HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-12 Policy & Services Committee Agenda PacketPolicy and Services Committee
1
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.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Special Meeting
Community Meeting Room
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in
the Council Chambers on the Thursday 12 days preceding the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to agendized items. If you wish to address the Committee 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/Community Meeting Room, and deliver it to the 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 Committee, but it is very helpful.
Call to Order
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.
Action Items
1. Review and Recommendation to the City Council of an Ordinance
Amending Sections 4.42.190 (Taxi Meters) and 4.42.200 (Schedule of
Rates, Display) of Chapter 4.42 of Title 4 (Business and License
Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Allow Taxicab Service
to be Prearranged by Mobile Device Application and Internet Online
Service. This Action is Exempt Under Section 15061(b)(3) of the
California Environmental Quality Act
2. Discussion and Recommendations for 2018 City Council Priority Setting
Process
3. Discussion and Recommendation to Council Regarding Anti-idling
Ordinance
Future Meetings and Agendas
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.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7184)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/12/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Taxi Ordinance Amendment
Title: Review and Recommendation to the City Council of an Ordinance
Amending Sections 4.42.190 (Taxi Meters) and 4.42.200 (Schedule of Rates,
Display) of Chapter 4.42 of Title 4 (Business and License Regulations) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code to Allow Taxicab Service to be Prearranged by
Mobile Device Application and Internet Online Service. This Action is Exempt
Under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendations
Staff recommends that Council reviews and adopts the proposed, revised Palo Alto Municipal
Code 4.42 in order to allow taxicab service to be prearranged through a mobile device
application and an internet online service.
Discussion and Background
The emergence of ridesharing companies such as Uber and Lyft has dramatically altered the
competitive environment for all conveyance providers. Ridesharing allows individuals in need
of transportation access to a pool of drivers through applications on smartphones. Initially, this
new transportation model was not regulated. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
regulates other transportation modalities such as limousines, shuttle buses and town car
services. In July 2013, the CPUC determined they would regulate the rideshare companies and
created a new category, Transportation Network Company (TNC), differentiating rideshare
companies from other regulated modes of transportation.
Taxicabs are not regulated by the CPUC but rather by individual cities. Palo Alto Municipal Code
4.42.190 dictates that taxicab fares must be determined by a taximeter. A taximeter is a small
device that mechanically or electronically calculates the fee for the taxicab ride. Rideshare
companies, or “TNCs”, do not operate with a certified meter, nor does the CPUC regulate TNCs
rates. The proposed amendments would allow taxicab fares requested through a mobile device
application or an internet online service to be based on demand and to be predetermined prior
to acceptance similar to the ridesharing applications. The rate will be the same as the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
taximeter rate or, if demand is low, the rate will be reduced. Fares for hailed and telephone
requested rides will continue to be determined by taximeters. Therefore, regardless of how the
taxicab was requested, at no time will the rate exceed the standard taximeter rate. When the
rider makes the request for a ride via the internet online service or mobile device application,
they will know and agree to the rate prior to booking, similar to how TNC rides are requested.
Several Santa Clara County cities have revised their municipal ordinances in response to the
changing environment. In December 2015, San Jose updated its taxicab ordinance to allow
service to be prearranged by mobile device application and internet online service. In San Jose,
rates and fares remain set by the City Council. In July 2016, Santa Clara amended its taxicab
ordinance to allow for prearranged service through mobile device application and internet
online service, and required that the requestor have the ability to see the current rate of fare
charged prior to booking. Notably, Santa Clara exempts taxicab service prearranged by mobile
device application and internet online service from the schedule of rates and fares set by its
City Council.
The emergence of TNCs has disrupted the taxicab industry and the legacy regulations make it
hard for taxicabs to compete for fares. Staff believes the recommended ordinance changes will
level the playing field and allow taxicab companies to utilize technology to compete in the
space. The proposed change will allow taxicab companies to use both the metered system for
the hailed and telephone requests, and adjustable competitive fares requested through
internet and mobile device applications, in order to reduce the variances between the taxicab
and TNC industries.
Resource Impact
Staff does not anticipate any change in revenue from these adjustments and no direct cost
increases will result from the adoption of these modifications. The current annual permitting
fees for taxicabs are $2,500 for a new operator and $1,075 for a renewal.
Policy Implications
These actions are consistent with existing City policies.
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A - Revised Ordinance
ATTACHMENT B - Santa Clara Ordinance 1959
ATTACHMENT C - San Jose Ordinance 6.64
NOT YET APPROVED
ORD Amending 4.42.190 and 4.42.200
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 4.42.190
(Taximeters) and 4.42.200 (Schedule of Rates, Display) of Chapter 4.42 of Title 4
(Business and License Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Allow
Taxicab Service to be Prearranged by Mobile Device Application and Internet
Online Service.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1: The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows:
A. The City desires to encourage the taxicab industry to continue servicing City
residents; and
B. The City desires to encourage competition between the taxicab industry and the
transportation network companies by allowing taxicab service to be prearranged with the use
of mobile device applications and internet online services.
SECTION 1. Section 4.42.190 of Chapter 4.42 of Title 4 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
4.42.190 Taximeters.
(a) All taxicabs operated under the authority of this chapter, except as provided in
subsection (c), shall be equipped with taximeters of the type and design approved by the police
department, located in the vehicle so as to render the figures visible to the passengers at all
times, day and night. After sundown, the face of the taximeter shall be illuminated. Such
taximeter shall be subject to inspection from time to time by the police department and the
police department shall require the certificate holder to discontinue the operation of any
taxicab in which the taximeter is found to calculate inaccurately until such taximeter is replaced
by one approved by the police department or is adjusted accurately.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), it is unlawful for a taxicab driver, while carrying
passengers, to display the flag or the device attached to the taximeter in such position as to
denote that the vehicle is for hire, to cause the taximeter to record when the vehicle is not
actually employed, to fail to cause the device on the taximeter to be placed into a nonrecording
position at the termination of each and every service, or to charge any fare other than that
recorded on the taximeter.
(c) Taxicab service may be prearranged with the use of a mobile device application or
internet online service. The fare charged shall not exceed the scheduled rate filed by the
certificate holder under Chapter 4.42.200. The application or internet online service shall
display the fare to the customer prior to booking in lieu of the posting as required under
Chapter 4.42.200. An “application” shall mean a self‐contained program or piece of software
application designed to fulfill requests for dispatch services that is downloadable by a user to a
computer or mobile device." Taxicabs providing prearranged service under this subsection are
exempt from the taximeter requirements stated in subsections (a) and (b).
NOT YET APPROVED
ORD Amending 4.42.190 and 4.42.200
SECTION 2. Section 4.42.200 of Chapter 4.42 of Title 4 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
4.42.200 Schedule of rates, display.
The certificate holder shall file, with the application for a certificate, a true and correct
schedule of rates to be charged for the transportation of passengers in any and all vehicles
operated by said certificate holder. Except for prearranged services as provided in Section
4.42.190(c), a schedule of such charges shall be posted conspicuously in each vehicle operated
by said certificate holder. The rates shall not be changed or modified in any manner without
first filing the changed or modified rates with the chief of police thirty days prior to the
effective date of such change or modification.
SECTION 3. 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 4. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a
“project” within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first date after
the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
NOT YET APPROVED
ORD Amending 4.42.190 and 4.42.200
______________________________
Chief Deputy City Attorney
The Center of What's Possib!e
AGENDA ITEM #: Lim /3
AGENDA REPORT
City of
Santa Clara
Date: July 19, 2016
To: City Manager for Council Action
From: City Attorney
Subject: Pass to Print an Ordinance Amending Chapter 5.35 ("Taxicabs") of Title 5 ("Business
Licenses and Regulations") of "The Code of The City of Santa Clara, California"
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
"The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California" ("Santa Clara City Code" or "SCCC") Title 5
("Business Licenses and Regulations") provides for regulations pertaining to business licensing
and related regulations in the City. Chapter 5.35 specifically provides for regulations related to
taxicabs within the City, including fares that may be charged to City residents by taxicabs.
Currently, the Santa Clara City Code requires taxicabs to charge only those fares that are set by
City Council resolution. 5.35.150. With the growth of transportation network companies (TNCs),
like Uber and Lyft, most of which are unregulated and not subject to taxicab fare requirements,
the taxicab industry has rendered it necessary to be able to compete with TNCs. The ability to
utilize software applications and/or online sites for booking taxicabs at competitive prices would
allow the taxicab industry to effectively compete with TNCs, especially due to the wide spread use
of smart phones and Internet technology.
The proposed amendments would allow for taxicabs to charge fares that are different than those
set by City Council resolution when taxicabs are requested through an application or online site as
long as the fare is provided at the time of booking. Those fares that are charged through an
application or online site would not be subject to the posting requirement under Section 5.35.160.
It remains that taxicabs hailed or requested through telephone dispatch may only charge those
fares set by City Council resolution.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ISSUE
The proposed amendments would support the taxicab industry and protect the interests of City
residents by ensuring they are paying competitive fares. There are no known disadvantages.
ECONOMIC/FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost to the City other than administrative staff time and expense.
Subject: Pass to Print an Ordinance Amending Chapter 5.35 ("Taxicabs")
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council pass to print an Ordinance amending Chapter 5.35 ("Taxicabs") to Title 5
("Business Licenses and Regulations") of "The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California" related
to taxicab fares in Ye City.
Richard E. Nosky, Jr.
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORMAT:
Rajee4 Batra
Acting City Manager
Documents Related to this Report:
1) Ordinance
1:VIGENDALAGENDA REPORTS116.0963 Taxicab Fare Amendment 7-19-16.doc
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.35 ("TAXICABS")
OF TITLE 5 ("BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS")
OF "THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
CALIFORNIA"
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara desires to encourage the taxicab industry to continue servicing
City residents;
WHEREAS, Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Chapter 5.35 ("Taxicabs") currently allows only those
fares set by City Council resolution to be charged by taxicabs; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it in the public interest to allow the taxicab industry to compete
with transportation network companies (TNCs) by utilizing smart phone and Internet technology to
charge competitive fares that may differ from those fares established by City Council resolution.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That Section 5.35.150 ("Fares") of Chapter 5.35 ("Taxicabs") of Title 5 ("Business
Licenses and Regulations") of "The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California" ("SCCC") is
amended to read as follows:
"5.35.150 Fares.
(a) No owner or driver shall charge or receive any rates or fares for the use of a taxicab other than
those established by resolution of the City Council, except as provided in subsection (d). Such
charges shall be applicable to all portions of the passenger's travel, within or without the City.
(b) Bona fide tips are not prohibited by this section.
Ordinance/Taxicab Fares Page 1 of 3
Rev: 01-12-16; Typed: 07-05-16
(c) Rates and fares for the use of taxicabs licensed under this chapter shall be adopted by the City
Council by resolution after a public hearing. The City Council may, upon its own motion, or upon
application of a holder of the taxicab license, adjust such rates and fares to reflect the prevailing rates
and fares charged by taxicab businesses in the neighboring cities.
(d) Service may be prearranged electronically by an application or online service. Rates and fares are
not subject to the requirements of this section or Section 5.35.160 so long as the application or online
service displays the current fare prior to booking. An application shall mean a self-contained
program or piece of software application designed to fulfill requests for dispatch services that is
downloadable by a user to a computer or mobile device."
SECTION 2: That Section 5.35.160 ("Display of schedule of fares") of Chapter 5.35 ("Taxicabs")
of Title 5 ("Business Licenses and Regulations") be amended to read as follows:
"5.35.160 Display of schedule of taximeter fares.
Except as provided in subsection (d) of Section 5.35.150, no driver shall operate a taxicab unless the
schedule of rates and fares for the use of the taxicab is posted in a conspicuous place and in a
permanent and secure manner in the passenger compartment."
SECTION 3: Savings clause. The changes provided for in this ordinance shall not affect any offense
or act committed or done or any penalty or forfeiture incurred or any right established or accruing
before the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall it affect any prosecution, suit or proceeding
pending or any judgment rendered prior to the effective date ofthis ordinance. All fee schedules shall
remain in force until superseded by the fee schedules adopted by the City Council.
SECTION 4: Constitutionality, severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
word of this ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
Ordinance/Taxicab Fares Page 2 of 3
Rev: 01-12-16; Typed: 07-05-16
portions of the ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance
and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word thereof, irrespective of the fact that
any one or more section(s), subsection(s), sentence(s), clause(s), phrase(s), or word(s) be declared
invalid.
SECTION 5: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final adoption;
however, prior to its final adoption it shall be published in accordance with the requirements of
Section 808 and 812 of "The Charter of the City of Santa Clara, California."
PASSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLICATION this day of , 2016, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCILORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:
ATTEST:
ROD DIRIDON, JR.
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:
1. None
TAORDINANCES116.0963 Taxicab Fare Amendment 7-19-16.doc
Ordinance/Taxicab Fares Page 3 of 3
Rev: 01-12-16; Typed: 07-05-16
Chapter 6.64 - TAXICAB AND LIMOUSINE SERVICE
REGULATIONS[15]
Part 1 - TAXICABS - GENERAL PROVISIONS
6.64.010 - Purpose and authority.
This chapter is to further the public convenience and necessity of transportation services by
taxicabs and limousines, and is enacted pursuant to the Constitution of the State of California and
the Charter of the City of San José.
(Ords. 19311, 22459.)
6.64.020 - Act of employer.
The act or omission of any owner's officer, agent, employee or independent contractor, or of any
driver whose services are engaged by any of the above, is for all purposes the act or omission of
the owner operating the for-hire transportation services regulated by this chapter.
(Ord. 22459.)
6.64.030 - Notices.
Any notice required under this chapter to be given to the applicant, owner or driver, may be given
by first class mail with postage prepaid, at the address designated for such purpose on the
application.
(Ord. 22459.)
Part 2 - DEFINITIONS
6.64.040 - General.
For purposes of this chapter, certain words and phrases are defined and shall be construed as set
forth herein unless it is apparent from the context that a different meaning is intended.
(Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.045 - Accessible vehicle.
"Accessible vehicle" shall mean vehicles which comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA) accessibility standards for transportation vehicles or other requirements for accessible
vehicles under the ADA or other applicable state or federal authority.
(Ords. 29144, 29707.)
6.64.047 - App.
"App" shall mean a self-contained program or piece of software application designed to fulfill
requests for dispatch services that is downloadable by a user to a computer or mobile device.
(Ord. 29707.)
6.64.050 - Board.
"Board" means the San José Appeals Hearing Board as established pursuant to Section
2.08.600 of this Code.
(Ords. 19311, 22459, 28682, 29707.)
6.64.055 - Clean fuel vehicle.
"Clean fuel vehicle" shall mean vehicles under the State of California's exhaust emission
standards with the following ratings:
A.
Super ultra-low emission vehicle (SULEV) or higher; or
B.
Ultra-low emission vehicle 2 (ULEV 2) which are dedicated to utilizing only alternative fuel,
neither gasoline nor diesel, and have a model year less than 2010.
(Ords. 29144, 29707.)
6.64.060 - For hire.
A vehicle is "for-hire" if any fare, rate, fee, charge, or other consideration is payable for the
transportation service of the vehicle, whether paid or not.
(Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.070 - Limousine.
A "limousine" is a passenger vehicle for hire, used to transport passengers on public streets. The
charge for the use of a limousine is not determined by a taximeter. "Limousine" includes vehicles
exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics:
A.
It does not operate over any fixed or defined route or routes;
B.
It operates between such points and covers such routes as may be directed by the
passenger hiring such vehicle; or
C.
The charge for the use of such vehicle is agreed to in advance between the passenger
hiring the vehicle and the owner or driver of the vehicle. Such charges may be on a
mileage, trip, or time basis, or any combination thereof.
(Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.080 - Owner.
An "owner" is any natural person, partnership, corporation, firm, or association engaged in the
business of operating vehicles for hire. It also includes receivers or trustees appointed by any
court.
(Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.090 - Taxicab.
A "taxicab" is a passenger vehicle for hire, used to transport passengers on public streets. The
charge for the use of a taxicab is determined either:
A.
By a taximeter; or
B.
As a prearranged fare/rate provided by app.
(Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.100 - Taximeter.
A "taximeter" is any instrument or device approved for use under the applicable laws of the State
of California, which mechanically or electronically calculates the charge for the use of a taxicab.
The taximeter registers such charge by means of figures, including dollars and cents, calculated
by an initial charge and thereafter a charge for distance traveled, and/or waiting time.
(Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
Part 3 - TAXICAB STANDS AND CALL BOXES
6.64.110 - Taxicab stands.
A.
Except in the event of an emergency, no person shall park, stand or stop any vehicle other
than a taxicab, in a space designated as a taxicab stand.
B.
Except for taxicab stands located on the San José International Airport, taxicab stands shall
be maintained only at such locations as designated by the city's traffic engineer in
accordance with Section 11.52.180 of this Code.
C.
The city's director of aviation shall have the authority to designate the locations of taxicab
stands on the San José International Airport.
D.
A fee shall be paid for each taxicab stand utilized by a taxicab in accordance with the fee
schedules established by resolution of the city council. Said fee shall be paid monthly, in
advance, to the office of the director of finance.
(Prior code § 6461, 6.64.400; Ords. 19311, 20643, 20924, 21285, 22459.)
6.64.120 - Call boxes.
A.
Upon written application by any holder of a taxicab license issued under this chapter, the
city's director of public works may grant the holder permission to install telephone call boxes
on certain posts or poles in the city to facilitate its dispatching services.
B.
The director of public works may impose reasonable conditions on such permission as the
director deems necessary.
(Prior code § 6472, 6.64.370; Ords. 19311, 22459.)
Part 4 - TAXICAB LICENSE
6.64.130 - License requirement.
A.
No owner of a taxicab business shall operate or permit the operation of a taxicab as a vehicle
for hire on the streets of the City of San José without having obtained from the chief of police
a taxicab license or restricted taxicab license pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. An
owner of a taxicab business whose principal place of business is located outside the City of
San José may obtain either a taxicab license or a restricted taxicab license.
B.
An owner of a taxicab business whose principal place of business is located outside of the
City of San José need not obtain a license pursuant to this chapter if the taxicab business's
sole operation on the streets of the City of San José is to transport passengers from a point
outside the city to the city and discharge the passengers at a point within the city.
(Prior code § 6409; Ords. 19311, 22459, 29229, 29352, 29707.)
6.64.140 - Minimum number of taxicabs.
At least five vehicles are required to be operated as taxicabs pursuant to any taxicab license
issued under this chapter.
(Ords. 22459, 29707.)
6.64.150 - Restricted taxicab license.
A.
The chief of police may, under the same terms and conditions as are applicable to the
issuance of a taxicab license, grant a restricted taxicab license to an owner of a taxicab
business whose principal place of business is located outside the City of San José to allow
the owner to provide taxicab services within the city to transport passengers in the city and
discharge them outside the city, either in response to a bona fide call for such service, or
when the driver is leaving the city after having discharged passengers in the city.
B.
The provisions of this chapter applicable to a taxicab license shall apply to a restricted
taxicab license in equal force and effect, except for Section 6.64.350 of this chapter.
(Prior code § 6413; Ords. 19311, 22459, 29352, 29707.)
6.64.160 - Application.
Every applicant for a taxicab license shall execute and file with the chief of police a verified
application containing the following information:
A.
The applicant's name, home address and business address;
B.
The applicant's trade name and distinguishing vehicle markings, color or colors;
C.
The location of the proposed business;
D.
Satisfactory proof that the location of the proposed business is properly zoned and is in
compliance with any required land use permit, for the conduct of the proposed business;
E.
The applicant's past experience with regard to taxicab service;
F.
Whether any license, permit or certificate issued to the applicant has been denied, revoked
or suspended by any public organization. The circumstances of said denial, revocation,
or suspension shall be fully explained;
G.
Whether the applicant has been convicted of a crime within five years prior to the date of the
application, including the nature of the crimes;
H.
The number of vehicles proposed to be used as taxicabs, with department of motor vehicles
of the State of California registration expiration dates for each vehicle;
I.
Inspection records in a form acceptable to the chief of police documenting that each vehicle
and all components of any accessible vehicle's accessibility and clean fuel vehicle's fuel
delivery system are in safe operating condition, made by either the proprietor of a public
garage engaged in auto repair who is licensed by the State of California, or by a
mechanic licensed by the State of California and employed by the applicant, who has
inspected and examined such vehicles and who is certified in the inspection of
alternative fuel components if certifying a clean fuel vehicle;
J.
A sworn statement by the applicant that the applicant shall not operate any vehicle until the
inspection records in Subsection I. have been filed with the chief of police;
K.
A duplicate copy of the insurance policies required by Section 6.64.450 of this chapter; or
where not yet issued, the written statement from an insurer that such insurance policies
will be issued if the application is granted;
L.
A complete description of the proposed operations, including two-way radio, web or
computer-based and app dispatching services;
M.
Evidence that applicant has paid all applicable city taxes including the business license tax;
N.
The applicant's sworn financial statement; and such additional information as the chief of
police may require.
(Prior code §§ 6416 - 6430, 6.64.050; Ords. 19311, 22459, 29144, 29707.)
6.64.170 - License fee.
The applicant for a taxicab license shall submit with the application a fee as set forth in the
schedule of fees established by resolution of the city council.
(Ords. 19311, 21285, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.180 - Grounds for denial.
The chief of police, or the board on appeal, may deny an application for a taxicab license on any of
the following grounds:
A.
Public convenience and necessity do not require the proposed service;
B.
The application fails to contain any of the required information as set forth in Section
6.64.160 above;
C.
Any of the information contained in the application is false;
D.
The name under which the applicant will conduct business, or applicant's proposed color
scheme or other marking, design or insignia, will tend to confuse the identification of
taxicabs which applicant proposes to operate with those operated under existing taxicab
licenses; or
E.
The chief of police, or the board on appeal, determines that the applicant lacks the financial
ability to provide the proposed service;
F.
Any vehicle proposed for operation is not safe, and the applicant has failed to remove such
vehicle from service immediately until the vehicle is determined to be safe or to
substitute a safe vehicle in its place within a reasonable time;
G.
The applicant has failed to comply with any term, condition, or requirement in a taxicab
license previously issued;
H.
An act or omission of the applicant constitutes a ground for revocation or suspension of the
taxicab license as provided in Section 6.64.600 of this chapter;
I.
The applicant, within five years prior to the date of application, has been convicted of a
crime, and the crime is substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of
the taxicab business;
J.
The applicant is on parole or probation for a crime, and the crime is substantially related to
the qualifications, functions or duties of the taxicab business;
K.
The applicant, within five years prior to the date of application, has done an act involving
violence, dishonesty, or fraud with the intent to substantially injure another, or
substantially benefit the applicant or another;
L.
The applicant has had a taxicab license issued under the provisions of this chapter or any
other permit issued by the city revoked within three years prior to the date of application;
or
M.
The applicant has failed to pay when due any applicable taxes or fee imposed by the City of
San José.
(Ords. 19311, 22459, 28682, 29144, 29707.)
6.64.190 - Action by chief of police.
A.
Within a reasonable time after receipt of the application, the chief of police may either deny
the application, or issue a taxicab license to the applicant to conduct all or any part of the
proposed service.
B.
The chief of police may impose such terms, conditions or restrictions on the taxicab license
as the chief deems necessary to provide adequate and dependable service to the public and
to protect the use of public streets and facilities.
(Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.200 - Appeal.
A.
The decision of the chief of police to deny the application for a taxicab license may be
appealed to the board.
B.
The procedures for the appeal and the requirements of notice and hearing are set forth in
Part 8 of this chapter.
(Ords. 22459, 28682, 29707.)
6.64.210 - License not transferable.
The taxicab license issued pursuant to this chapter, and all interests, rights and obligations
pertaining thereto, are personal to the holder of such license, and are not transferable or
assignable, by operation of law or otherwise.
(Ords. 22459, 29707.)
6.64.220 - Acceptance.
The applicant to whom a taxicab license has been issued by the chief of police shall, prior to
commencement of any taxicab operation, file with the chief of police acknowledged written
acceptance thereof and its agreement to comply with all the terms and conditions required under
such license and this chapter.
(Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.230 - Additional vehicles.
A.
Permission to operate vehicles in addition to those approved under the initial taxicab license
may be obtained by filing an application amendment with the chief of police in the same
manner as prescribed by this chapter for obtaining the initial taxicab license.
B.
In granting or denying such applications for additional vehicles, the chief of police shall have
the same authority as vested in the chief by this chapter in the matter of the initial
applications.
(Prior code § 6440; Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.240 - Substitution of vehicles.
The holder of a taxicab license may substitute a different vehicle for a taxicab operated under a
taxicab license issued pursuant to this chapter, by filing an application amendment with the chief
of police, setting forth the following:
A.
Description of the vehicle, including the make, model, serial number and license number of
the vehicle;
B.
Reason(s) for the proposed substitution;
C.
Inspection records in a form acceptable to the chief of police documenting that each vehicle
and all components of any accessible vehicle's accessibility and clean fuel vehicle's fuel
delivery system are in safe operating condition, made by either the proprietor of a public
garage engaged in auto repair who is licensed by the State of California, or by a
mechanic licensed by the State of California and employed by the applicant, who has
inspected and examined such vehicles and who is certified in the inspection of
alternative fuel components if certifying a clean fuel vehicle; and
D.
Evidence that the vehicle is covered under the insurance policies required by Section
6.64.450 of this chapter.
(Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.250 - Fares/rates.
A.
No owner or driver shall charge or receive any rates or fares for the use of a taxicab other
than those established by resolution of the city council or by the director of the department of
transportation ("director of transportation") as set forth in Subsection B. below. Such charges
shall be applicable to all portions of the passenger's travel, within or without the City of San
José. Bona fide tips are not prohibited by this section.
B.
Rates and fares for the use of taxicabs licensed under this chapter shall be determined and
fixed by the city council by resolution after a public hearing; or, by the director of
transportation in a schedule of rates and fares adopted by the director of transportation as
follows:
1.
Any proposed adjustments to existing rates or fares and any proposed new rates or
fares shall be coordinated by the director of transportation with the chief of police and
the director of aviation; shall be based on industry indicators, including: the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers for Transportation and All Items for San Francisco
- Oakland - San José, CA; extraordinary and ongoing increases or decreases in major
taxi industry-related expense categories, such as the cost of fuel and insurance; and
locally, regionally and nationally comparable rates and fares; and shall be reasonably
necessary to allow taxicab owners and drivers to recoup operation costs and make a
reasonable profit while protecting the consumer from being subjected to exorbitant rates
and fares.
2.
Any proposed rates or fares shall be posted on the city clerk's website and made
available for inspection and copying by the public at the office of the city clerk during
normal business hours.
3.
A copy of any proposed rates and fares shall also be mailed to each holder of a license
issued under this chapter.
4.
A thirty-day public comment period to receive comments on the proposed rates and fees
[fares] shall commence on the date the notice of the proposed rates and fares is sent to
those licensed under this chapter. During the comment period, any person may submit
written comments regarding the proposed rates or fares to the director of transportation.
5.
After the close of the public comment period, the director of transportation shall consider
all the public comments on the proposed rates and fares.
6.
After the director of transportation has considered all public comments, the director of
transportation shall approve the final rates and fares.
7.
The rates and fares approved by the director of transportation shall be contained in a
schedule of taxicab rates and fares which shall become final on the date notice of the
schedule of taxicab rates and fares is sent to those licensed under this chapter and the
schedule of taxicab rates and fares is posted on the city clerk's website.
8.
The notice of the schedule of taxicab rates and fares shall be accompanied by a brief
written statement from the director of transportation that summarizes the written
comments received from the public on the proposed rates and fares; explains why the
comments were accepted, rejected, or modified by the director of transportation; and,
explains how the new rates and fares or adjustments in existing rates and fares meet
the requirements set forth inSection 6.64.250 B.1.
C.
Once a schedule of taxicab rates and fares is established by the director of transportation, it
shall supersede any prior rate or fare, or any portion thereof, previously adopted by city
council resolution or pursuant to this chapter.
D.
Once a schedule of taxicab rates and fares is established, the director of transportation shall
review the schedule of taxicab rates and fares on a biennial basis to ensure the rates and
fares are keeping with industry standards as evidenced by those industry indicators set forth
in Section 6.64.250 B.1.
E.
Once a schedule of taxicab rates and fares is established, the director of transportation may
adjust the schedule of taxicab rates and fares on a more frequent basis by following the
process outlined in Section 6.64.250 B.
(Prior code § 6407; Ords. 19311, 22459, 28439, 29707.)
6.64.260 - Display of schedule of fares/rates.
Except as provided in Section 6.64.265 below, no driver shall operate a taxicab unless the
fares/rates for the use of the taxicab is posted in a conspicuous place and in a permanent and
secure manner in the passenger compartment.
(Prior code § 6410; Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.265 - Fares/rates for app or online service.
Fares and rates for taxicabs summoned by app or online are not subject to the posting
requirements of Section 6.64.260 above, so long as the app or online site displays the current
fare/rate prior to booking.
(Ord. 29707.)
6.64.270 - Property carriage.
Except as otherwise regulated by the State of California public utilities commission, an owner or
driver may, in addition to such rates and fares, receive a reasonable charge for the driver's
personal service in assisting any person to transport to and/or from the taxicab items of personal
property other than customary baggage or luggage.
(Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.280 - Full use of taxicabs.
A.
Any person who hires a taxicab shall have the exclusive right to use the entire taxicab. There
shall not be additional charges for any of the person's companions or personal belongings.
B.
No owner or driver shall carry or solicit, or permit to be carried or solicited, any additional
passenger unless the person first hiring the taxicab consents to the acceptance of such
additional passenger.
(Prior code § 6462; Ords. 19311, 19968, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.290 - Duty to provide services.
A.
No owner or driver of any taxicab shall refuse to provide taxicab service to a person who
requests to be taken to a destination within the City of San José, except as provided in
Section 6.64.290.B of this chapter.
B.
The owner or driver may refuse to provide taxicab service when:
1.
The person requesting such service does not appear to be in a sober or orderly manner;
2.
The service is requested for an unlawful purpose;
3.
The taxicab has already been hired; or
4.
The owner or driver has a good faith reason to believe that his or her safety is at risk.
(Prior code § 6468; Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.300 - Direct route.
Unless otherwise directed by the passenger hiring the taxicab, the driver of such taxicab shall take
the most direct, expeditious and safe route from the starting point to the destination point.
(Prior code § 6460; Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.310 - Reserved.
Editor's note— Ord. No. 29707, § 2, adopted March 22, 2016, repealed § 6.64.310, which
pertained to passenger prohibited in front seat and derived from prior code § 6465; Ords. 19311
and 22459.
6.64.320 - Overcharge prohibited.
A.
No person shall charge a greater fare or rate than that authorized by this chapter for the hire
of a taxicab.
B.
It shall constitute a ground for revocation or suspension of a taxicab license or a taxicab
driver's permit for any owner or driver to charge a greater fare than that authorized by this
chapter for the hire of a taxicab.
C.
The owner or driver who overcharges a taxicab fare/rate shall be liable to the person who
hires the taxicab for the difference between the amount of fare/rate actually charged and the
amount of fare/rate authorized by this chapter.
D.
The remedies provided by this section are in addition to any other legal or equitable
remedies, and are not intended to be exclusive.
(Prior code §§ 6469, 6470; Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.330 - Refusal to pay fares/rates prohibited.
A.
No person shall refuse to pay the fare/rate imposed on the person for having received any
taxicab service.
B.
No person shall hire any taxicab with the intent to defraud the owner or driver of the value of
the taxicab service.
C.
The remedies provided by this section are in addition to any other legal or equitable
remedies, and are not intended to be exclusive.
(Prior code § 6466; Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.340 - Receipt for fare/rate.
The driver of any taxicab shall give any passenger who so requests a receipt for the fare/rate
charged and paid. The receipt shall contain:
A.
The name of the taxicab business;
B.
The name of the driver;
C.
Taxicab number;
D.
Date of transaction;
E.
The meter reading, if applicable; and
F.
The amount of fares/rates charged and paid.
(Prior code § 6467; Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.350 - Reserved.
Editor's note— Ord. No. 29707, § 2, adopted March 22, 2016, repealed § 6.64.350, which
pertained to minimum operation and derived from prior code § 6410.24; Ords. 19311 and 22459.
6.64.360 - Equipment and conditions required.
A.
Each taxicab operated under a taxicab license issued pursuant to this chapter shall at all
times have:
1.
One operable safety belt for each passenger carried;
2.
A spare tire, capable of being used on any of the wheels of the vehicle;
3.
A set of tools for changing tires;
4.
Two independently acting and entirely unconnected braking systems in proper operating
order;
5.
Safety or shatterproof glass in windshield, windows and doors;
6.
An "Out of Service" sign within the vehicle, with dimensions of eight and one-half inches
by eleven inches, to be displayed in the right rear window during those times when the
taxicab is on public streets and not available for hire by the general public; and
7.
A voice communication system, as described and approved by the chief of police as
provided in Section 6.64.160, for the entire time the taxicab is in service and available to
the public.
B.
Each taxicab operated under a taxicab license issued pursuant to this chapter shall be
maintained in such condition so that:
1.
All doors, windows, hood and trunk will open and close securely;
2.
The inside of the taxicab and the luggage compartment is free of litter and trash, and
does not soil, rip or otherwise damage the passenger's clothing or effects; and
3.
The exterior of the taxicab is clean and in good repair, and does not have any peeling,
dents, rust or missing components which are discernable from five feet of the taxicab.
(Prior code § 6435; Ords. 19311, 22459, 29144, 29707.)
6.64.370 - Identification of taxicabs.
A.
The following identification shall be placed on both sides and the rear of each taxicab
operated under this chapter, to be applied by non-water-soluble paint or similar material:
1.
A serial body number, issued by the chief of police for each taxicab:
a.
Shall be placed on both the front quarter panels and the left side of the rear trunklid
of each vehicle.
b.
Shall be at least four inches in height and of such color as will contrast distinctly
with the color of the body of the taxicab.
2.
The owner's trade name:
a.
Shall include the word "taxicab," "taxi," or "cab."
b.
Shall be in letters at least four inches in height and of such color as will contrast
distinctly with the color of the body of the taxicab.
B.
The owner and the driver shall maintain the paint, color scheme, decals and lettering on the
exterior of a taxicab in good condition and in the same condition as originally approved by the
chief of police.
C.
All identification required to be placed on a taxicab shall be removed within forty-eight hours
after such taxicab is removed from the owner's taxicab service.
(Prior code § 6435; Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.380 - Safety inspection.
A.
All taxicabs shall be safety inspected and receive a new taxicab inspection decal annually,
with inspection records in a form acceptable to the chief of police documenting that the
vehicle is in safe operating condition, made by either the proprietor of a public garage
engaged in auto repair who is licensed by the State of California, or by a mechanic licensed
by the State of California and employed by the applicant, who has inspected and examined
said vehicle. The inspection shall be completed prior to the renewal of the taxicab license.
B.
The driver of a taxicab shall inspect the taxicab and its equipment at least once each day.
C.
The registered owner of a taxicab, who is aware of or should have been aware of any unsafe
condition of the taxicab, shall not allow the taxicab to be used until necessary repairs are
made.
(Ords. 22459, 29707.)
6.64.390 - Evidence of mechanical condition.
A.
Upon receipt of a citizen's complaint or police officer's observation regarding the mechanical
condition of a taxicab, or following the taxicab's involvement in an accident, the chief of police
may require any or all of the following:
1.
A visual inspection of the taxicab by a member of the police department; and/or
2.
An interview by a member of the police department with the owner or driver of the
taxicab regarding the mechanical condition of the taxicab; and/or
3.
A sworn statement that the taxicab is in safe operating condition, made by either the
proprietor of a public garage engaged in auto repair who is licensed by the State of
California, or by a mechanic licensed by the State of California and employed by the
holder of the taxicab license, who has inspected and examined said taxicab; and/or
4.
A sworn statement for all clean fuel vehicles that all components related to the fuel
delivery system have been inspected by a mechanic certified in alternative fuel delivery
systems and that the components are in a safe and operating condition, including
without limitation, the fuel tank.
B.
If the owner or driver of the taxicab refuses to submit to an inspection as required by
Subsection A. above, the chief of police may issue an order prohibiting such vehicle from use
in taxicab service.
C.
Upon determination that any vehicle operated under a taxicab license is not in safe operating
condition, the chief of police may issue an order requiring that such vehicle not be used in
taxicab service until it has been repaired to the satisfaction of the chief of police.
D.
The chief of police shall have the authority to impound vehicles which continue to be used for
taxicab service in violation of the order.
(Prior code § 6433; Ords. 19311, 20717, 22459, 29144, 29707.)
6.64.400 - Appeal.
A.
The order of the chief of police issued under Section 6.64.390 of this chapter may be
appealed to the board.
B.
The procedures for the appeal and the requirements of notice and hearing are set forth in
Part 8 of this chapter.
C.
The vehicle(s) in question shall not be used for taxicab service pending the appeal.
(Ords. 22459, 28682, 29707.)
6.64.410 - Report of accidents.
Each holder of a taxicab license and the driver of a taxicab involved in an accident resulting in
property damage exceeding seven hundred fifty dollars or personal injury of any kind, shall report
the accident to the chief of police within ten days after the accident.
(Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.420 - Owner's records.
A.
The owner shall maintain at all times complete and accurate records of:
1.
The names, addresses, and dates of commencement and termination of employment or
contract of all drivers employed or engaged under contract by the owner;
2.
The description of the taxicab driven by each driver, including the make, model, serial
number and license number;
3.
The hours during which each driver is on duty, and the number of trips taken by each
driver; and
4.
All dispatch calls received and made by the owner, including the starting and destination
points and times.
B.
The owner shall maintain such records for a minimum period of five years, and shall make
them available for inspection upon request by the chief of police.
(Prior code § 6410.83; Ords. 19311, 22459, 29707.)
6.64.430 - Issuance prior to amendment.
All taxicab licenses issued prior to the effective date of this amendment to this chapter shall be
deemed issued pursuant to this chapter as amended, and shall in all respects be subject to the
provisions of this chapter as amended.
(Ords. 22459, 29707.)
6.64.440 - Additional permit requirements on the airport.
A.
No owner shall engage in the transportation of any passenger or property to and from the
San José International Airport without having first obtained all necessary permits from the
director of aviation pursuant to Chapter 25.08.
B.
The city's director of aviation shall have the authority to issue such permits in accordance
with Chapter 25.08 of this Code.
C.
Permits issued by the director of aviation pursuant to Chapter 25.08 of this Code shall be in
addition to any permit or license required by this chapter.
(Ords. 22459, 24645.1, 28682, 29230, 29707.)
Part 5 - INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
6.64.450 - Insurance requirements.
A.
The holder of a taxicab license, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain
throughout the term of its taxicab license, or any renewal thereof, all of the insurance
requirements as may be presently or in the future required by any financial responsibility laws
of the State of California.
B.
The insurance requirements shall be referred to in and made a part of the application for a
taxicab license. The city's risk manager shall notify in writing all applicants or holders of
taxicab licenses of any modifications of the insurance requirements.
C.
All policies and coverages required by this section are subject to approval by the risk
manager as to content and form. No license newly issued or renewed shall be valid until such
approval is issued in writing to the chief of police by the risk manager.
D.
A true, certified and correct copy of the entire policy, including copies of all endorsement
made a part thereof, shall be mailed to the Risk Manager, City of San José, 801 North First
Street, San José, California 95110, directly from the authorized agent, broker or insuring
company for each policy required under this chapter. All policies shall be on file and effective
at the time the taxicab license is issued or renewed.
E.
If at any time the entire insurance policy or any portion thereof expires without immediate
proof of renewal, the taxicab license shall be immediately suspended. The chief of police is
hereby authorized to enforce such suspension upon receiving written notice from the risk
manager that no proof of renewal or reinstatement has been submitted by the holder of a
taxicab license.
F.
If at any time in the judgment of the risk manager, said policies or coverages are not sufficient
for any cause or reason, the risk manager may require the holder of a taxicab license to
replace said policies or coverages within ten days with other policies or coverages acceptable
in accordance with this section. If the holder of a taxicab license fails to do so, the taxicab
license shall be automatically suspended at the expiration of the ten-day period until such
time as said policies or coverages are properly replaced.
G.
The taxicab license issued under this chapter shall be automatically revoked upon the
cancellation of the insurance policies or coverages required under this section. The
reinstatement of insurance policies or coverages after a third cancellation within a twelve-
month period shall not obligate the city to renew the taxicab license upon request to do so.
H.
Prior to the issuance of a taxicab license, and at the annual renewal thereof, the applicant or
holder of a taxicab license shall submit to the risk manager a signed agreement to indemnify,
hold harmless and defend the City of San José, its officers, employees and agents, in a form
approved by the city attorney.
I.
Should the insurance coverage for any particular vehicle(s) be revoked or cancelled, such
vehicle(s) shall be taken out of service immediately.
(Prior code §§ 6441 - 6443; Ords. 19311, 20622, 22459, 29707.)
Part 6 - TAXICAB DRIVER'S PERMIT
6.64.460 - Application.
A.
No person shall operate any taxicab in the City of San José unless the person has obtained a
valid taxicab driver's permit from the chief of police to do so, as hereinafter provided.
B.
Application for a taxicab driver's permit shall be made in writing to the chief of police setting
forth the following information:
1.
The applicant's name, age, address and past experience with regard to taxicab service;
2.
The names and addresses of the applicant's employers during the preceding three
years;
3.
Whether an operator's or a chauffeur's license issued to the applicant by any state or
governmental agency has ever been revoked, and the reasons therefor;
4.
Whether the applicant has been convicted of a crime within five years prior to the date of
the application, including the nature of the crimes;
5.
The name and address of the owner by whom the applicant is to be employed or
engaged under contract as a taxicab driver;
6.
The endorsement by the owner, by whom the applicant is to be employed or engaged
under contract as a taxicab driver, on the application stating that the applicant has
acquired proficient knowledge of the traffic laws of the State of California and the City of
San José, and of the streets of the city, as well as the ability to read and understand
English, and to safely operate a public transportation vehicle in the city; and
7.
Whether the applicant has paid all applicable taxes imposed by the City of San José,
including the business license tax if applicant is to be engaged under contract as an
independent contractor.
8.
Such additional information as the chief of police may require.
(Ords. 22459, 28682, 29707.)
6.64.465 - Exception for out-of-town holders of ground transportation permits.
Notwithstanding Section 6.64.460, a person whose principal place of business is located outside
the City of San José need not obtain a taxicab driver's permit if the driver's sole operation on the
streets of the City of San José is to transport passengers from a point outside the city to the city
and discharge them at a point within the city.
(Ords. 29229, 29352, 29707.)
6.64.470 - Photographs.
The applicant for a taxicab driver's permit shall have two photographs taken by the chief of police,
one to be filed with the application, and the other to be permanently attached to the taxicab
driver's permit. The taxicab driver's permit shall be posted in a place conspicuous from the
passenger's compartment of the taxicab.
(Ords. 22459, 29707.)
6.64.480 - Permit requirements and background check.
A.
Prior to the issuance of a taxicab driver's permit, the applicant must demonstrate to the chief
of police:
1.
Proficient knowledge of traffic laws of the City of San José and of the State of California;
2.
Proficient knowledge of the streets of the City of San José; and
3.
Ability to properly and safely operate a taxicab.
B.
Upon satisfying the requirements set forth in Subsection A. above, the applicant shall be
subject, at the option of the owner by whom the applicant is to be employed or engaged
under contract as a taxicab driver, to one of the following background checks:
1.
Fingerprinting by the police department permits unit; or
2.
In the event that: (i) the owner by whom the applicant is to be employed or engaged
under contract as a taxicab driver has in place a program to perform criminal
background checks on each taxicab driver before the driver begins offering service on
behalf of the owner; and (ii) the owner utilizes an app with safety features approved by
the chief of police that include, at a minimum, driver name, driver photo, vehicle
information such as make/model, color, license plate/cab number, route taken, ability to
share route with friends and option for passengers to leave feedback and rate their
experience, the applicant shall not be subject to fingerprinting by the police department
permits unit. The criminal background check must be a national criminal background
check approved by the chief of police that includes the national sex offender database.
The criminal background check must use the applicant's social security number in
addition to the applicant's name. In order to meet the requirements of this subsection,
the owner must participate in one of the following monthly audit processes:
a.
A random audit and fingerprint background verification of permitted taxicab drivers
based on one percent of the owner's drivers, conducted by a third party accredited
by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners, jointly
approved by city and the owner; or
b.
A random audit of one percent of the owner's drivers per month, conducted by a
third party accredited by the National Association of Professional Background
Screeners, jointly approved by city and the owner.
(Ords. 22459, 29707.)
6.64.490 - Permit fee.
The applicant for a taxicab driver's permit shall submit with the application a fee as set forth in the
schedule of fees established by resolution of the city council.
(Ords. 22459, 29707.)
6.64.495 - Reserved.
Editor's note— Ord. No. 29707, § 4, adopted March 22, 2016, repealed § 6.64.495, which
pertained to limitation on issuance of permits and derived from Ord. 28682.
6.64.496 - Reserved.
Editor's note— Ord. No. 29707, § 4, adopted March 22, 2016, repealed § 6.64.496, which
pertained to exemption to limitation on issuance of permits and derived from Ord. 28682.
6.64.500 - Grounds for denial.
The chief of police, or the board on appeal, may deny an application for a taxicab driver's permit
filed by any person:
A.
Who is under the age of eighteen years;
B.
Who does not hold a valid driver's license issued by the department of motor vehicles of the
State of California for the type of vehicle the applicant proposes to use as a taxicab in
the city.
C.
Who, because of excessive and continuous use of alcoholic liquors, is incapable of safely
operating a public transportation vehicle;
D.
Who is a habitual user of any other drug which renders a person incapable of safely
operating a public transportation vehicle;
E.
Who has a disorder characterized by lapses of consciousness;
F.
Who does not demonstrate either proficient knowledge of the traffic laws of the State of
California and the City of San José, or of the streets of the city, or the ability to read and
understand English, or to safely operate a public transportation vehicle in the city;
G.
Who has failed to furnish the information required for the application for the permit;
H.
Who has knowingly made a false statement, or concealed a material fact, or otherwise
committed any fraud in the application;
I.
Who, within five years prior to the date of application, has been convicted of any offense
involving the use, possession, sale or transportation of narcotics, and the commission of
such offense involved the use of a motor vehicle;
J.
Who, within five years prior to the date of application, has been convicted of reckless driving
or driving under the influence of any drug or intoxicating liquor, regardless of whether
the incident resulted in bodily injury or death;
K.
Who, within five years prior to the date of application, has been convicted of a crime, and
the crime is substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of the taxicab
business;
L.
Who is on parole or probation for a crime, and the crime is substantially related to the
qualifications, functions or duties of the taxicab business;
M.
Who, within five years prior to the date of application, has done any act involving violence,
dishonesty or fraud with the intent to substantially injure another, or substantially benefit
the applicant or another;
N.
Who has had a taxicab driver's permit issued pursuant to this chapter revoked within three
years prior to the date of application;
O.
Who, the chief of police determines, is a negligent or incompetent operator of a motor
vehicle; or
P.
Who has failed to pay when due all applicable taxes imposed by the City of San José.
(Ords. 22459, 28682, 29707.)
6.64.510 - Action by chief of police.
A.
Except as otherwise provided herein, within a reasonable time after receipt of the application,
the chief of police shall issue a taxicab driver's permit to the applicant, if the chief determines
that there is no ground for denial of the permit.
B.
The chief of police may impose such terms, conditions or restrictions on the permit as the
chief deems necessary.
C.
The duration of the permit issued pursuant to this chapter shall be for twenty-four months
from the date of the application.
(Ords. 22459, 28682, 29707.)
6.64.520 - Temporary permit.
A.
The chief of police may issue a temporary taxicab driver's permit to the applicant who has
applied for a taxicab driver's permit pursuant to this chapter, if the chief has not completed all
necessary investigation of the applicant and the application, but has no reason to believe that
any ground exists for denial of the permit.
B.
The temporary taxicab driver's permit shall be for a period of six months or less, and shall
automatically expire upon the actual issuance or denial of the taxicab driver's permit.
(Ords. 22459, 28682, 29707.)
6.64.530 - Appeal.
A.
The decision of the chief of police to deny an application for a taxicab driver's permit may be
appealed to the board.
B.
The procedures for the appeal and the requirements of notice and hearing are set forth in
Part 8 of this chapter.
(Ords. 22459, 28682, 29707.)
6.64.540 - Information on permit.
Each taxicab driver's permit shall be numbered and signed by the chief of police, and shall contain
the following information:
A.
The date of expiration of permit;
B.
The driver's name and driver's license number;
C.
A description of the driver, including date of birth, sex, height, weight, color of eyes, and
color of hair;
D.
The name of the owner by whom the driver is employed or engaged under contract; and
E.
Other information as may be deemed necessary by the chief of police.
(Ords. 22459, 29707.)
6.64.550 - Termination of employment or contract.
A.
Within twenty-four hours after termination of a taxicab driver's employment or contract with
the owner who endorsed the permit application as required by Section 6.64.460 B.6., either
the owner or the taxicab driver shall notify the chief of police in writing of such termination.
The written notification of termination shall be accompanied by the surrender of any taxicab
driver's permit in the owner's or taxicab driver's possession. If said permit is unavailable, the
owner or the taxicab driver shall state on the notification of termination the unavailability of
the permit and the reasons therefor.
B.
The taxicab driver's permit shall automatically expire upon receipt by the chief of police of the
written notice of termination of the taxicab driver's employment or contract with the owner
who endorsed the permit application.
(Ords. 22459, 28682, 29707.)
6.64.560 - Reissuance of permit.
A.
The chief of police may approve reissuance of a taxicab driver's permit to an applicant
without requiring the applicant's photographs and fingerprints, and the permit fee, if an
application endorsed by another owner is filed within six months after the applicant's prior
employment or contract with a taxicab business as a driver was terminated and the prior
permit would not have expired during that six-month period.
B.
This section does not apply to an applicant whose employment or contract with a taxicab
business as a driver was terminated for reasons which constituted any of the grounds for
denial, suspension or revocation of a taxicab driver's permit.
(Ords. 22459, 28682, 29707.)
6.64.570 - Issuance prior to amendment.
All taxicab driver's permits issued prior to the effective date of this amendment to this chapter shall
be deemed issued pursuant to this chapter as amended, and shall in all respects be subject to the
provisions of this chapter as amended.
(Ords. 22459, 29707.)
6.64.580 - Driver's appearance.
The taxicab drivers shall be clean and neat in appearance, and shall wear shoes at all times while
on duty. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude an owner from establishing a dress code or similar
rules to regulate the appearance of all drivers.
(Ords. 22459, 29707.)
6.64.590 - Daily report to owner.
For purposes of Section 6.64.420 of this chapter regarding the owner's duty to maintain records,
for each day the driver is on duty, each driver shall submit a daily report to the owner setting forth
the hours during each day that the driver was on duty, the starting and destination points of each
trip, and the fares/rates collected for each trip.
(Ords. 22459, 29707.)
Part 7 - SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION
6.64.600 - Suspension or revocation of taxicab license.
The chief of police, or the board on appeal, shall have the power to suspend or revoke a taxicab
license issued under this chapter, on any of the grounds stated in Section 6.02.130 of this Code,
or on any of the following grounds:
A.
The violation by the owner of any of the terms, conditions or requirements of the taxicab
license, or of this chapter.
B.
Any act or omission of the owner of any fact or condition which, if it existed at the time the
application for a taxicab license was filed, would have warranted the denial of the
application.
C.
Cancellation or suspension of any insurance policy or coverage required of the owner
by Section 6.64.450 of this chapter.
D.
Failure of the owner to pay any judgment against the owner for personal injury or death, or
property damage arising out of the conduct of business under the taxicab license issued
pursuant to this chapter, within thirty days after the judgment has become final.
E.
Voluntary written request by the owner to suspend the taxicab license for a definite period of
time.
F.
Overcharge of, or the attempt to overcharge, taxicab fares by the owner, as prohibited
by Section 6.64.320 of this chapter.
G.
Failure of the owner to pay when due any applicable taxes imposed by the City of San José.
(Ords. 19311, 22459, 28682.)
6.64.610 - Suspension or revocation of taxicab driver's permit.
The chief of police, or the board on appeal, shall have the power to suspend or revoke a taxicab
driver's permit issued under this chapter, on any of the grounds stated in Section 6.02.130 of this
Code, or on any of the following grounds:
A.
Suspension, revocation, or expiration of the driver's privilege granted by the department of
motor vehicles of the State of California to operate a motor vehicle on the public
highways of the State of California.
B.
The violation of the driver of any of the terms, conditions or requirements of the taxicab
driver's permit, or of this chapter.
C.
Any act or omission of the driver or any fact or condition which, if it existed at the time the
application for a taxicab driver's permit was filed, would have warranted the denial of the
application.
D.
Failure of the driver to pay any judgment against the driver for personal injury or death, or
property damage arising out of the driver's operation of a public transportation vehicle,
within thirty days after the judgment has become final.
E.
The driver consumed drugs or alcohol or is under the influence of drugs or alcohol while on
duty, or is convicted of a crime relating to drugs or alcohol.
F.
Overcharge of, or the attempt to overcharge, taxicab fares by the driver, as prohibited
by Section 6.64.320 of this chapter.
G.
Failure of the driver to pay when due any applicable taxes imposed by the City of San José.
(Ords. 22459, 28682.)
6.64.620 - Notice and hearing.
A.
Except as provided in Section 6.64.630 of this chapter, a taxicab license or a taxicab driver's
permit issued pursuant to this chapter shall be revoked or suspended only after the owner or
driver has been given reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard under the procedures
set forth in Sections 6.02.200 and 6.02.210 of Chapter 6.02.
B.
Within a reasonable time after the close of the hearing, the chief of police shall render a
decision setting forth the findings and reasons therefor.
C.
The decision of the chief of police shall be mailed to the owner or driver, at the address
shown on the application, in the manner provided for in Section 6.64.030 of this chapter.
(Ords. 22459, 29230.)
6.64.630 - Emergency suspension.
A taxicab license or a taxicab driver's permit may be summarily suspended under the procedures
set forth in Part 1.5 ofChapter 6.02.
(Ords. 22459, 29230.)
6.64.640 - Appeal.
A.
The decision of the chief of police to suspend or revoke a taxicab license or taxicab driver's
permit may be appealed to the board.
B.
The procedures for the appeal and the requirements of notice and hearing are set forth in
Part 8 of this chapter.
C.
The suspension or revocation of a taxicab license or taxicab driver's permit shall remain in
effect pending the appeal.
(Ords. 22459, 28682.)
Part 8 - APPEAL TO THE BOARD
6.64.650 - Notice, hearing and decision.
A.
Any action taken by the chief of police under this chapter may be appealed to the board by
filing, with the chief of police, a written notice of appeal within ten days after a copy of the
decision of the chief of police has been placed in the mail to the applicant, owner or driver.
B.
When such notice of appeal has been accepted by the chief of police:
1.
The chief shall, subject to the rules of the board, set a date for a hearing which shall be
held by the board. Said date of hearing shall be not less than ten days nor more than
sixty days after the date such notice of appeal was received by the chief.
2.
The chief shall provide a report and recommendation to the board. In addition thereto,
the chief shall file with the board at its hearing all relevant papers, documents and
exhibits which are part of the file.
3.
The board shall hear the matter de novo. Within a reasonable time after the board has
concluded its hearing, it shall, by resolution, set forth its findings and decision on the
matter. The decision of the board shall be final.
C.
The decision of the board shall be mailed to the applicant, owner or driver, at the address
shown on the application or the notice of appeal in the manner provided for in Section
6.64.030 of this chapter.
(Ords. 22459, 28682.)
Part 9 - LIMOUSINES
6.64.660 - Application.
This part applies only to a limousine business which provides transportation service within the city
limits of the City of San José, and which does not hold a certificate or permit issued by the
California Public Utilities Commission pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 8, Division 2 of the
California Public Utilities Code.
(Ord. 22459.)
6.64.670 - Taxicab provisions applicable.
Except as specifically provided in this part, each and every section of Parts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of
this chapter shall apply to the operation of limousine service regulated by this part, and whenever
the word "taxicab" is therein used, it shall for the purposes of this part mean "limousine."
(Ords. 19311, 22459.)
6.64.680 - Limousine license.
No owner of a limousine business shall operate or permit the operation of a limousine on the
streets of the City of San José without having obtained a limousine license, issued pursuant to the
provisions of Part 4 and Part 5 of this chapter, from the chief of police.
(Prior code § 6475, 6.64.700; Ords. 19311, 22459.)
6.64.690 - Low-cost transportation service.
A.
The chief of police may issue a limousine license to an owner who proposes to provide low-
cost transportation service to the elderly or handicapped. The license may be issued to the
owner regardless of whether all of the vehicles used in providing the service are registered in
the owner's name as required under Section 6.64.160 M. of this chapter, as long as the
following conditions are met:
1.
The vehicles which are not registered in the owner's name are either leased to the
owner by a federal, state or local government agency, or are used by the owner with the
written authorization of the government agency; and
2.
Evidence of such lease or other written authorization of the government agency
satisfactory to the chief of police is submitted with the application for a limousine license.
B.
The permission to operate any vehicle under the limousine license issued pursuant to this
section shall cease automatically upon the termination of the owner's lease or written
authorization of the government agency. The owner shall notify the chief of police in writing of
any termination of such lease or written authorization at least three days prior to the date of
termination.
(Ord. 22459.)
6.64.700 - Limousine driver's permit.
No person shall operate a limousine on the streets of the City of San José without having obtained
a limousine driver's permit, issued pursuant to the provisions of Part 6 of this chapter, from the
chief of police.
(Ord. 22459.)
6.64.710 - Fares.
A.
No owner of a limousine business shall operate or permit the operation of a limousine without
having filed a schedule of fares to be charged for the use of the limousine service with the
city clerk. The owner shall notify the city clerk immediately of any change in said schedule of
fares.
B.
No owner or driver shall charge or receive any fare for the use of a limousine other than that
in the schedule of fares on file with the city clerk.
C.
Such schedule of fares is required to be posted inside of a limousine.
(Prior code § 6476, 6.64.750; Ords. 19311, 22459.)
6.64.720 - Quotation of fares.
No owner or driver shall permit a limousine to be hired without first quoting to the prospective
passenger the specific charge for the use of the limousine per trip, per hour, per mile, or on some
other basis in accordance with the schedule of fares filed with the city clerk.
(Prior code § 6477, 6.64.760; Ords. 19311, 22459.)
6.64.730 - Minimum number of limousines.
The minimum number of limousines required for the issuance of a limousine license shall be one
(Ords. 19311, 22459.)
6.64.740 - Minimum operation.
Except as otherwise required by the chief of police, the owner of a limousine business may provide
different minimum operation periods and dispatching procedures than those required of taxicabs
(Ord. 22459.)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8673)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/12/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 2018 City Council Priorities
Title: Discussion and Recommendations for 2018 City Council Priority Setting
Process
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Policy and Services Committee to discuss and consider making recommendations to the
City Council, in January, on the annual Council retreat and priorities setting process.
Background
Attached to this report is the 2012 Council approved Priority Setting Guidelines
(Attachment A). Per the 2012 Council approved guidelines; a priority is defined as a
topic that will receive particular, unusual and significant attention during the year.
Additionally, there is a goal of no more than three priorities per year and they generally
have a three year time limit. The process outlined in Attachment A was established by
Council several years ago, including the role for the P&S Committee.
The 2017 priorities are:
* Transportation
* Infrastructure
* Health City, Healthy Community
* Budget and Finance
* Housing
Discussion
On November 20, 2017, City manager Jim Keene emailed the Council asking all
members to forward their ideas for 2018 priorities by Tuesday 12/5, 5pm. In addition
each year staff invites online suggestions from the public for their feedback. On
November 8, 2017, the City posted the question, “What are the priorities you would like
to see the City Council adopt for 2018?” to its Open City Hall online civic engagement
site to solicit input and feedback from the community. As of November 28, 2017 more
City of Palo Alto Page 2
than 250 individuals had visited the topic with 180 posting responses. Attachment B is
the detailed responses from Open City Hall. The community is still able to provide
feedback on Open City Hall through December and most of January as we approach the
Council Retreat. Airplane noise, traffic an housing are themes in the feedback received
thus far.
At the retreat itself we also invite citizens to attend and express their views in person.
The purpose of this solicitation is to help inform the Council on priorities for the
upcoming year.
The Council preliminary priority suggestions will help organize ideas into groupings in
advance of the retreat so staff and Council can prepare for a productive retreat.
Council members are free to modify choices at the Committee meeting, Council meeting
or retreat.
As we consider priorities for 2018 it will be important be reminded of the significant
focus and attention still needed on four of the existing priorities. Regarding
Transportation, alternatives for grade separation remains an open and critical question,
regarding Infrastructure we have a very ambitious capital plan that is not fully funded
and prioritization will be needed, regarding Budget and Finance we need to stay the
course to first understand and then address the unfunded liability, and finally on
Housing, as a community we need to come together on a path forward for near term
and long term actions to address the housing crisis.
At the 12/12/17 Policy and Services Meeting, City Manager Jim Keene will attend and
share his suggestions with the Policy and Services Committee. This staff report will be
published on 11/30/17, in advance of receiving Council feedback and further public
input; consequently, staff will prepare an At Places memorandum for the meeting.
The Committee's discussion and any recommendations from the 12/12/17 Policy and
Services meeting will be advanced to City Council in January prior the retreat.
Timeline
The Committee may make recommendations regarding the priorities and also
recommendations to staff regarding the retreat format and process for selecting a
facilitator.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Priority Setting Guidelines
Attachment B - Open City Hall Comments
City of Palo Alto
City Council Priority Setting Guidelines
Approved by City Council: October 1, 2012
Last revised: October 1, 2012
Background
The City Council adopted its first Council priorities in 1986. Each year the City Council reviews
it’s priorities at its Annual Council Retreat. On October 1, 2012 the City Council formally
adopted the definition of a council priority, and the Council’s process and guidelines for
selection of priorities.
Definition
A Council priority is defined as a topic that will receive particular, unusual and significant
attention during the year.
Purpose
The establishment of Council priorities will assist the Council and staff to better allot and utilize
time for discussion and decision making.
Process
1. Three months in advance of the annual Council Retreat, staff will solicit input from the City
Council on the priorities to be reviewed and considered for the following year.
a. Council members may submit up to three priorities.
b. Priorities should be submitted no later than December 1.
c. As applicable, the City Manager will contact newly elected officials for their input by
December 1.
d. The City Clerk will provide timely notice to the public to submit proposed priorities by
December 1. The Policy and Services Committee shall recommend to the Council
which suggestions if any shall be considered at the City Council retreat.
2. Staff will collect and organize the recommended priorities into a list for Council
consideration, and provide to Council no less than two weeks in advance of the retreat.
3. The Policy and Services Committee, each year at its December meeting, shall make
recommendations about the process that will be used at the Annual Retreat paying
particular attention to the number of priorities suggested by Council members. The
recommended process is to be forwarded to Council for adoption in advance of the Council
retreat.
Guidelines for Selection of Priorities
1. There is a goal of no more than three priorities per year.
2. Priorities generally have a three year time limit.
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
City Council Priority Setting Schedule
Last Updated: 8/17/2012
Attachment A
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM
Open City Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is
voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of
any government agency or elected officials.
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM, this forum had:
Attendees:263
All Statements:180
Hours of Public Comment:9.0
This topic started on November 9, 2017, 3:44 PM.
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 2 of 34
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered)November 27, 2017, 12:20 PM
Jet noise relief is a very, very high priority.
Parking downtown is almost impossible. Whenever possible I walk, but what about when the time comes that I
can't walk?
Parking in Crescent Park has made traffic dangerous. Visibility is greatly compromised at each corner and
whenever exiting one's driveway. Pedestrians must be extra careful at every corner.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 27, 2017, 12:08 PM
jet noise relief
101 bicycle bridge
no stoplight at Charleston and Louis
electrification and grade separation
Name not available (unclaimed)November 27, 2017, 10:21 AM
Jet Noise Relief
Name not shown in Greenmeadow (registered)November 27, 2017, 9:41 AM
Please make jet noise abatement a high priority as it negatively impacts our quality of life each and every day.
My hope is that the city council and staff will become even more active it bringing relief to Palo Alto.
Name not shown in Evergreen Park (registered)November 27, 2017, 8:23 AM
Jet noise relief
Ray Dempsey in Professorville (unverified)November 27, 2017, 7:17 AM
Ah, if only our tree-shaded street really looked like that street in your introductory page. Priority? Continue to
make residential areas more resident-friendly for residents.
Ray Dempsey
Professorville
Name not shown in Community Center (registered)November 27, 2017, 4:46 AM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 3 of 34
Something needs to be done about Jet Noise in Palo Alto. It greatly impacts our sleep but also our air quality.
We hear a lot about committee meetings, concerned representatives, etc. but the problem is not being solved
or even reduced.
Name not shown in Palo Verde (registered)November 26, 2017, 8:15 PM
It is time for the companies who call Palo Alto home to be responsible for housing for their employees. Palo Alto
itself should not strain its resources & its present community to do so. Instead, we should focus on maintaining
the quality of our community for our present residents -- reducing jet noise and sustaining the things which
make our community unique.
Sylvia Gartner in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 26, 2017, 8:03 PM
Something needs to happen about the proliferation of basements. My 1950's house has sustained
considerable damage from five basements being dug in a three block area. Dead bolts don't enter the existing
hole and must be re-done. I have many cracks in the walls. A tree in the front yard is now quite unhealthy. The
toilet in my only bathroom won't maintain a seal because the house is now sloping. I had none of these
problems for 30 years living here. It doesn't seem fair to me that people can buy up a small house and then
maximize their investment by scraping it and then building a huge house with a full basement.
Robert Finn in Old Palo Alto (registered)November 26, 2017, 4:38 PM
JET NOISE RELIEF is our most immediate concern.
Prior to NextGen, the landing system at SFO worked superbly, nobody we know here was bothered by noise,
nor did we see any predictions of overstrain of the system. NextGen brought with it a SUDDEN jump in noise
disturbance. Why is a return to the previous system not being discussed?
Ursula Schulte, Robert Finn
Name not shown in Barron Park (registered)November 26, 2017, 12:54 PM
Jet noise relief!!!
Name not shown in Greenmeadow (registered)November 25, 2017, 11:42 PM
1. Address unfunded pension liabilities
2. Significantly reduce airplane noise
3. Stop all development except BMR housing and Stanford.
4. Find a way to develop 1000+ units of BMR housing, with priority for city workers and school staff
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 4 of 34
5. Encourage Palantir and other large companies to move out -- Palo Alto cannot support so many jobs. We
must focus on housing city and school workers, and supporting Stanford's growth. We have to stop being
everything to everyone.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 25, 2017, 6:43 PM
Jet noise relief
Name not shown in Green Acres (registered)November 25, 2017, 9:17 AM
Jet Noise Relief for PALO AIRPLANE NOISE CITY !!
City of Palo Alto needs to take this problem more serious and make it a top priority for 2018!
Name not shown outside Palo Alto (registered)November 24, 2017, 5:44 PM
I am very grateful to Mayor Hendricks for stepping up to chair the ad hoc committee on jet noise relief. I wish
him much success because this is a very important issue for those of us living under the flight path.
Byron Bland in Ventura (registered)November 24, 2017, 5:43 PM
Reduce jet noise
Name not shown in Community Center (registered)November 24, 2017, 11:35 AM
Jet noise relief
Name not available (unclaimed)November 24, 2017, 11:21 AM
Jet noise relief.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 24, 2017, 8:20 AM
City Council Priorities for 2018:
Transportation congestion issues
Equable distribution of funds for improvements to all neighborhoods
Name not available (unclaimed)November 24, 2017, 12:13 AM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 5 of 34
Jet noise relief
Name not shown in Community Center (registered)November 23, 2017, 8:26 PM
I would like to see a limit on the number of "scrapes" allowed in Palo Alto, meaning destruction of the former
house and building a brand new larger house. I would also like to see a complete moratorium on basements
being built. I live on a block where a house drained 22 million gallons of water, during the drought, so they
could have "adequate" space for 4 people to live in a mansion. I think this is reprehensible and environmentally
irresponsible. I would also like to see more affordable housing developed, instead of mansions for the uber
rich.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 23, 2017, 6:16 PM
Jet noise relief
Name not available (unclaimed)November 23, 2017, 2:11 PM
Railroad grade crossing separation
reduce jet noise
Peter Brende in Charleston Meadows (registered)November 23, 2017, 10:38 AM
Reduce jet noise
Aude Ismael in Crescent Park (registered)November 23, 2017, 10:05 AM
Please prioritize a program to reduce jet noise.
Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered)November 23, 2017, 8:42 AM
I have lived in Palo Alto my entire life (54 years). It saddens me every time I get in my car to go anywhere!!
The amount of traffic and building has ruined the "community" feeling of Palo Alto. Bigger does not mean
better!!! The top priority for the city should be maintaining the integrity of our wonderful city by not continually
growing. At some point, there is just not enough space left.
Also, as a long time lap swimmer, please do not give control over to a private company!! This is another
example of bigger does not mean better!! The pool should be enjoyed by all, and control should stay in the
hands of the city.
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 6 of 34
As a parent of a high school student, the city should also focus on the mental well being of our students. Why
is there so much pressure on our kids? The focus should not be over achieving, but enjoying learning!!!
Thank you for your time....
Marilyn Bauriedel in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 22, 2017, 10:39 PM
I would like Council to put jet noise relief on its list of priorities for the coming year.
Ronald Dotson in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered)November 22, 2017, 8:40 PM
We need jet noise relief . We need traffic relief from increasing numbers of vehicles cutting through
neighborhoods. We need better solutions to slowing speeders and stop sign runners.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 8:31 PM
JERT NOISE RELIEF! Please!!!
Ian Mallace in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 22, 2017, 8:16 PM
Jet Noise Relief. Thank you for making this a priority in 2018.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 8:11 PM
please stop all the high-density housing and business development. The traffic is bad and Palo Alto is
becoming a very unpleasant place to live
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 7:35 PM
Jet noise relief !!!!!!!
It is ALL night over our house. Low. Vibrates. ALL day over our house. Low. Vibrates.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 7:07 PM
Jet noise relief.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 6:58 PM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 7 of 34
Jet Noise Relief
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 6:56 PM
Relief from noise of arriving jets 24-7!
Robert Tobin in Research Park (registered)November 22, 2017, 5:39 PM
City Priority #1: Jet Noise Relief - Get significantly more aggressive in increasing pressure for action by the
FAA!! Not a single flight has changed altitude or route!!
City Priority #2: Underground The Train - Figure out how to do it and fund it. Stop studying whether to do it.
City Priority #3: Aging Infrastructure
City Priority #4: Everything Else
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 5:22 PM
Jet noise relief
john kunz in Leland Manor/ Garland (registered)November 22, 2017, 5:06 PM
Jet noise is appalling.
Jay Whaley in Crescent Park (registered)November 22, 2017, 4:50 PM
1. Automobile transportation. The gridlock, occurring at the University Ave entrance to 101 on most afternoons,
causes grave safety concerns because of inaccessibility to firetruck and ambulance access. The resulting
expanding back up in adjoining streets degrades quality of life, as well as air safety. Immediate police and traffic
management is required, while designing longer term solutions to the reduction in the number of single
occupancy automobiles at certain times of day.
2. Jet Noise Relief! Continuing and increasing efforts from the City of Palo Alto are needed to correct the sound
and air pollution impacts of the "NextGen" F.A.A. program that placed landing SFO aircraft in a narrow corridor
over many of our neighborhoods.
Jonathan Heiliger in Evergreen Park (registered)November 22, 2017, 3:58 PM
Please prioritize a program to reduce jet noise
Name not shown in Community Center (registered)November 22, 2017, 3:19 PM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 8 of 34
1) Aircraft noise deduction
2) City needs to get its finances in order - unfunded pension liabilities will sink the city if a plan is not made and
adhered to
3) Get the RVs and street campers off Palo Alto streets
Name not shown in Community Center (registered)November 22, 2017, 2:44 PM
Jet noise relief
Keva Dine in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 22, 2017, 2:02 PM
Jet Noise!!!
Evelyn Preston in Greenmeadow (registered)November 22, 2017, 1:36 PM
JET NOISE RELIEF NOW!! Planes from 2 commercial airports (SJ, SFO), San Carlos commuters and Palo Alto
private aircraft all fly too often, too low, too loud with too many flights night and day. Quality of life and the
general environment are all degraded. This invasion of privacy and upheaval for many neighborhoods are for
mostly commercial enterprises that literally steal the peace and quiet of the entire area without residents' input
or remuneration.
Why our city councils, county supervisors and other legislators have allowed this to continue without a huge
outcry and greater resolve questions their resolve to truly workfor and reflect the needs of their constituents.
This CONSTANT NOISE is unacceptable! While I thank efforts to date, it is obviously not nearly enough to
effect any meaningful change.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 12:54 PM
Jet noise relief!!!!
Name not shown in Evergreen Park (registered)November 22, 2017, 12:17 PM
Please keep working on roadways. Also, I think spreading sideways is a waste of space, and I'd like tho see
more parking structures which are tall enough to serve us in the future. Please keep the new parking permit
programs. Please keep residential dwellings that are currently single family as single family.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 11:55 AM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 9 of 34
jet noise relief
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 11:45 AM
Jet noise relief
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 11:42 AM
Please do not push the jet noise to in Sunnyvale. There is too much air traffic over Sunnyvale now.
John Hausler
Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 22, 2017, 11:33 AM
Please make jet noise relief the top priority for 2018.
Aoife Maynard in Old Palo Alto (registered)November 22, 2017, 11:13 AM
Jet noise relief: fly over bay
JET NOISE RELIEF PLEASE!!!!!!
Jet noise relief: fly over bay
JET NOISE RELIEF PLEASE!!!!!!
Jet noise relief: fly over bay
JET NOISE RELIEF PLEASE!!!!!!
Kathleen Davis in Crescent Park (unverified)November 22, 2017, 11:05 AM
Traffic on University Ave:
Traffic is very heavy from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The only way we can get into our driveway is to come in from
Hamilton Ave to Lincoln Ave. if coming from downtown or if coming from Town and Country, to University Ave.,
to go down Lincoln Ave to University and take a left into our driveway. (Even then, there's often a backup of
cars and a narrow passage due to parked cars on either side of Lincoln as one approches University Ave.
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 10 of 34
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 10:42 AM
Jet noise relief.
16 to 18 hours per day, 7 days a week of constant noise and pollution with flights directly over my house is a
serious issue.
Please do your jobs and be much more proactive in restoring the old quality of life
that once made Palo Alto such a special place. WE Need Your Help To Reduce Jet Noise and Pollution.. Thank
You.
Nick Peterson in Downtown North (registered)November 22, 2017, 10:28 AM
JET NOISE RELIEF!!!!!!!
Improved pedestrian safety through intersection upgrades in Downtown North (e.g., flags, flashing lights on
signs or intersections) especially on Bryant St and Alma @ Everett.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 10:07 AM
Make jet noise a priority for Palo Alto.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 9:17 AM
Jet noise relief now!
Name not shown in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered)November 22, 2017, 8:35 AM
Cap all expansive development
Traffic
Jet noise relief
Kevin Ohlson in Old Palo Alto (registered)November 22, 2017, 8:34 AM
jet noise relief
Unmesh Vartak in Palo Verde (registered)November 22, 2017, 7:36 AM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 11 of 34
The top priority for the council should be to treat entire city as your family. At every decision consider the effect
of your decision on other family members.
For example- Ross rd project may have been justified and supported by Ross Rd residents and I do sympathize
with their traffic concerns. However it is not fair for residents on parallel streets like Louis Rd to live with extra
traffic because of narrowing of Ross road and just because Louis Rd residents did not participate in planning
for Ross rd changes.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 7:36 AM
Jet Noise Relief
Lissy Bland in Ventura (registered)November 22, 2017, 7:27 AM
1. Jet noise relief
Name not shown in Old Palo Alto (registered)November 22, 2017, 7:17 AM
There's been explosive growth in noise and traffic since I moved to Palo Alto 40 years ago. Our quality of life is
deteriorating rapidly.
More specifically, we need:
Jet noise relief
Train horn relief at crossings
Traffic relief - protect residential neighborhoods from cut-through traffic
On-street parking relief - create more RPPs
Better traffic signals at Embarcadero and El Camino - eliminate cross walk signal at Town & Country and build
overpass or underpass for students and pedestrians crossing Embarcadero from Palo Alto High School
Improve bike lane crossing from Stanford at Galvez across El Camino to Embaradero - very dangerous
intersection for bicyclists!
Like the bullet train idea but very worried about future bullet train noise and impact
Roy Moss in Palo Verde (registered)November 22, 2017, 6:52 AM
Jet noise relief
marty klein in Palo Verde (registered)November 22, 2017, 2:04 AM
1. jet noise relief.
2. STOP narrowing streets and slowing down traffic. we DON'T have a problem with unsafe streets.
Cliff Mercer in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 22, 2017, 1:13 AM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 12 of 34
Jet noise relief
The noise pollution of frequent, low-flying jets over Palo Alto and directly over my home in particular has
become a significant nuisance in the last couple of years. I understand that the FAA changed many flight paths
in recent years to optimize for things other than quality of life for residents in high density areas near major
airports. That was a mistake that must be corrected.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 22, 2017, 12:42 AM
Keep working on increasing housing supply at different price points, and adding more usable public
transportation, and continue making biking even safer and easier, especially for kids biking to school.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 11:56 PM
Jet noise relief!!!
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 11:23 PM
Jet noise relief
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 11:00 PM
Top priority: Jet Noise Relief
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 10:44 PM
Jet noise relief
Katherine Wurzburg outside Palo Alto (registered)November 21, 2017, 10:32 PM
Jet noise relief, please!
Beverly Brockway in Crescent Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 10:23 PM
Stop Jet Noise. It is unacceptable both at night and during the day. The gridlock at times makes it impossible to
drive out of our driveway on Hamilton. Parking and traffic issues must be addressed before more buildings are
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 13 of 34
built and streets narrowed.
Kerry Yarkin in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 21, 2017, 10:06 PM
Jet noise relief
Our family’s quality of life Is going downhill rapidly due to the hundreds of planes over our home daily. I can’t
walk to the park, Garden, sit in my backyard, barbecue outside because of constant airplane noise. As a City,
boycott United and Southwest Airlines so they know we are taking a stand where it will actually get them to do
something. The FAA will take another 5 or more years, and may do little or nothing to equitably distribute the
noise pollution! Help!!!!!
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 10:00 PM
Jet noise relief
Jerry Chu in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered)November 21, 2017, 9:55 PM
Airplane noise! The airplane noise in the past two years has gotten ridiculous, sometimes non-stop for an hour
or more as if we lived right next to a runaway! There have been a lot of discussions, protests etc but they all
seem to fall on deaf ears. Is there anything else the city can do, or FAA is keen on screwing those unlucky ones
who happen to live under the fly paths they choose? Why can the flight routes be spread out?
DANIEL TUERK in Leland Manor/ Garland (registered)November 21, 2017, 9:52 PM
Palo Alto needs Jet Noise Relief. There are times when it sounds like we are living adjacent to an air show.
Jennifer Landesmann in Crescent Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 9:49 PM
Jet Noise Relief!
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 9:45 PM
jet noise relief
Name not shown in Barron Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 9:42 PM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 14 of 34
Over a hundred small cell phone towers are currently being planned for installation in residential neighborhoods
in Palo Alto. New ordinances can be created to keep cell towers out - other cities in the Bay Area have achieved
this - we can too. Please make this a priority!!
Allen Fitzpatrick in Evergreen Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 9:12 PM
Jet noise needs to be reduced over Palo Alto. Over the past 2 years it has become progressively worse.
The noise is continuous at all hours of the day.
Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 21, 2017, 9:08 PM
Jet noise relief!
And relief from airplane noise from Palo Alto airport.
Name not shown outside Palo Alto (registered)November 21, 2017, 9:04 PM
1.) Jet noise relief
2.) Jet noise relief
3.) Jet noise relief
The new NEXTGEN flight path brings jets overhead continually throughout the day and night at low altitudes
with speed brakes on. Our enjoyment of our home and quality of life has been severely degraded. Constant jet
noise and exhaust particulate exposures are well-documented hazards to human health. Everyday 24/7/365,
more than 300 jets and turboprop planes fly low and loud over Palo Alto on approach to and departure from
SFO, SQL, OAK and SJC. Other nearby communities suffer far lower exposure and risks to health. This is a
burden all communities must share equally.
Jeff Keller in Leland Manor/ Garland (registered)November 21, 2017, 8:52 PM
jet noise relief
Dan Mahoney in Old Palo Alto (registered)November 21, 2017, 8:51 PM
Jet noise relief
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 8:46 PM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 15 of 34
We need a good deal more housing, particularly housing near Caltrain stations. It’s sad to see great people,
including those who provide vital services, move away due to dramatically increasing costs.
As part of the transportation plan, bicycling and safe bicycle routes should be emphasized. I have two young
children whom I take to school in a cargo bike, cutting down on car use. If I can do it (and enjoy it), I suspect
that so can many others if they can do so safely.
Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 8:43 PM
Proposed Priority: Street Safety and Parking -"Take back Palo Alto Streets!"
Palo Alto streets are beautiful PUBLIC areas yet we allow them to be crowded with parked cars causing safety
risks for people riding bicycles, impeding smooth flow of traffic and turning PUBLIC areas into PRIVATE parking
places.
Palo Alto City Council should prioritize taking back our streets with five measures:
1) Survey Palo Alto streets and reduce from 2-side to 1-side parking for streets that can not safety
accommodate two side parking & smooth 2-way traffic including bicycles.
2) Add 100 miles of bike lanes so our community can enjoy the Palo Alto street scape safely without being
squeezed between parked cars and moving traffic.
3) Provide signage and enforcement prohibiting parking from 1AM to 6AM on all Palo Alto streets without
resident permit.
4) Implement yearly street parking permit fee and cap number of parking permits issued.
5) Increase parking meters to cover entire downtown.
Palo Alto street are our PUBLIC property. We need to take them back for the public and share the value.
Susan Thomsen in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered)November 21, 2017, 8:11 PM
Jet noise relief!!!
Name not shown in Greenmeadow (registered)November 21, 2017, 7:54 PM
Please address the problem of jet noise over Palo Alto - a major decrease in quality of life.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 7:41 PM
Jet noise relief.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 7:35 PM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 16 of 34
Make Jet Noise Relief a priority. Second -- work with Bay Area neighbors to simply public transportation -- both
ticketing and routes, in order to make it easier for people to commute on public transportation. We should be
ashamed of how poor our public transportation is, yet all I hear is complaints about parking and traffic. It's time
to work together on new systems -- we must invest in a future that works -- not more bandaids.
Name not shown in Barron Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 7:15 PM
I live in Barron Park. The constant noise from airplanes approaching SFO is unbearable.
Relief from airplane noise should be one of the Council's topmost priorities.
We cannot be a healthy community so long as the skies above us are a threat to our health and welfare.
Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 21, 2017, 7:13 PM
Please make JET NOISE REDUCTION a priority for 2018. Thank you.
Name not shown outside Palo Alto (registered)November 21, 2017, 7:12 PM
Jet noise relief
Patricia Jones in Crescent Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 7:02 PM
Absolutely top priority needs to be addressing traffic congestion and gridlock in the Crescent Park/Hwy 101
area and potentially other areas. Safety is the issue here. When traffic gridlocks, as it is doing more and more
frequently, no emergency vehicles can get through to address problems such as fire, accidents, health
emergencies, etc. It recently took my neighbor an hour to drive 3 blocks during rush hour. It is only a matter of
time before there will be a real disaster.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 7:02 PM
Jet noise relief.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 6:58 PM
Top three priorities.
1. Traffic and parking relief in neighborhoods
2. Relief from congestion from large numbers of employees pouring into Palo Alto with inadequate parking and
non-auto, TIMELY access to and from Palo Alto
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 17 of 34
3. Jet Noise Relief
Arnaud Venet in Old Palo Alto (registered)November 21, 2017, 6:25 PM
Please make jet noise relief a priority.
Gregory Turnbull in Leland Manor/ Garland (registered)November 21, 2017, 6:24 PM
Make jet noise relief a very high priority!
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 6:21 PM
Jet noise!!
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 6:20 PM
jet noise and traffic relief are my most pressing concerns
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 6:15 PM
Jet noise relief
Jeff Rosner in College Terrace (registered)November 21, 2017, 6:13 PM
1. JET NOISE RELIEF
2. A REAL PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PROACTIVE
Name not shown in Palo Verde (registered)November 21, 2017, 6:09 PM
I have been saying "jet noise relief" for the past 2 years, and here we are again. No improvement in sight!
Jet noise, jet noise, jet nose relief ! damn it!
judy frost in Old Palo Alto (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:59 PM
Jet noise relief...PLEASE!
Karen Edwards in Crescent Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:55 PM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 18 of 34
Please make jet noise a priority. Also the gridlock on university avenue.
lois shore in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:50 PM
Jet Noise Relief
Nicholas Briggs in Barron Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:49 PM
Jet noise relief
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 5:43 PM
jet noise relief
Name not shown in College Terrace (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:43 PM
jet noise relief
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 5:39 PM
Jet noise relief
Name not shown in Green Acres (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:39 PM
Jet noise relief
Sandra Ben-Efraim in Old Palo Alto (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:33 PM
jet noise relief
traffic
infrastructure
Gary Hammer in Crescent Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:33 PM
TWO:
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 19 of 34
o Jet noise relief
o Underground-ing the train tracks (at least ditch, but very preferably, a tunnel). If we can raise money for a
tunnel (hello, 13 local billionaires, per Forbes 3/09/2016), it would be wonderful to convert the existing Alma
Street train right-of-way to a north-south park with bike and walking paths adjacent to Alma Street. Name the
park after the donors -- heck, give them statues, since this would be the most impactful gift to Palo Alto since
Leland Stanford's.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 5:30 PM
Jet Noise Relief
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 5:24 PM
JET NOISE AND AIR POLUTION RELIEF
Name not shown in Barron Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:23 PM
Jet noise relief
alex green in Palo Verde (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:17 PM
Jet noise reduction.
Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:15 PM
Chronic jet noise and exhaust particulate exposures are well-documented hazards to human health. Everyday
24/7/365, more than 300 jets and turboprop planes fly low and loud over Palo Alto on approach to and
departure from SFO, SQL, OAK and SJC. Other neighboring communities suffer far, far lower exposure and
risks to health. For our children’s sake we must act!
Paul Rubinstein in Old Palo Alto (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:12 PM
Jet noise should be a priority.
Ronda Rosner in College Terrace (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:11 PM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 20 of 34
Please prioritize council efforts regarding jet noise relief. After two and 1/2 years, some progress has been
made, but jet noise continues to heavily infringe on sleep and outdoor activities. Since NextGen was
implemented in March 2015, altitudes of passing jets have steadily dropped, with many commercial aircraft
bound for SFO currently flying over our neighborhood below 4,000 feet of altitude and using very noisy braking
maneuvers.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 5:11 PM
Jet Noise Relief. Please. Thanks.
Andy Robin
Walnut Dr.
Palo Alto
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 5:10 PM
Jet noise relief
Name not shown in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:09 PM
Jet noise relief
Michael Fischer in Charleston Terrace (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:05 PM
How much longer do we have to wait for jet noise relief?
Bill Courington in University South (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:04 PM
1. Fiscal strength. City actions should support getting Palo Alto out of its financial hole (unfunded pension
liabilities) and keeping it out.
2. Transportation. City actions should reduce the number of cars on the street in peak hours despite growth in
residential and commercial development.
Name not shown in Research Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:03 PM
The airplane noise over our homes is incessant and needs to be addressed. It is clear that FAA will not act to
mitigate the problem. The city needs to take matters into its own hands and bring court action against the
airlines to abate the noise in our neighborhoods. It is no defense to say FAA mandates it — FAA does not
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 21 of 34
mandate that any of those airlines fly to SFO — they are flying to SFO of their own free will and for their own
profit.
Marcia Sterling in Research Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:02 PM
- Jet noise relief
- Access and parking for Stanford Dish
Fred Krefetz in Downtown North (registered)November 21, 2017, 5:01 PM
Jet noise relief...PLEASE!! The current relentless jet noise is absolutely intolerable and I don’t understand how
this was allowed to happen to our wonderful community. It is destroying the pride and joy I once had living in
Palo Alto. Please, please do everything possible to fix this problem as soon as possible.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 4:56 PM
Please make jet noise relief a priority
Tim Flagg in Crescent Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 4:54 PM
Jet noise relief
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 4:46 PM
Jet noise relief please
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 4:45 PM
Jet Noise Relief - please do everything you can to work with state, local, and federal agencies and elected
officials to reduce the impact of jet noise on our community. I can no longer sleep through the night or enjoy
time inside or outside my house without the continual noise of whining jets going overhead. We need relief!
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 4:43 PM
I would like to see what can be done about the jet traffic. The worsening air traffic has decreased our quality of
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 22 of 34
life due to the noise and pollution.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 4:42 PM
Jet noise relief
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 4:40 PM
Jet noise relief
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 4:39 PM
Jet noise relief.
Name not shown in Fairmeadow (registered)November 21, 2017, 4:31 PM
I think we need to work towards a tunnel solution for Caltrain at Meadow and Charleston and Alma.
Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 4:12 PM
airplane noise
traffic: Please stop selling parking permit to commuters in residential neighborhood.
High taxes
Jo Ann Mandinach in Leland Manor/ Garland (registered)November 21, 2017, 4:04 PM
Please start paying attention to residents' complaints about the non-stop addition of road barriers. giant Botts
dots, bollards, posts,. poles and other expensive, dangerous and irritating "road furniture" that impede through
traffic and make gridlock even worse. More than 100 residents have complained about the Ross Road barriers.
For 3 years people have complained Middlefield traffic is backing up INTO Oregon and we get no response.
Now PA's adding POLES/POSTS at Middlefield intersections at Seale, Tennyson, and now Lowell which will
back traffic into Embarcadero! WHY? This prevents cars from going around me when I'm turning into my
driveway at 1699 Middlefield. Also, the new lane striping eliminating the turn lane from Middlefield to
Embarcadero West now backs up traffic for blocks northbound! WHY? How do we get you to heed our
complaints???
Name not available (unclaimed)November 21, 2017, 2:51 PM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 23 of 34
Airplane noise. It is so loud and frequent that I cannot hear in my own backyard. And nothing is actually being
done about it year after year.
Eric Seedman in Southgate (registered)November 21, 2017, 2:25 PM
Please stop granting permits to build commercial projects that worsen an already horrendous traffic situation.
And do not reward the dishonest folks at Castilleja with permit to enlarge their facility after they have been non-
compliant with the previously agreed upon enrollment guidelines. Address grade crossing issues at CalTrain,
including moving forward with soils studies to determine if undergrounding train is feasible.
Name not shown in Crescent Park (registered)November 21, 2017, 2:18 PM
Priorities for Palo Alto 2018:
1) AIRPLANE NOISE over our homes.....unsafe and unnecessary. For years planes flew higher and over the
Bay. The change has been a disaster to quality of life for many of our residents.
2) TRAFFIC...... as long as the council continues to be pro building without INSISTING on better public
transportation options, there will be NO RELIEF!!! Already, University Avenue is practically at gridlock in the
a.m. and p.m. And all that traffic is funneling into neighborhoods.
Mike Forster in Evergreen Park (registered)November 19, 2017, 7:57 PM
1 Housing - More, including low-cost and for the homeless. All new commercial construction should be 4
stories tall - underground parking, first story retail, second story offices or housing, third and fourth floors
housing. Existing single-story commercial building should be encouraged to rebuild to 4 stories. Housing for
the homeless is tough to do, but one of the richest cities in the world should be able to find ways for every
"resident" to have a roof over his or her head.
2 Retail - "Low-cost retail". Perhaps some of the retail space should be reserved for low-cost retail, like low-
cost housing. It seems that only nail salons, bike shops, gyms, some clothing boutiques, and restaurants can
afford commercial rents on University and California Avenues. Florists, thrift shops / second hand stores,
stationery stores, toy stores, etc. are mostly closing.
3 Transportation - Expand shuttle program to touch more neighborhoods, be more frequent, and make cross-
town travel easier for all of our residents and workday visitors, especially including our senior population.
Perhaps add parking structures along 101 and 280 at Page Mill, with shuttles to work centers, to reduce the
traffic and parking issues in the city.
4 Fiscal Responsibility - Make sure the City of Palo Alto is on a firm financial footing for the next, say, 50 years,
including pension liabilities.
Suzanne Keehn in Barron Park (registered)November 19, 2017, 4:41 PM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 24 of 34
Building office buildings should cease, until the congestion problems are solved, if even possible. From Los
Robles last week, to turn R to get to a train meeting it was a zoo, I waited for 3 lights till I could turn and get into
the L hand turn lane for Charleston, going to Middlefield and the Library. Complete grid lock.
My colleague, another evening, leaving EPA going West had no problems but for the folks leaving MP to I01 it
was total gridlock, moving a few inches at a time. the whole way.
Thinking all this will be resolved in some 'imaginative' way, trains, bikes, etc. Going from here across the Bay or
to 101, going East there is no solution.
We need to be aware of our environment and how the building that is planned by P.A. and Stanford has not
been accounted for, as it says in our Comp Plan's EIR and that of Stanford. At some time we will 'get' that
everyone cannot work and/or live in the same area.
Issues Pollution, air quality, noise, trucks etc. In Europe they do not tear down and rebuild, they refurbish and
modernize the interiors.
If we were not on a narrow Peninsula, and had had the foresight to build underground trains, like London,
Barcelona etc. it might have been possible.
Being on the S.F. Peninsula means for livability, congestion, our environment we cannot keep repeating and
continue with the same mind set that got us here
Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 18, 2017, 7:58 PM
Now that property taxes and mortgage interest cannot be deducted, how will the city ease the tax burden on
residents?
Name not shown in Palo Verde (registered)November 16, 2017, 12:04 PM
Focus on transit, HSR, CALTRAIN, and shuttles for the arteries. We need to be creative and forward thinking.
Parking strategies and relaning are just delaying the hard work.
Jeff Hoel in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 14, 2017, 4:39 PM
Please make Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) a priority for 2018. The City needs to be in control its
telecommunications future, and the best way to do that is to implement citywide municipal FTTP. We need
access not only to symmetric gigabit-per-second speeds today but also to exponentially increasing speeds over
the years ahead, and fiber is the only medium that can support these requirements for the next several
decades. We want features like privacy and net neutrality, and the Trump administration's FCC has taught us
that we'd be fools to hope that the federal government can be counted on to require that all Internet service
providers deliver them.
If we want economic development, let's try supporting it by providing access to world-class broadband, even for
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 25 of 34
home businesses. If we want to cut down on automobile traffic, let's try making telecommuting possible for
more people.
In 2013 and 2014, Council made "Technology and the Connected City" (including both FTTP and, regrettably,
wireless) a priority. But Council was then distracted into "chasing the Google 'unicorn.'" Let's not make that
mistake again. In 2015, Council considered making FTTP (and not wireless) a priority, but City Manager Keene
argued that it wouldn't make any difference to staff whether it was a priority or not; so Council chose not to
make it a priority. Let's not make that mistake again either.
Stephen Rosenblum in Old Palo Alto (registered)November 13, 2017, 4:01 PM
The Council should make it a priority to reduce emissions of global warming gasses from stationary and mobile
sources to zero by 2050.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 13, 2017, 2:50 PM
Take another look at the road diets around town. Middlefield between Menlo Park and University could have
been solved with a less draconian trial. The Transportation department needs to start small and work it's way
up in increments until they come to a workable solution. They use a baseball bat when a fly swatter would work.
Other road diets are just as bad. I also think that the RPPP's should be abolished.
Joel Davidson in Barron Park (registered)November 13, 2017, 2:25 PM
Low cost housing
Rent control: We are forcing middle and lower class tenants out of our city. Shameful.
Traffic is an increasing mess. What took me 5 years ago to go from Barron Park to Downtown or Stanford just
5-7 minutes; now takes me 15 minutes. And that's not just at commute hours.
I do not understand why Palo Alto City Council would forgo the tax benefits for Marijuana. This should be
revisited.
Name not shown in Downtown North (registered)November 13, 2017, 9:48 AM
Palo Alto needs to come up with a comprehensive solution to the lack of housing at decent prices for the large
number of young and professional people. These are the people who will enrich our community, raise a family,
and represent our future. No small solutions. Big solutions such as using a good chunk of Palo Alto’s land which
is “open space” to enable higher density housing such as townhouses. There is no point in keeping more than
half of such land as open space, when the housing need is so great.
Do we want to end up being a sleepy town of old people, because we are pushing everyone else away to other
cities due to our astronomical housing cost??? Or do we want a future?
Maryanne Welton in Barron Park (registered)November 13, 2017, 9:18 AM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 26 of 34
1. Jet noise - it has completely destroyed the quality of life for people who live under the NextGen flightpath. I
am no longer able to sleep through the night or enjoy life inside or outside because of the constant stream of
jets whining overhead every 2 to 3 minutes.
2. Underground the railroad tracks - this bottleneck and potential danger will never end unless the city council
makes it a priority to find funding.
3. Affordable housing - more affordable housing for families and seniors is desperately needed. Don't let
NIMBYs sabotage affordable housing projects.
William Brew in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered)November 12, 2017, 9:16 AM
The "priorities" you listed are so vague, they are meaningless.
My top three priorities.
1. Airplane noise.
2. Airplane noise.
3. Airplane noise.
Name not shown in Palo Verde (registered)November 12, 2017, 9:06 AM
Number 1 Priority: Consider the Budget and seriously consider the effect of spending measures on our long
term ability to pay debts. Several statements already filed by others mention the budget as an issue. We need
to maintain our city well, however, there does also need to be fiscal responsibility. Set 1 Goal that will have a
positive long-term effect for Palo Alto's Fiscal State - for example, require a Special Report on the Budget from
the City Manager with 3 recommendations for long term actions that will positively affect the City's fiscal
position over the next 5 years.
Number 2: Infrastructure should remain a priority.
Number 3: Addressing the housing issues, including transients, should remain a priority. We need to maintain
a standard for our community and advertise the ways in which we also help.
I don't think it is appropriate for the Council to be so opposed to change and modernization as it has been.
Find a way to embrace change and maintain a community that values family, community, hard work, learning,
diversity, and innovation - all values Palo Alto has been known for in recent years.
Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 11, 2017, 1:18 PM
Code Enforcement. Do something about the RVs parked all over the city, residences with inoperable
automobiles in the front yard or parked for weeks without moving, residences with 2 foot high weeds in the front
yard, gas leaf blowers. We pay a lot to live here. It should not look like skid row.
Stop commercial development, which generates too much traffic.
Work with regional governments to reduce aircraft noise.
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 27 of 34
Continue fixing the unfunded liabilities issue.
Name not shown in Downtown North (registered)November 10, 2017, 11:21 PM
#1 - Environmental sustainability - stop all growth that will add people and their cars, trash, energy and water
requirements and pollution to the city. Produce a detailed plan to change zoning to decrease office areas to
reduce the daytime population and add open space to the city. Plan to support the current population with no
growth but providing a good quality of life for residents and the environment.
#2 - Make the entire Fry's site a park, playing field, community pool and meeting area - like the Lucie Stern and
Rinconada Park area. We are more that 40 acres behind in what is called for in the current comprehensive plan
in park space for the city. Time to do something for residents.
#3 - Plan to fully fund the past unfunded pension liability and make city employees pay the full cost of their own
pensions moving forward since we will need Palo Alto money to pay for the past unfunded pensions.
Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 10, 2017, 10:51 PM
Quality of life in Palo Alto has declined so precipitously in recent years it is hard to know where to start. Here's
my list.
1. Jet noise, jet noise, jet noise. Nextgen jet noise over my home is unbearable.
2. More noise: traffic noise with Waze making my street a main artery with cut through traffic, home
construction noise, etc.
3. Density, congestion, traffic. Too many people. It's very ironic to me that people are willing to pay so much
to live here because Palo Alto has gone from pleasant suburb with a nice downtown to an increasingly
urbanized mess with ridiculous traffic and loads of petty crime and a police department that doesn't enforce our
laws.
Pamela Diken in Barron Park (unverified)November 10, 2017, 10:44 PM
Please distribute the subsidized housing throughout Palo Alto not just in the south. If you want to save money
stop sending the street sweepers in Barron Park until you put sidewalks in BP
With that said please put sidewalks in Barron Park. It is unsafe walking on the street. :-(
Name not available (unclaimed)November 10, 2017, 9:00 PM
(1) Please do as much as possible to lessen the incessant airplane noise from SFO, SJC, and Palo Alto
airports.
(2) Ross Rd. bike boulevard appears to be a disaster in the making.
(3) Please provide increased enforcement of gas leaf blower ban.
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 28 of 34
(4) Please limit wood-burning fireplace use as much as possible
Thank you for your service!
Name not shown (unverified)November 10, 2017, 6:41 PM
Please keep cell towers out of residential neighborhoods!
Jamie Beckett in Evergreen Park (registered)November 10, 2017, 5:17 PM
I used to love Palo Alto, but in recent years, congestion of both traffic and people is degrading our quality of life.
Despite the so-called cap on commercial development, the city continues to add office space without taking any
measures to reduce traffic. Within a quarter-mile of where I live on Park Blvd., at least 130k of new office space
is planned, already complete, or under construction. Yet nothing is being done to alleviate traffic that is a
consequence of all the added space.
Traffic is backed up both to Page Mill/Oregon Expressway and on the two highways. I thought Palo Alto believed
in pedestrian- and bike-friendly neighborhoods but once-peaceful Park Blvd. -- with cars now speeding to the
Oregon Expressway or Page Mill Road -- is anything but. It's dangerous to ride a bike and even more
dangerous cross a street with no speed limit signs, no stop signs and virtually nothing to calm traffic.
Park Blvd. is just one example. Page Mill, El Camino, Oregon Expressway, Alma/Central Expressway are
impassible during rush hour.
The council continues to believe that if you build an office near Caltrain, people won't drive to work. That is a
fantasy. The council conveniently forgets that many people have family responsibilities that preclude taking
public transit. People with kids to pick up, activities planned after work or irregular schedules have no choice but
to drive. And it's not like the Bay Area is so well-served by public transit that anyone, anywhere can hop on a
bus or train. Driving is the only option for many.
The city must stop building office buildings, and when it adds housing, account for and manage the traffic new
developments generate.
Geri Spieler in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 10, 2017, 3:35 PM
Palo Alto is truly a wonderful place to live. And, because of that, we have a growing population. In spite of the
high cost of housing, there is a lot of new construction and remodeling, which adds up to difficult traffic
congestion. It has gotten increasingly worse just in the past year. I'm amazed that it can take 30 minutes to
drive from Midtown to Downtown. It just doesn't make sense, but there it is. Traffic contribute to a decrease in
quality of living and the environment.
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 29 of 34
I would like to see a significant effort in creating viable public transportation that reaches the entire community.
If I could count on a convenient way to get back and forth timely, I'd use it. Also, we desperately need jet noise
relief, please.
elizabeth Duncan in Downtown North (registered)November 10, 2017, 3:10 PM
California is the most progressive state in the USA. Palo Alto, in the midst of Silicon Valley, is a leader of this
State. Yet we are known for our support of the death penalty despite previous efforts to bring the subject before
the City Council. "Once more unto the breech dear friends"... let us come out loud and clear supporting
abolition of this barbaric, ineffective and expensive habit in our beautiful state. SO I URGE YOU TO PASS A
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING TOTAL ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY.
Patrick Barrett in Duveneck/ St Francis (registered)November 10, 2017, 2:22 PM
The City and its residents and businesses would benefit from more consistency within and between
departments of the City government. When a building is being modified or replaced, too often a ruling made by
one employee and relied on by the building owner is later overruled by another employee, resulting in extra
costs and delays.
The City also needs to continue the process of updating infrastructure.
Name not shown in Old Palo Alto (registered)November 10, 2017, 1:28 PM
To improve the quality of life for residence of Palo Alto, new homes and major remodels of homes should be
limited to weekdays only and the hours should be restricted to 9am to 5pm.
Name not shown in Old Palo Alto (registered)November 10, 2017, 1:22 PM
The most important issue facing Palo Alto is traffic congestion. There is too little infrastructure for the number of
people who want to use our roads and limited parking. Any new construction, whether commercial or
residential, will exacerbate this problem.
Sharon Dickson in University South (registered)November 10, 2017, 12:58 PM
Infrastructure: safer streets downtown--no thruways on Homer and Channing as these streets have become
increasingly residential over the past 20-30 years.
Streetlights that light the SIDEWALKS at night so pedestrians can travel safely. Street drainage that actually
works when it rains.
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 30 of 34
Fewer empty storefronts downtown and a cleaner University Avenue. The sidewalks are disgusting.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 10, 2017, 12:43 PM
Address Rail crossings for future electrification and increased ridership on CalTrain. Preferably to move the train
up or down, rather than the roadways.
Name not available (unclaimed)November 10, 2017, 12:27 PM
Council: Be strong in negations with Stanford! The size of their new proposed development is too lange.
Traffic with the large hospital is chocking Palo Alto roads and neighborhoods
Name not available (unclaimed)November 10, 2017, 12:23 PM
ERequire all new buildings to be fully parked. For all aoartments assume 2 cars/ apartment.
Paint in as many parking places as possible. There are hundreds of possibilities.
Eliminate all 4 way stop signs.
Synchronize all lights on Rl Camino, Embarcadero, Oregon /Page Mill, etc.
Joe Baldwin in University South (registered)November 10, 2017, 12:14 PM
Unlike the United States, the government of Palo Alto cannot create money, i.e., issue Treasury notes, bills, and
bonds, and print $100 bills.
Our city's #1 problem, by a wide margin over a host of other serious ones, is long-term fiscal irresponsibility.
City Council's #1 priority should be addressing our hundreds of millions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.
It is long past time to stop kicking that gigantic can down the road.
Shannon McEntee in Evergreen Park (registered)November 10, 2017, 12:11 PM
We need Jet Noise Relief! And -- Increasing traffic impacts more than parking and travel time. It creates air and
noise pollution. Others have covered these issues above. I’d like to concentrate on how Palo Alto’s streets
have become alarmingly dangerous. Drivers are speeding and cutting through residential areas and failing to
stop at stop signs. Pedestrians, including children and elders, put their lives at risk to walk to school, to their
clinic, the grocery store or to one of our parks. We have to change this wanton disregard for safety and the rule
of law!
Our traffic woes are related to our lack of effective public transportation. Palo Alto should prioritize working with
Bay Area transportation officials to address these problems. An example: It is ludicrous that we cannot take a
bus or a simple train ride to the airport. The simple and cheap bus that afforded transportation to all three SFO
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 31 of 34
terminals was suddenly dropped about three years ago! Getting there now by train involves a ridiculous and
confusing transition to BART, let alone the air train in the airport. It’s all well and good to say that you want
more housing at transportation hubs — but we must invest in frequent and efficient transportation options in
order for people to use those hubs and get out of their cars. Please make improved public transportation a
2018 priority.
Name not shown in College Terrace (registered)November 10, 2017, 11:33 AM
Reduce noice and air pollution from low flying aircraft. Demand that the altitudes of jets flying over Palo Alto be
raised. I am constantly hearing planes over my house at all times of the day and night. I can't sleep well
because planes wake me up every night. The quality of life in Palo Alto has been negatively affected by low
flying planes, both jets and smaller aircraft. Air quality is also affected by low flying aircraft.
Create laws that work to reduce air pollution. 35% of the lung cancer cases at Stanford Hospital are non-
smoking related. Air pollution is one cause. Figure out how to enforce the gas blower ban. Enact a law that
prohibits idling cars except when waiting at a traffic light. Create incentives for people to carpool, etc.
Create more affordable housing.
Create solutions to increased traffic.
maurice druzin in Crescent Park (registered)November 10, 2017, 11:11 AM
It is almost 20 years since San Francisquito Creek overflowed and flooded so many homes, including ours.
Those of us who were affected live in fear every winter. This could happen again!
It is amazing that after all this time, the process of flood control is barely under way , and seems to be
proceeding at a very slow pace.The 101 work is in its second year and continues, and upstream mitigation is
only being discussed now.
This should be a priority, and the timelines need to be accelerated. The Joint Powers authority seems to be
unaware of how stressful this situation is for so many homeowners.
The other priority needs to be the issue of parking, especially in our Crescent Park neighborhood,and the
related horrendous traffic through our area.
I would also like to voice my strong objection to a Dog Park at Eleanor Pardee, which is already heavily utilised
with the park, sportsfield, picnic area and community garden.
Those of us who live in the vicinity are constantly subjected to traffic, noise and unsanitary disposal of animal
and human waste , and we do not need to further exacerbate these problems.
If you add in the noise and disruption of the SFO air traffic, our wonderful neighborhood and quality of life is
deteriorating.
These issues need serious attention from our City staff and elected officials
Name not shown in Green Acres (registered)November 10, 2017, 11:05 AM
More than anything I would like to have the AIRPLANE NOISE ELIMINATED! Please help do this.
Neilson Buchanan in Downtown North (registered)November 10, 2017, 10:57 AM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 32 of 34
1. Proactive management of spillover traffic onto residential streets.. identify streets at risk, regularly monitor
traffic levels. Make data available online
2 City staffing/budgets must match growing pressures from office growth, traffic, safety lapses and lost
productivity. Adopt metrics for key risk areas.
3.Finance: Unfunded liabilities and new debt, ie dont over-leverage TOT. Move to pay as we go. No new debt
over 20 year term. Scarce city funds should not pay for business property owner responsibilities. Prime
example: the new Univ Ave garage. Redirect city funding for this garage to pay down of pension liabilities.
Adopt Stanford University compensation policies for all city employees. This would create modernized,
competitive compensation policies. Benchmarking city compensation to local cities is a race to mediocrity.
Andy Poggio in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 10, 2017, 10:42 AM
I urge the council to make Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) a priority for 2018. Palo Alto has a unique opportunity
to offer its current and future residents and businesses (especially startups) extraordinary internet services
(with symmetric, gigabit speeds) at reasonable prices. The incumbents (ATT and Comcast) have let us down
for decades; the newcomer (Google) has recently let us down as well. The lesson here is that we must do it
ourselves.
San Francisco is outpacing Palo Alto for new startups. Palo Alto can’t create another North Beach or SOMA,
but we can build FTTP. And the internet is a fundamental utility, much like electricity, used every day by nearly
the entire community. For example, we use the internet much more than our libraries — but the city spends
much more on the libraries.
A large concern is paying for FTTP. Palo Alto is uniquely positioned to cover FTTP costs. We have multiple
funding sources:
1. Fiber utility fund, currently over $20M.
2. Revenue bonds covered by future fiber utility income.
3. Onetime payments by new FTTP subscribers.
4. FTTP monthly subscription fees.
In total, these can cover the costs of FTTP.
Karen Price in College Terrace (registered)November 10, 2017, 10:25 AM
Please make keeping older "Class C" professional office buildings a priority. Too many have been torn down
already. These buildings are mainly rented by self employed professionals such as psychotherapists, Rolfers,
family lawyers, accountants, insurance brokers, etc. When the buildings are gone we lose all these people that
contribute so much to our community. We do NOT need more big shiny new buildings inhabited by tech
companies that come and go and contribute nothing to the livability or stability of our community. Once these
buildings and people are gone they do not come back. Thank you.
Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (registered)November 10, 2017, 10:22 AM
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 33 of 34
Palo Alto is under pressure to add housing. With additional housing, our traffic becomes worse and it is more
dangerous as people try to avoid clogged arterials.
I suggest solving the problem of roads and housing simultaneously with a low- or no-cost solution. For large
arterials throughout the city, we can bury the roads. Housing, owned by the city, can then be built on top of the
buried roads and rented out to pay for the expense of underground roads. Roads like Alma, Oregon
Expressway, and parts of Middlefield are large enough that we can gain enough housing to offset the cost of
making them tunnels. It should also improve traffic at intersections because these roads would no longer cross
any other road.
Because the housing would be owned by the city, we can offer subsidized housing for our city workers,
including teacher, police officers, and fire fighters.
I suggest that we will have few NIMBY problems for these roads that are already arterials because I think
people would rather have a home near them than a loud and more dangerous road.
Dan Bloomberg in Barron Park (registered)November 10, 2017, 10:17 AM
Highest priority: budget. Get out of the SEIU pension hole that we've been digging for the past 15+ years. It's
not sustainable and is already preventing us from doing necessary maintenance and desirable projects. We
must proceed immediately to buy our way out of CalPERs, and put all city employees on a 401K plan to which
the city matches 50%. Work with other cities in California, so that if SEIU challenges with lawsuits, we will have
many cities and counties fighting with us.
Council Priorities 2018
Tell us your ideas for the 2018 Council Priorities!
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of November 28, 2017, 10:15 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5666 Page 34 of 34
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8704)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/12/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Review draft Anti-Idiling Ordinance
Title: Discussion and Recommendation to Council Regarding Anti-Idling
Ordinance
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee review the draft anti-idling
ordinance, provide feedback on identified policy issues including exceptions and
enforcement, and consider recommending the ordinance to Council for approval.
Background
On August 28, 2017 the City Council discussed a Council Colleagues Memo from Vice
Mayor Kniss and Council Members Filseth, Holman and Dubois, recommending the City
develop an ordinance to implement Programs N5.2.1 and N5.2.2 in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan and to support Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities Priority by
requiring drivers to shut off their engines after two or three minutes of stationary idling
if not in an active traffic path, noting exceptions.
The following motion was unanimously passed by Council 8:0 Fine absent:
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded
by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to return to the Policy and
Services Committee with an Ordinance to implement Programs N5.2.1
and N5.2.2 in the Draft Comprehensive Plan and to support the
Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities Council Priority by requiring
drivers to shut off their engines after two or three minutes of
stationary idling if not in an active traffic path, noting exceptions. The
Ordinance would be patterned after city ordinances adopted in
Minneapolis, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; and Ann Arbor, MI.
Discussion
City staff reviewed the Colleagues Memo and a number of Anti-Idling Ordinances from
City of Palo Alto Page 2
other cities and counties including Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Ann Arbor, Auburn and
Placer County. Staff prepared a draft ordinance for the Committee to discuss and
consider for Council approval (Attachment B).
Staff is supportive of the goal that residents, workers and visitors should be more
conscious of the harmful impact of long time idling on the environment. Staff
understands and supports an attempt to reduce long time idling behavior, recognizing it
would be good for the community, and consistent with our Healthy City, Comprehensive
Plan and Sustainability and Climate Action Plan goals.
Staff also believes that this ordinance should primarily function as an education tool to
help people understand and appreciate the issue. Formal enforcement activity will be
challenging and of limited effectiveness. If the Committee chooses to recommend an
ordinance to Council, it should do so with a realistic understanding of the enforcement
constraints. Code enforcement and police officers will rarely be available to respond to
complaints of violations due to limited resources and the need prioritize other health
and safety issues. And even when resources are available, violations typically would not
be ongoing when enforcement officers arrive at the scene, making formal enforcement
activity difficult. Experience with other similar mandates has shown that enforcement is
resource-intensive and of limited effectiveness. This can contribute to some citizens’
feelings of frustration toward local government.
Staff discussed internally whether there is value and merit in an ordinance that states
explicitly that enforcement mechanisms and resources will not be deployed. This is a
point of discussion for the Committee. Is an ordinance the most appropriate tool to
attempt to influence extended idling behavior? Perhaps a targeted education campaign,
as resources allow, supported by a strong Council resolution is more fitting? Staff is not
recommending this alternative, but raises it for discussion purposes. Neither are we
recommending a responsive enforcement program if an ordinance is recommended.
There are a number of exceptions in the draft ordinance. Cities that have anti-idling
ordinances differ in the exceptions they include. Staff included all relevant exceptions
from the examples we consulted, as a starting point. We seek the Committee’s direction
in this area, as well.
Timeline
Staff will bring the Policy and Services recommendation to Council early in 2018.
Resource Impact
It is important to note that this initiative arrived on the “City’s plate” so to speak, unplanned
and out of step with the City workplan. In addition, the staff report identifies the challenges
associated with enforcment.
Adoption of an ordinance in itself will have limited resource impact. Depending on the
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Committee and Council’s direction, additional resources may needed for education,
signs and informational material, and enforcement. As indicated above, the
requirements associated with these choices needs to be a key focus of the Committee’s
discussion.
Policy Implications
The draft ordinance supports the Comprehesive Plan, Heathy City Healthy Community
and Sustainabiity Climate Action Plans as related to our city’s carbon reduction efforts.
Attachments:
Attachment A: ID# 8409 Colleagues Memo Vehicle Idling
Attachment B: Anti-Idle Draft Ordinance - 11.30.17
City of Palo Alto
COLLEAGUES MEMO
August 28, 2017 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 8409)
DATE: August 28, 2017
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Council Member Filseth, Council Member Holman, Council Member
DuBois, Council Member Kniss
SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS DUBOIS, FILSETH,
HOLMAN, AND VICE MAYOR KNISS REGARDING AN ANTI-IDLING ORDINANCE
(AIO)
Goals:
The City’s S/CAP plan calls for a reduction in citywide CO2-equivalent emissions of
224,600 tons by 2030, of which 111,900 tons are expected to come from mobility1.
Emissions from stationary idling of cars, trucks and buses are one source of these
emissions, and according to some studies the average US city emits about 13 tons of
carbon each day, just from idling.
An anti-idling ordinance would additionally support the Council’s Healthy
Cities, Healthy Communities Priority and, as stated in State Resolution 160,
emission from idling vehicles “is linked to asthma, decreased lung function,
cardiac disease, cancer, and other serious health problems.” 2
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District states that inhaling particulate
matter resulting from idling can aggravate asthma, cause coughing or difficult
breathing, decrease lung function, exacerbate cardiovascular problems, lead to
chronic bronchitis. 3
A city ordinance requiring drivers to shut off their engines after the more feasible of
two or three minutes of stationary idling would make a modest but measurable
contribution to our 80-30 goal and improved health conditions at a low cost.
We further understand that some exceptions are necessary for public safety and
possibly for some specific health conditions. Examples include:
Fire trucks when responding to emergency calls
Police vehicles when responding to emergency situations
Public Works vehicles under certain specific and detailed conditions listed
in City Fleet Policies & Procedures
Possibly some particular health conditions
August 28, 2017 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 8409)
Background and Discussion:
Idling vehicles in Palo Alto produce an estimated 6.2 tons of CO2-equivalent
emissions per year (see Appendix A: DOE). Some of this is short-duration idling
done by vehicles at intersections; such as waiting for a stoplight to change, or in
stop-and-go traffic. However, other idling is done at curbsides, such as by vehicles
waiting to pick up passengers or deliver goods, and may last 10 minutes or more;
tech-employee and tourist buses, have been observed to idle for even longer.
Perhaps the greatest contributors to CO2 emissions due to idling are construction
vehicles that idle for long periods of time while in queue to make deliveries or pick up
excavation dirt, for instance because they often use diesel fuel
There is not a good reason for such extended curbside idling. Modern vehicle engines
do not suffer wear and tear from simply being turned on and off, and now use very
little fuel in start-up. Some cars now automatically turn-off and on when idling. The
efficiency tradeoff between keeping a car idling vs restarting it has largely disappeared.
The S/CAP 80-30 goal calls for the City to reduce transportation emissions by 117,900
tons between now and 2030. An Anti-Idling Ordinance (AIO) would target extended
curbside idling and construction idling, and would likely reduce City emissions by 600-
1200 tons per year, or .5-1% of the 2030 goal. This is a modest amount to be sure, yet
still measurable; and the expense and effort would be low. And it would still be the
equivalent of permanently taking 120-240 cars off the road/year.
Furthermore, there are other benefits; for example, reducing auto fumes outside
schools, where considerable idling is done by parents waiting to pick up kids will
create a healthier environment for children and adults.
The primary costs would likely be: posting signs in idle-rich places such as schools,
truck delivery stops, and employee-bus stops; community education and outreach to
promote awareness of the problem and the ordinance; and any ongoing enforcement
costs. The first two of these are likely to be modest. The third is unclear, but
independent of enforcement, even just signs and education are likely to have at least
some impact.
Recommendation:
Develop a City ordinance to implement Programs N5.2.1 and N5.2.2 in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan and to support Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities Priority by
requiring drivers to shut off their engines after two or three minutes of stationary
idling if not in an active traffic path, noting exceptions. The ordinance would be
August 28, 2017 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 8409)
patterned after city ordinances adopted in Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and Ann
Arbor.
Staff Impact:
While adoption of a new ordinance itself would require minimal staff resources, the new
ordinance would raise community expectations that more will be spent on the installation
of signs and on enforcement of the new ordinance. Resource impacts will depend on the
number of signs installed and on the type and level of enforcement that is desired. If no
additional staff resources are added, efforts towards education, response to complaints,
citation and prosecution would compete with other priorities of existing staff in
Transportation, Code Enforcement, the Police Department and the Attorneys Office. Since
violations of the idling ordinance would be a lesser priority for enforcement than many
other moving violations, there is likely to be limited or no enforcement without the
addition of staff resources.
1. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51856
2. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160ACR160
3. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/planning-
healthy- places/draft_planninghealthyplaces_marchworkshop-
pdf.pdf?la=en
Appendix A: Potential GHG Impact of an Anti-Idling Ordinance
in Palo Alto Appendix B: Background on Vehicle Idling (Idle
Free Bay Area)
Appendix A: Potential GHG Impact of an Anti-Idling Ordinance in Palo Alto
E. Filseth, June 2017
While estimates of total nationwide idling emissions are available, little quantitative analysis
is available on the direct impact of anti-idling ordinances (AIO) on reducing these emissions.
Although a few idling studies have examined specific vehicle types such as police cars, an
estimate for AIO impact on general auto emissions must rely on considerable guesswork.
1.0 Annual Vehicle Idling Emissions in Palo Alto - Estimate Tons of CO2
Total US Annual Personal-Vehicle Emissions from Idling (1) 30,000,000
Population of USA 321,000,000
Population of Palo Alto 66,000
2.0 What Range of Possible Idling Reduction from an AIO? % Reduction
A. Minneapolis Study on Police Car idling after ordinance adopted (2) 25%
B. Columbus, OH Study on Police Car idling after equipment install (3) 35%
C. Crown Delivery Services study after anti-idle policy established (4) 90%
D. American Transportation Research Inst. 2009 Trucking Study (5) 42%-78%
E. 2009 Survey by Vanderbilt University ("warming time" excluded) (6) 30%
Estimated Total Annual Palo Alto Idling Emissions (30M x population ratio) 6,168
August 28, 2017 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 8409)
F. Bottom-up Estimate for Palo Alto:
Avg # of stoplights per vehicle trip - guess 3
Avg idling minutes at each stoplight - guess 0.5
Avg # of in-traffic idling minutes per vehicle trip (ordinance won't affect) 1.5
% of vehicle trips which include an extended curbside idle - guess 5%
Avg minutes per extended-idle - guess 10
Avg Extended-Idle Minutes per vehicle trip (ordinance will affect) 0.5
Total Idle-Minutes per vehicle trip before Ordinance 2
% of Extended-Idle Minutes an ordinance would eliminate - guess 60.0%
# of Extended-Idle Minutes per vehicle trip an ordinance would eliminate 0.3
Total Idle-Minutes per vehicle trip after Ordinance 1.7
Net % Reduction in Idle-Minutes per Vehicle Trip 15.0%
3.0 Estimated GHG Impact of an AIO in Palo Alto Low High
Annual idling emissions in Palo Alto (from 1.0 above) 6,168 6,168
Estimating the actual % emissions reduction from an ordinance is difficult. Studies based on Police and
delivery vehicles (2.0 A-D above) may not represent general auto transit (though one poll, 2.0 E,
suggests they
may). However, even if general auto transit savings were half that of Police and commercial vehicles, they
might still reach 15% overall. 2.0 F above suggests 15% could indeed be achievable given reasonable
assumptions.
Therefore assume 10-20% range.
Estimated idling % reduction from an AIO 10% 20%
Estimated GHG reduction from an AIO (tons) 617
1,234
4.0 References
1 https://www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/publication/idling_personal_vehicles.pdf
2 http://aceee.org/files/pdf/case-studies/Minneapolis_Anti-Idling.pdf
3 http://www.assetworks.com/resource-items/city-of-columbus-gps-case-study/
4 https://www.geotab.com/wp-content/themes/geotab-template/resources/case-study/Anti-Idling-Program-Slashes-Fleet-
Fuel- Costs.pdf
5 http://atri-online.org/research/results/ATRI1pagesummaryMIRTDemo.pdf
6 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ea09/c74c727b6211097735d4e6a39ea961c0a63e.pdf
Appendix B: Background on Vehicle Idling
Source: Idle Free Bay Area, 2017 https://idlefreebayarea.org/about/
About Idling
% of City's SCAP Target Reduction of 117,900 tons from Transportation 0.52% 1.05%
August 28, 2017 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 8409)
Idling means leaving a vehicle’s engine running when it is parked or not in use.
Idling happens while:
Waiting to pick someone up from school, sports practice or the library
Sitting at a drive-through or car wash
Checking email and voicemail – check before you start the car
Myths about idling:
“I need to warm up my car.” Idling is NOT the best way to warm up your car –
driving is
“Shutting off and restarting my car is hard on the engine and uses more gas than
if I leave it running.” Frequent restarting has little impact on engine components
Top reasons to be idle free:
Save money –30 seconds of idling uses more fuel than restarting the engine
Breathe easier – car exhaust can aggravate asthma and decrease lung function –
especially in children
Keep the sky blue – car exhaust is the #1 source of summertime air pollution
in the Bay Area
Reduce your carbon footprint
How Idling Affects Your Health:
The pollutants found in exhaust not only affect our environment, they also affect our
health. Particulate matter (PM) is the name for tiny particulates, such as soot, dust and
dirt found in the air. When inhaled, these small particles travel into the lungs and
sometimes into the bloodstream. Inhaling PM can:
Aggravate asthma
Cause coughing or difficult breathing
Decrease lung function
Exacerbate cardiovascular problems
Lead to chronic bronchitis
30-second Rule: Turn off the car’s engine if you’ll be waiting for more than 30 seconds
and help us all breathe easier.
Take the pledge!
Not Yet Approved
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 10.62 to Title
10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Regulate
Unnecessary Idling of Vehicles.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. Program N5.2.1 of the updated City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
instructs the city to “[p]romote understanding of the impacts of extended idling on air quality,
for residents, auto-dependent businesses and schools.” Additionally, Program N5.2.1 of the
updated Comprehensive Plan instructs the city to “[c]onsider adopting and enforcing penalties
for drivers that idle for longer than 3-5 minutes.” This ordinance is intended to effectuate Policy
N.5.2 and support behavior changes to reduce emissions of particulate matter and other air
pollutants from automobiles.
B. Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 2485 currently makes it
unlawful for any diesel-fueled commercial vehicle weighing over 10,000 pounds and operating in
California to idle for more than 5 minutes, subject to certain exceptions. Additionally, Title 13,
California Code of Regulations, section 2480 requires that school busses and other school-serving
busses turn off their engines when stopping at or within 100 feet of a public or private K-12
school, with idling permitted for only up to 30 seconds prior to departure. The California Air
Resources Board is authorized to enforce these laws by issuing civil and/or criminal citations to
vehicle owners and/or operators and penalties of at least $300 per violation. These regulations
do not preclude local governments from regulating vehicle idling more stringently or in a broader
manner than the state does currently.
C. The unnecessary operation of internal combustion engines poses a
number of public health concerns. In particular, airborne pollutants from engine emissions can
cause or aggravate pulmonary diseases, including asthma, lung cancer, bronchitis, acute
respiratory infections, and emphysema. In addition to public health concerns, idling engines also
impose economic costs, including wasted energy, consumption of non-renewable resources, and
costs related to medical care and lost productivity due to pollution-related illness. Idling engines
also diminish citizens’ quality of life by generating noise, odor, and visible smog.
D. In addition to impacts on local community health and welfare, unnecessary
idling contributes to environmental degradation in the Bay Area and more broadly by emitting
greenhouse gases, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. Although
technological advancements in internal combustion engines have reduced some of these
impacts, increases in vehicle usage and the continued use of older vehicles has offset many of
these technological benefits.
Not Yet Approved
E. The City of Palo Alto is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions
from activities within the city. This commitment is demonstrated in part by the city’s
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, which targets an 80-percent reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions from 1990 levels by 2030. Additionally, Goal N-5 of the updated Comprehensive Plan
demonstrates the city’s commitment to developing local policies and working with BAAQMD to
promote regional solutions to improve air quality in Palo Alto and throughout the Bay Area.
SECTION 2. Chapter 10.62 (Idling of Vehicles) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) is
hereby added to read as follows:
Chapter 10.62 Idling of Vehicles
10.62.010 Intent and Purpose.
It is the intent and purpose of this chapter to discourage the idling of vehicle engines in the
City of Palo Alto in order to protect public health, improve environmental conditions, conserve
energy and resources, promote economic efficiency, and improve quality of life. This intent and
purpose shall be effectuated through primarily educational means. [Optional: “Accordingly, the
city shall not be authorized to enforce this chapter under Chapter 1.08 (Violations), 1.12
(Administrative Penalties – Citations), 1.16 (Administrative Compliance Orders), or by any
criminal or civil means.”]
10.62.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, these words shall have the following definitions:
(a) Idle or Idling means to operate a Vehicle’s internal combustion engine while the
Vehicle is stationary.
(b) Vehicle is defined as in California Vehicle Code section 670.
10.62.030 Restriction of Vehicle Idling.
(a) A Vehicle owner or a Vehicle operator shall not cause or permit the Vehicle to Idle on
public property, in public rights of way, or on private property that is open to the general public
within city limits for more than 3 consecutive minutes.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply in any of the following circumstances:
(1) A Vehicle is forced to remain stationary because of an official traffic control device,
direction of a law enforcement official, or any traffic conditions beyond the operator's
control, including traffic congestion, railroad crossings, construction zones, security
checkpoints, and vehicle queues for drive-through goods and services;
Not Yet Approved
(2) Idling is necessary to operate defrosters, heaters, air conditioners, or other
equipment to prevent a safety or health emergency for human or animal occupants, or
to prevent the aggravation of a passenger’s disability or health condition, but not merely
to maintain the comfort of vehicle occupants;
(3) Idling is necessary to provide heat to an occupied Vehicle if the outside ambient
temperature is below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, or Idling is necessary to provide cooling to
an occupied vehicle if the outside temperature is more than 85 degrees Fahrenheit;
(4) Idling is necessary to power heaters or air conditioners to maintain the comfort of
vehicle occupants while waiting for assistance when a vehicle is immobilized due to
mechanical problems;
(5) An emergency or law enforcement vehicle, including police, fire, ambulance, public
safety, military, or any vehicle being used in an emergency capacity, Idles in the course of
or in preparation for emergency or law enforcement duties;
(6) An armored vehicle Idles while in the course of business;
(7) Idling is necessary to power auxiliary work equipment that is actively in use,
including, but not limited to, cargo refrigeration units, waste collectors/compactors, lifts,
winches, pumps, compressors, drills, mixers, and other safety and construction
equipment. Auxiliary work equipment does not include equipment primarily intended for
vehicle cabin comfort, such as air conditioning, heating, radio, television, digital displays,
or kitchen appliances;
(8) Idling is necessary for any Vehicle maintenance, service, repair, inspection, research
and development, or diagnostics;
(9) An engine is operated in accordance with instructions from the Vehicle
manufacturer for proper operation;
(10) Idling is necessary for a licensed private security provider to perform security
duties;
(11) A Vehicle designed to carry 15 or more passengers Idles to maintain comfortable
cabin temperatures while paying passengers are on board for up to 10 minutes prior to a
scheduled embarkation; or
(12) Applicable federal, state, or local law requires Idling.
10.62.040 Enforcement.
Not Yet Approved
4
[Four potential enforcement scenarios are included below, beginning with education and
increasing in stringency.]
[Option 1 – Omit PAMC 10.62.040 entirely and include optional language in 10.62.010 above.]
[Option 2]
Until such time as the City Council designates, by resolution, an intent to administratively
enforce this chapter and includes this chapter in a revision to the city’s Administrative Penalty
Schedule, the city shall not be authorized to enforce this chapter under Chapter 1.08 (Violations),
1.12 (Administrative Penalties – Citations), 1.16 (Administrative Compliance Orders), or by any
criminal or civil means. Upon passage of such a resolution or resolutions, enforcement of this
chapter shall be available solely through the administrative mechanisms in Chapters 1.12 and
1.16 of this code, and/or written warnings.
[Option 3]
Enforcement of this chapter shall be available solely through the administrative mechanisms
in Chapters 1.12 and 1.16 of this code, and/or written warnings. The maximum fine for a violation
of this chapter shall be $100.00 for a first violation, $150.00 for a second violation, and $200.00
for a third violation occurring within a calendar year.
[Option 4]
It is the responsibility of [“the Director of Planning & Community Environment, or his or her
designee,” OR “the members of the police department or such persons as assigned by the chief
of police”] to enforce the provisions of this chapter through any appropriate action, including
administrative citation, compliance order, criminal citation [note: police officers only], or by civil
injunctive code enforcement. The maximum fine for a violation of this chapter shall be $300.00
for a first violation, $450.00 for a second violation, and $600.00 for a third violation occurring
within a calendar year.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or
sections of the ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the ordinance
and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15308 of the CEQA
Guidelines, as an action taken for the protection of the environment.
Not Yet Approved
5
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
[Planning Director and/or Police Chief]
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services