 2018.
Keith Ferrell
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 11:43 AM Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote:
We recently received a notice about possible changes to the Evergreen Park-Mayfield andSouthgate Residential Preferential Parking Programs. I strongly disagree with the staff's
recommendations. This should not be a surprise as even the staff report states that thefeedback from both businesses and residents "are not in alignment" with the
recommendations. We request that no employee permits be moved into the Southgateneighborhood as was the plan when it was initially approved. The employee permit are was
established on ECR specifically to limit the amount of cars parking and driving in theneighborhood. To now move those cars into the neighborhood cancels the previous work
that was done and the agreement the council made with its residents.
There are currently 20 employee permits allocated to zone S1 for Southgate. These spotsare located on the eastern side of El Camino Real south of Churchill. The report states that
of the 20 available, only five have been sold. This would imply that the demand foremployee permits is five. Yet, the staff recommends reallocating all 20 permits into the
neighborhood. When the Southgate RPP was approved, the employee permit zone (S1) wasestablished specifically to prevent that number of cars from parking in the neighborhood.
Now, staff is trying to go back on that plan and move that parking into the neighborhood.
I would like to remind you all that the streets of Southgate are extremely narrow. In additionto this, the two businesses that are eligible for these permits are located at the outer corners
of the neighborhood. The likely place for these people to park would then be concentrated ina very small area on the corners of the streets. Parking in these areas makes it even more
dangerous to drive, walk and bike in those areas.
The goal of the ECR project is to make it safer to bike and walk along ECR. By movingparking into Southgate, the result will be to make it less safe to bike and walk in our
neighborhood.
The businesses should be able to absorb the current demand of the five employees currentlyparking on ECR. There is not a need to move 20 cars into Southgate.
I have a few clarifying questions:
1) The report states that there was stakeholder engagement in May and July. Can you tellme who, in Southgate, that you contacted?
2) The report states that 130 parking spots are being removed. How was that numberestablished? The report only mentions losing 50 in EPM and 20 in SG
3) The column labels in Attachement A are not complete. Several of the labels are "X"d outso it is impossible to analyze the data given there is no way to determine what the data
represents.4) Between Galvez/Embarcadero and Park/Serra, is parking being eliminated on both sides
of the street? Is there a published plan that can be viewed?
ThanksKeith Ferrell
From:Wolfgang Dueregger
To:Transportation; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Baird, Nathan; Kamhi, Philip
Subject:council agenda: Item #6 August 12, 2024 Meeting - Evergreen Park RPP
Date:Monday, August 12, 2024 10:10:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi everyone,
as one of the neighbors of Evergreen Park, I ask you to NOT implement the increase of
business parking permits in Evergreen Park. We already have the highest load of businesspermits sold to businesses. See attached pictures on Ash Street, Leland Ave and Stanford Ave
taken last week. this is what it currently looks like.
Now, add another 50 permits....
Instead, direct businesses to buy permits at the Cambridge parking lots or the new big garageon Cal Ave. This is why this expensive new garage was built.
Adding again more business permits to the RPP makes the RPP less and less an RPP - it loses
its purpose and we are back in square one before the RPP was implemented.
Wolfgang Dueregger
From:Natalie Geise
To:Council, City
Subject:Aug 12 Item 6: Support for RPP changes
Date:Monday, August 12, 2024 7:48:36 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
City Council Members,
Thank you for working with Caltrans to advance the re-paving proposal for El Camino with
bike lanes.
I live a half block from El Camino in the Mayfield neighborhood. I was supportive of theproposal and recognize the need to accommodate employee parking in the near term. I amsupportive of expanding the RPP program, as we have sufficient public parking in theneighborhood.
Thanks,
NataliePalo Alto resident
From:Carol Scott
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Baird, Nathan; Kamhi, Philip; Neilson Buchanan; Mike Eager; Wolfgang Dueregger;Paul Machado
Subject:Item #6 for August 12, 2024 Meeting -- Evergreen Park RP)
Date:Sunday, August 11, 2024 1:22:19 PM
Attachments:MAP OF ZONES EDITED.pptx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council members, City Manager and City Staff,
I write regarding Item #6 on the agenda for the City Council meeting for August 12, 2024. This item asks theCouncil to approve an plan developed by the City Staff in consultation with the business community (but not withEvergreen Park residents) for 50 employee permits to be added to the Evergreen Park (EVP) RPP and for a plan toallocate those permits to various zones in the RPP.
I urge you NOT to approve this resolution, but instead to direct the staff to work with residents -- as well as businessowners -- to develop a plan that will minimize the damage done to our residential areas by the addition of asignificant number of employee permits -- in line with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Regardless of whatevernumber of permits the City decides is appropriate for our neighborhood (and we strongly dispute any 65% capacitytarget), the plan to allocating the permits is flawed and will exacerbate the effects of the inability to apportioncustomer parking which results in overloading certain streets in the RPP.
Instead, immediately allow ECR employees to purchase permits in the lots and garages on Cambridges Ave which
currently are under-utilized. Direct the Staff to work with residents AND businesses to develop a workable plan that
serves both the neighborhood as well as the businesses by January 1, 2025. Parking in the garages and lots (which,
unlike EVP, are commercial parking lots) for four months should not cause a hardship for businesses.
Remember that customers already may park anywhere in the RPP for two hours. We are talking here only about all
day employee permits.
Here are is my rationale:
1. When the City wanted to add 40 permits to the EVP RPP in 2018, it was the residents whocame up with the idea to ask the State to make ECR part of the RPP to accommodate the
businesses along ECR. Resident of EVP have a long history of supporting local businesses and working to
help solve their problems (caused in large part by building large office buildings with insufficient parking) while
minimizing the intrusion into the residential areas.
Yet, the City did not engage the residents prior to developing the current plan. We deserve to be included indiscussions about plans that will affect us, and we deserve to negotiate in good faith with the City -- at least on par
with businesses. The City should allow us to participate in any plan now so that we can helpdesign a solution that works for everyone. We have done it before and we can do it again. We
know our neighborhood and the traffic patterns in it better than anyone.
2. The current plan for permits is flawed and will not work as the City suggests. Thebusinesses along ECR do need to have parking for their employees. Customers can already
park anywhere in the neighborhood for two hours, and we expect to see more of this as allparking is eliminated on ECR. BUT, adding permits to the neighborhood should be the last
resort, not the first option. Other options are available and should be explored. Parkinggarages and lots on Cambridge Ave, just a couple of blocks away from most ECR businesses
have capacity and can absorb the employees permits while a better plan is developed. PLEASE
SEE THE ATTACHED MAP OF THE EVP RPP.
3. Even if one accepted the need for 50 permits, the current plan will not fairly distribute theemployee permits throughout the EVP area. The Staff report already notes that some streets
have over 65% parking load. Yet the City splan provides no protection for those blocks which are
precisely the ones likely to be most affected by additional customer parking. The current zones were
designed to distribute parking from south to north because it was designed with parking fromCal Ave in mind, and not ECR. It is not suited to distributing parking from west to east. Just
looking at the map, you can see this.
4. The proposed plan is based on data that is almost a year and a half old, i.e., a survey donein March 2023. The day or the week and the time of day measurements were taken is not
disclosed in the staff report.
5. There is considerable uncertainty as to what will happen to the volume of customer parkingin the neighborhood, and this should be observed prior to instituting employee parking permits
in a residential neighborhood. Presumably, businesses would prefer to preserve the mostconvenient parking for their customers.
5. In addition, there will be a question of where construction workers creating the new bike
lane will park. Presumably, this may also be in the neighborhood.
6. Recommendation: The Council should direct the Parking office to : immediately allowECR businesses to buy permits in the Cambridge Ave garages and flat street lots, and (2)engage with the residents as well as with the ECR businesses to develop a better plan thatwill promote business activity, but not at the expense of quality of life in theneighborhoods in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.*
Thank you.
Carol Scott
Evergreen Park
*Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (p. 4)"....... It [Comp Plan] encourages a thriving business communitythat provides services to local residents and revenue to the Citywhile also working to protect neighborhoods and theenvironment. It encourages commercial enterprise, but not atthe expense of the city's residential neighborhoods."
5. Carol ScottSent from my iPad
Carol Scott
Evergreen
Park/Mayfield
RPP Zones
ECR
Cambridge
Ave.
Parking
garages
and lots
From:Paul Machado
To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Stone, Greer; julielythcott-haines@cityofpaloalto.org; Kou, Lydia; Burt, Patrick; Tanaka,Greg; Veenker, Vicki
Subject:8/12 item 6
Date:Saturday, August 10, 2024 8:52:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
If you read the packet before from staff it should be clear how LONG and hard
Evergreen Park worked to get an RPP that has worked for both businesses and
residents for years.
Please note, before the RPP the 3 by 4 block area of Evergreen Park was often aparking lot. Residents struggled to put out their garbage cans due to lack of streetspace. Our streets, which unlike other parts of the city, are only swept once every 2
weeks most of the year, but if the street is mostly parked, the sweeper happily just
drives down the middle of the street picking up nothing. Further, often disabledresidents, visitors, care givers, gardeners etc. could not find parking during theweek. This was entirely opposed to the City's comp plan that promotes local
businesses but not at the expense of residents.
This small neighborhood actually contains 3 bike routes. The new one on ElCamino, plus Park Blvd. and also Stanford Avenue which is a direct route to
schools. It is noted some touted the added safety taking parking off El Camino will
do for bikes but they did not mention if adding this same parking on to other routes
would negatively affect them.
In the past, because of our RPP zone design, almost all the business permits were
parked next to El Camino and Cal Ave. Residents in those areas received no help
from the RPP. Hopefully this can be redesigned. so parking is spread out throughthe neighborhood giving every block relief.
If you check the city records you may be surprised to find the number of ADUs that
have been, or will be built soon in my neighborhood. Overparking thisneighborhood is not pro housing and in fact it may discourage it.
Lastly, if the state's ill conceived plan to encourage children and other bicyclists to
ride on El Camino amidst the huge VTA buses and construction vehicles turnsdeadly and further businesses are forced to close, would you work to restore the
Evergreen Park RPP to its originally approved design with the earlier distribution of
permits between residents and businesses. CalTrans is on record as being sensitive
to your input, as that is why they asked for your vote on this matter.
Thank you
Paul Machado
August 12, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org/transportation/parking
Recommendations Amending the Evergreen Park-Mayfield and Southgate RPP Districts for Caltrans Repaving
Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official
Nathan Baird, Transportation Planning Manager
August 12, 2024
CALTRANS SR-82 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION AND ADA IMPROVEMENTS
2
Parking Impacts:
•Full ECR corridor impacts
~500-600 parking spaces
•~130 parking spots
impacted on ECR in the
RPP districts for this item
ECR does not entirely front retail
and offices, however we will
continue to scale our efforts
throughout the project corridor
to minimize the impacts from
loss of parking on our
community, including businesses
and residents.
August 12, 2024
CALTRANS SR-82 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION AND ADA IMPROVEMENTS
3
Caltrans shared they will begin work on their El Camino
Real (ECR) Pavement project, impacting parking beginning
Tuesday, September 3 and begin staging and minor
repairs on El Camino Real at Sand Hill Road on Monday,
August 19 and will progress in one-mile segments.
Implementing a 5-point mitigation plan in addition to the
RPP permit program modifications.
Action tonight: supports immediate needs for current
employee permit holders.
Next steps includes parking counts & evaluation, resident
and employee outreach.
August 12, 2024
PARKING LOSS MITIGATIONS AND OTHER ACTIONS
•Engaging with ECR businesses to offer employees transit passes, bicycle incentives,
and alternatives to SOV parking
•Visit: Paloaltotma.org and cityofpaloalto.org/PaloAltoLink
Palo Alto Transportation Management
Association (PATMA)/Palo Alto Link
•Work continues with Caltrans and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to ensure bus stops are integrated into the bikeway and maximize safety and usability for riders and cyclists.Bus Stop Enhancements
•Request a bike rack for the adjacent sidewalk (space permitting) using Palo Alto 311 at cityofpaloalto.org/PaloAlto311/Make-a-Service-Request Free bike parking by request
•Green or yellow curb designations or others as agreed upon by local businesses immediately adjacent to identified curb space
Short-term parking designations by request
•Cal Ave garage/lot permits have more permit options available and are less expensive than RPP Employee Permits
Cal Ave Public Garage/Lot Employee Parking Permits Available
4
628 Annual
Permits Available
Up to 250 VTA
Passes Available
August 12, 2024
Employee Zone S1 spaces to be
removed
•~30 spaces total
•Up to 20 employee permits
to be reallocated
•0 employee permits sold to
date (0 S1 permits sold since
Jul-Dec 2023)
SOUTHGATE RPP
5
August 12, 2024
Employee Zone G spaces to be
removed
•~100 spaces total
•Up to 50 employee permits
to be reallocated
•38 employee permits sold to
date
EPM RPP
6
August 12, 2024
•Coordinate with VTA/Caltrans on Bus Stop
Enhancements
•Coordinate with Caltrans on future project(s)
on ECR
RPPs:
•Staff to review RPP parking occupancy for each
block segment in Fall 2024
•Staff will conduct further outreach with
Employees and Residents
•If modifications are necessary, staff will return
to Council with further recommendations prior
to the 2025 sales cycle
NEXT STEPS
7
Staff recommends that Council adopt
recommendations/resolutions to:
1.Remove the parking spots located on El Camino Real from the
Evergreen Park-Mayfield and Southgate RPP Districts;
2.Reallocate 50 employee permits from El Camino Real (Zone G)
to Zones A-D in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield (EPM) Residential
Preferential Parking (RPP) district;
3.Reallocate 20 employee permits from El Camino Real (Zone S1)
into Zone S in the Southgate (SG) RPP district.
RECOMMENDATION
8August 12, 2024 8
NATHAN BAIRD
Transportation Programs Manager
Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org
650-329-2340
9