Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-09-06 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 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. September 6, 2016 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Study Session 5:00-6:30 PM 1.Study Session on the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:30-6:40 PM Oral Communications 6:40-6:55 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 6:55-7:00 PM 2.Approval of Action Minutes for the August 22, 2016 Council Meeting REVISED 2 September 6, 2016 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. Consent Calendar 7:00-7:05 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3.Vote to Endorse the Slate of Candidates for the Division’s Executive Committee for 2016-17 and Direct the City Clerk to Forward to Seth Miller, the Regional Public Affairs Manager for the Peninsula Division, League of California Cities the Completed Ballot for the City of Palo Alto Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:05- 8:30 PM 5.Direct Staff to Proceed With Discussions With Pets In Need Regarding Animal Care Services and the Construction or Rehabilitation of the Animal Shelter Facility 8:30-10:30 PM 4.Acceptance of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 Status Update and Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Eligibility Area for the Program as Directed by the City Council (Continued From August 15, 2016) Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Closed Session 10:30-11:00 PM 6.CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY—POTENTIAL LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Under Section 54956.9(d)(2) (One Potential Case, as Defendant) – Phase 2, Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District 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. 3 September 6, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Public Letters to Council Set 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6861) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 9/6/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: Study Session on the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Title: Study Session on the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation This is a study session on the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan (Master Plan) and no action is required. Staff is requesting Council feedback on the master planning progress to date including the draft Master Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs and proposed outline of the implementation plan. Executive Summary The report includes an update on the development of the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan including a review of the draft Master Plan goals, policies and programs, an introduction of Site Concept Plans, and a proposed outline of the implementation plan. The Master Plan will guide future decisions for improvements to parks, open space, and recreation facilities, as well as recreation programming. To accomplish this, the Master Plan will: identify short-term (5 years), mid-term (10 years) and long-term (20 years) community priority projects and programs; City of Palo Alto Page 2 propose park land acquisition strategies; guide policy direction; provide complementary individual concept plans for each City park and recreational facility; recommend enhancements and additions to the City’s recreational programs; and develop a strategic funding implementation plan. The Master Plan process consists of three phases: 1. Phase 1: Specific Site and Program Analysis and Community Engagement: Development of a comprehensive inventory and analysis of all Palo Alto parks, trails, developed natural open space areas (picnic areas, parking lots) and recreational facilities and programs; analysis of current and forecasted demographic and recreation trends, and analysis of community recreation needs. Identification of community and stakeholder needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements using a proactive community engagement process with a broad range of activities. (complete) 2. Phase 2: Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities: Preparation of goals, policies, and programs; identification of capital projects, needed renovations and other improvements; and prioritization of projects into an implementation timeline of short (0-5 years), mid (6-10 years) and long-term (11-20 years) ranges. (ongoing) 3. Phase 3: Drafting of the Master Plan, Review and Adoption: Public, Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), and Council review; and Council approval to adopt the Master Plan. (ongoing) Phase 1, which includes technical assessment and community and stakeholder engagement activities, is complete. The goals, policies and programs in Phase 2 have been developed and were reviewed extensively by the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC). Conceptual park site plans were also developed to show potential enhancements to each City park. The site plans were shared with the community and will be revised based on community feedback. Staff is now developing an implementation timeline for capital projects and program enhancements and has begun drafting the chapters of the Master Plan. Attached City of Palo Alto Page 3 for Council review is the initial draft of the first four chapters of the Master Plan (Attachment A), several sections are still under development and all are subject to change. Moreover, the final draft will include additional supporting documents from the extended public outreach and analysis as appendices. Staff anticipates returning with the final chapters in October/November with a goal to approve the Master Plan by the end of the calendar year. Background A Capital Improvement Project for a Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (PE-13003) was adopted by Council for the 2013 Fiscal Year. The purpose of this effort is to provide the necessary analysis and review of Palo Alto’s parks and recreation system for the preparation of a long-range (20- year) Master Plan. The Master Plan will provide the City with guidance regarding future renovations and capital improvements for parks and recreation facilities and programs considering demands for future recreational, programming, environmental, and maintenance needs. A prioritized schedule of park renovations and facility improvements will include a strategic funding implementation plan. Though the Master Plan addresses trails and natural open space, the intent is not to provide specific guidance on how to manage and maintain the City’s trails and open space preserves. Existing plans, such as the Pearson Arastradero Preserve Trail Management Plan (2001) and the Foothills Park Trail Maintenance Plan (2002), provide trail management guidance. There are also current and planned capital projects to develop comprehensive conservation plans for the Baylands Nature Preserve (fiscal year 2017); and for Foothills Park, Pearson Arastradero Preserve, and Esther Clark Park (fiscal year 2019), which will provide specific guidance on vegetation and habitat management, wildlife management, and wildlife-appropriate public access. This Master Plan will focus on the developed areas within the City’s natural open space areas, such as parking lots, picnic areas and facilities, and provide recommendations on how they can best be enhanced. The “project team” comprised of City staff and the consultant firm MIG, along with significant review and input from the PRC, spent 18 months gathering and analyzing data collected from Palo Alto’s current parks and recreation system and the community. The Phase One analysis included a physical inventory of parks and recreation assets, extensive community outreach, and a review of projected City of Palo Alto Page 4 community demographics. This culminated in a list of potential needs and opportunities for the overall parks and recreation system and is compiled in a “Data and Needs Summary Matrix”, which references specific data points that support the needs summary. One of the main needs expressed by the community is to continue to maintain the already high level of quality services and amenities the current parks and recreation system provides and which the community identifies as a tremendous asset to the City. The Master Plan process is approaching the end of Phase Two: developing goals and policies as well as recommendations and prioritization of potential projects and programs. Since the previous Council study session (January 25, 2016), the project team, working closely with the PRC, has drafted a set of goals, policies and programs including a set of concept maps for each park and open space preserve. The Master Plan final phase includes the drafting and adoption of the Master Plan inclusive of PRC, community, stakeholders and Council review and approval. At the January 25 study session, a detailed review of the master planning process included: Phase 1: The analysis phase, which included specific site review, extensive community outreach, demographic and sustainability and an extensive effort to organize the data for review and interpretation. Phase 2: The development of project principles and areas of focus. Discussion This report provides an update and review of draft chapters one through four (Attachment A), and a discussion of the remaining chapters five and six. An outline of Chapter 6: Implementation is provided in Attachment B to provide Council with the proposed framework for the implementation plan. The focus of the study session will be on the draft goals, policies and programs included in Chapter 4 of Attachment A. Draft Chapters 1 through 3 of the Master Plan are provided to inform Council of the process that led to the development of the draft goals, policies and programs, however; these chapters are still under development. Staff recognizes that the first three chapters will be critical to lay the foundation and make the case for Master Plan implementation and the content of these chapters needs to be strengthened. Staff will continue to identify the most compelling data and community feedback that was collected and determine what should be included in the introductory chapters or City of Palo Alto Page 5 appendices. The inventory of data that was collected during the planning process can be viewed at www.paloaltoparksplan.org. Draft Master Plan Report The draft Master Plan is proposed to consist of six chapters and supporting appendices. A description of each chapter follows. 1. Introduction 2. Elements of Palo Alto’s Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaces and Recreation System 3. Analysis and Assessment 4. Our Future: Principles, Goals, Policies and Programs 5. Site Specific Concept Plans 6. Implementation Chapters 1-3: Introduction, Elements of the System, Analysis and Assessment The first three chapters provide the basic foundation for the Master Plan including the elements of the Master Plan (Parks, Trails, and Natural Open Spaces; Recreation Facilities; and Recreation Programming), and summary and results of the technical assessment and community engagement process. To ensure a comprehensive, data-driven Master Plan, the project team conducted a significant amount of assessment and analysis. The result is a detailed understanding of the current system of parks, trails, natural open space, recreation facilities and recreation services. The project team also evaluated needs and opportunities, including forecasting changes and trends that may influence future demand and preferences. The project team has integrated community and stakeholder engagement throughout the entire Master Plan process. This phase of the process has been critical in shaping the Master Plan principles and providing direction for the Master Plan goals, policies and programs. There have been numerous opportunities for the community to participate and provide feedback, with a City of Palo Alto Page 6 variety of formats, times and levels of interaction offered as well as both online and face-to-face methods, including: Interactive community workshops provided input at key project milestones. Intercept surveys at parks, farmers markets and community events. A series of online surveys and outreach efforts gauged community values and priorities, including: an interactive map-based survey; a comprehensive community survey; a community prioritization challenge; draft park concept plans; and a future exercise to comment on the draft plan. A stakeholder group convened periodically to advise the project team. Interviews with experts, both at the staff level and in the community helped inform topics that emerged from the outreach. Consultations with the PRC and other appointed commissions deepened our understanding. City Council updates and study sessions kept the Council members informed. System Concept Maps: To conclude this chapter, three system concept maps illustrate the opportunities that exist for creating a multi-layered system of parklands and connections serving both people and natural systems. Park Search Areas, Priority School Sites and Other City-Owned Property The map identifies areas of Palo Alto where residents lack access to parks and natural open spaces within ¼ mile of their homes. These “park search areas”, labeled A through E for planning purposes, highlight neighborhoods with the greatest park need. Meanwhile, public access to school grounds within park search areas (noted in purple) highlight the need to maintain and possibly expand parks to better support neighborhood uses and enhance their natural open space value. While other City-owned properties (noted in brown) may represent future park opportunities, nearly all of these lands fall outside of the park search areas. Enhanced Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes to Parks and Recreation Facilities The map identifies existing and planned bikeways and pedestrian routes to improve park access. The map illustrates the network of trails and roadways City of Palo Alto Page 7 connecting the neighborhoods to local and regional parks, recreation facilities and natural open spaces. Recommended enhanced routes, labeled 1 through 3, provide north to south travel corridors between Palo Alto’s parks and neighboring communities. Regional trails like the Bay to Ridge and San Francisco Bay trails provide similar travel corridors from Foothills Park and Pearson Arastradero Preserve in the southwest to the Baylands Preserve and other shoreline parks and natural open spaces to the northeast. Improving park access by linking the park sites completes the network. Natural Systems The map illustrates how the same corridors recommended for bike and pedestrian improvements can also provide connectivity for natural systems. Landscape design features such as increased urban forest canopy, native species plantings and storm-water bioswales create safe paths of travel and provide habitat value for local wildlife. Creek and riparian enhancements support “pollinator pathways,” and improve water quality and habitat connections between regionally significant habitats in the hills and in the bay. Planting new street and park trees will benefit areas that currently have low tree canopy coverage, highlighted in tan. Chapter 4: Our Future: Principles, Goals, Policies and Programs To develop a vision for the City’s parks, trails, open space and recreation system, the following eight principles were developed and provide the foundation for the Master Plan. The principles reflect the outcome of the analysis and feedback received during community engagement process. The principles, which are defined in Chapter 4 are: Playful, Healthy, Sustainable, Inclusive, Accessible, Flexible, Balanced and Nature. Following the Principles, the draft goals, policies and programs which were developed with guidance from the PRC, will provide overarching direction to City staff, Council and the PRC; and guide future decision-making related to parks, recreation, and open space capital and program improvements. Development of the Project Goals The analysis and community input phase resulted in the compilation of 12 areas of focus that identify the major themes and key components that will guide policy City of Palo Alto Page 8 and program recommendations. These areas of focus were developed as part of the on-line community survey as a means of allowing the community to provide input on the types of projects and programs that should be prioritized. The project team, working with the PRC, consolidated these areas of focus into five master plan goals. One additional goal, “Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently, and sustainably” was added to represent the standards for operating existing and future parks, recreation, and open space systems. The goals will provide overall direction for long term improvements to the parks and recreation system, while balancing the broad range of interests and desires of Palo Alto’s diverse community with the natural environment. The goals provide an organizational structure for the policies and programs of the Master Plan. Development of the Project Policies The formulation of the draft policies coincide with the development of the master plan goals and provide direct guidance on how to achieve the goals. The policies, like the goals, have been developed from the analysis work done in phase one, and draw on community input, park and program analysis, staff input and PRC feedback. The draft policies provide support and direction for the Master Plan goals and are meant to complement other City efforts such as the Comprehensive Plan, Public Art Master Plan Sustainability and Climate Action Plan and Urban Forest Master Plan. The policies will provide direction for future renovations and enhancements of the parks and recreation system. Proposed Projects and Programs The next level of the Master Plan framework following the goals and policies is the projects and programs that provide specific actions toward achieving the goals and policies. Projects include specific capital improvements, programs and services, as well as studies to gather needed data to give direction on capital improvements, programs and services where there is insufficient data. For consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Master Plan refers to projects and programs collectively as programs. The programs represent potential enhancements and expansions for the parks and recreation system including recreation programming. Potential new programs were created from the information gathered in the analysis and community outreach phase of the Master Plan process including physical inventory and community feedback, and reflect the Areas of Focus that were developed as part of the community survey challenge. Additional programs, such as the addition of new park amenities like City of Palo Alto Page 9 dog parks and restrooms were also considered and are included. Specific capital improvement projects will be included in Chapter 6 – Implementation. The project team reviewed the draft policies with the PRC at the February 23, 2016 PRC meeting, including several areas that required further development and discussion. These areas include the standard used to measure parkland acreage per population (policy 1.B), natural and synthetic turf (policy 2.C), dog parks (policy 2.D) and restrooms (policy 2.E). The PRC provided their input on these areas of interest and at the March 22, 2016 PRC meeting, staff presented recommended policy language to address the Commission’s feedback. The PRC agreed with the draft policies and the best direction forward. Although draft Chapter 4 contains an extensive listing of proposed policies and accompanying programs, descriptions of the four policies that required focused discussions with the PRC are provided below. Policy Recommendation 1B: Parkland standard The initial recommendation for policy 1.B was to adopt the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) standard for the desired amount of urban parkland per resident. This standard is currently cited in the draft Comprehensive Plan Community Services Element. The standard divides parks into two categories: neighborhood and district parks and recommends for each type that 2 acres of land be provided per 1000 residents. This recommendation was made on the basis that the NRPA is currently a nationally recognized standard and an accepted established bench mark, and would provide the city with a clear goal. In applying this standard to Palo Alto’s existing park system, however; it became apparent that the distinction between district and neighborhood parks used in the NRPA standard does not readily correlate to the inventory and patterns of use in Palo Alto where many parks serve as both neighborhood and district parks. In addition, many of Palo Alto’s small neighborhood parks would be discounted from the overall parks inventory if the exact standard were used. Building upon the Comprehensive Plan, the PRC and staff revised the policy to more accurately reflect Palo Alto while supporting the need to expand the existing parks system. To support the policy a set of programs has been developed that will guide how to expand the park system while taking into consideration the limits of space and funding. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Comprehensive plan policy: Use National Recreation and Park Association Standards as guidelines for locating and developing new parks, recognizing that these represent long-term aspirational targets: • Neighborhood parks should be at least two acres in size, although sites as small as one-half acre may be needed as supplementary facilities. The maximum service area radius should be one-half mile. Two acres of neighborhood parkland should be provided for each 1,000 people. • District parks should be at least five acres in size. The maximum service area radius should be one mile. Two acres of district park land should be provided for each 1,000 people. Master Plan policy 1.B: Expand parkland inventory using the National Recreation and Park Association standard as a guide for park development in Palo Alto’s Urban Service Area. New parkland should be added to meet and maintain the standard of 4 acres/1,000 residents. Parkland should expand with population, be well distributed across the community and of sufficient size to meet the varied needs of neighborhoods and the broader community. Maximum service area should be one-half mile. Programs to implement policy 2.D are included in Chapter 4 of Attachment A. Policy Recommendation 2D: Dog parks Providing adequate defined locations for dogs to run off leash has been a community concern for many years. Although Palo Alto has three dog parks (Hoover, Greer, and Mitchell parks) only one, the Mitchell Park location, is of adequate size and space. A PRC Ad Hoc committee was created to develop a policy recommendation that would result in an adequate number of dog parks that are evenly distributed throughout the city. Staff and the Ad Hoc committee evaluated the Palo Alto parks system with the goal of identifying suitable locations for dedicated parks with the focus being on locations with at least .25 acres not currently used for active or programmed recreation. The outcome is a dog park policy and corresponding program that provides guidance on the size, location, and number of dog parks required to meet Palo Alto’s needs. All parks were evaluated and multiple park locations were selected and are supported by the guidelines established by the policy. (Attachment A, policy 2.D) The process City of Palo Alto Page 11 for adding new dog parks would include public outreach meetings for the neighborhood around each park to collect feedback on the proposed dog park, as well as obtaining a Park Improvement Ordinance after PRC review and Council approval. Master Plan policy 2.D: Actively pursue adding dedicated, fenced dog parks in multiple neighborhoods, equitably distributed between north and south Palo Alto. The size of the dog parks will vary, but should strive to be at least .25 acres. Dog parks should not be placed in Open Space Preserves. Programs to implement Policy 2.D: 2.D.1 The City will evaluate and select at least six sites for dedicated, fenced dog parks, equitably distributed across north and south Palo Alto, from the following list of potential park locations: • Eleanor Pardee (North, .41 Acres)-Near Term • Bowden (North, .37 Acres)-Near Term • Greer (Improve existing) (South, .87 Acres) • Peers (North, .73 Acres) • Hoover (Improve existing) (South, 1 Acre) • Robles (South, .47 Acres) • Mitchell (Expand existing) (South, 1.2 Acres) • Kingsley Island (North, .27 Acres) • Werry (North, .31 Acres) • Juana Briones (South, .47 Acres) • Heritage (North, .27 Acres) Both the PRC and a distinct group of community members are in agreement that there is an immediate need for additional dog parks in Palo Alto. The PRC has prepared a memo to Council (Attachment B) recommending that staff begin the process of adding a dog park to the north side of Palo Alto prior to Council adoption of the Master Plan (motion approved unanimously at August 23, 2016 PRC meeting). Since a dog park was not included in the Fiscal Year 2017 capital City of Palo Alto Page 12 budget, staff would need to identify a funding source to begin this process in the current fiscal year. Policy Recommendation 2E: Park restrooms Providing restrooms in parks has been another area of community interest. The Master Plan process revealed broad community support for park restrooms. Palo Alto’s park system currently has 14 parks with restrooms. Staff conducted a thorough analysis of parks that do not have restrooms and determined that restrooms are appropriate for parks that are: approximately two acres in size or larger; have amenities that lengthen the stay of park visitors; are highly used; and where there are no public restrooms nearby. There are seven parks without restrooms that meet these criteria and would benefit from the addition of restrooms in order to allow park visitors of all ages and abilities to fully utilize and enjoy the park. Developed by staff and reviewed by the PRC, the policy establishes clear guidelines for where new restroom facilities should be installed in parks and identifies specific parks for future restroom installation. (Attachment A, policy 2.E) Master Plan Policy 2.E. The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms in parks that are approximately two acres or larger, have amenities that encourage visitors to stay in the park, have high level of use, and where there are no nearby public restrooms available. Programs to implement Policy 2.E: 2.E.1 Develop a restroom standard, in collaboration with the Architectural Review Board, for neighborhood parks. 2.E.2 The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms at the following potential locations: o Bol Park o Bowden Park o Eleanor Pardee Park o Johnson Park o Ramos Park City of Palo Alto Page 13 o Robles Park o Terman Park Policy Recommendation 2.C: Natural and synthetic turf fields With the growing demand to provide playing field space and the need to conserve water, a policy is needed regarding maintenance of natural grass fields and the use of synthetic turf. The policy recommends designing and maintaining natural turf fields with adequate time for field rest and maintenance to support maximum use in parks by multiple organized sports and casual users. The policy acknowledges that the synthetic turf industry is rapidly evolving, and that new and improved products are continually being developed with a movement towards improved playing conditions, improved player safety, cooler temperatures, and more environmentally friendly materials. The policy recommends tracking industry developments and the latest reputable scientific studies regarding synthetic turf; and provides guidance on maintaining the City’s existing synthetic turf fields (Attachment A, policy 2.C). Master Plan Policy 2.C. Design and maintain high quality natural and synthetic turf fields to support maximum use in parks by multiple local organized sports and casual users with areas large enough for practice or play. Programs to implement Policy 2.C: 2.C.1 Conduct an athletic field condition and maintenance assessment of the City’s natural turf fields, and upgrade fields at select parks to high quality natural turf standards including irrigation system upgrades, drainage improvements, etc. The field assessment report should include analysis and recommendations regarding the soil profile, agronomy, irrigation systems, field slope, drainage, field-use demand, and maintenance. 2.C.2 Actively monitor and track industry developments and the latest reputable scientific studies regarding synthetic turf to City of Palo Alto Page 14 understand the environmental and human safety impacts of our existing synthetic turf fields. 2.C.3 Assess the type of turf (new synthetic turf product or natural turf) that should be used when replacing an existing synthetic turf field that is due for replacement 2.C.4 Synthetic turf fields should be striped for multiple sports to maximize use. Whenever possible, synthetic turf playing fields should have lights in order to maximize use of the field. Chapter 5: Site Concept Plans Site Concept Plans were developed for each of Palo Alto’s parks and facilities as a way to initiate dialogue with the community on the potential for park and recreation facility enhancements. The Site Concept Plans, which can be viewed at www.paloaltoparksplan.org, show potential opportunities for improvements and new amenities that could be added to a park or facility. New potential site amenities shown on the Site Concept Plans were derived from the park and recreation system analysis and extensive community input with assistance of park and recreation staff who have detailed knowledge of the community's preferences, common requests and feedback received from the public, as well as the feasibility of proposed improvements. The Site Concept Plans provide the opportunity for the community to provide input on new potential amenities for each site. Input gathered from the community assists staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council in determining what new amenities will be included in the Master Plan. The project team has provided numerous opportunities for the community to review and comment on the concept plans. Outreach was conducted at the City of Palo Alto May Fete Fair, at a community meeting that was held on May 25, 2016, and through an online survey that was available May 26, 2016 through August 9, 2016. Additionally, a meeting was held with members of the Barron Park neighborhood (at their request) to discuss the history and future of Bol Park and staff are continuing to reach out to all neighborhood groups interested in providing further feedback. Printed versions of the Site Concept Plans were also dispersed throughout the City’s libraries and community centers for convenience allowing the public to talk with CSD customer service staff and share their view on how we might improve the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation programs and facilities. Nearly 300 comments City of Palo Alto Page 15 were received on the concept plans during the community outreach effort. The project team has begun using the information received in the community engagement process to refine the site concept plans for inclusion in the Draft Master Plan. Even after adoption of the Master Plan, the site concept plans will not be considered final proposals, but rather a starting point and guide for future community outreach that will occur when a park is proposed for renovation. Chapter 6: Implementation Finally, Chapter 6 will inform staff, the PRC and City Council on strategic direction for implementing the Master Plan. Chapter 6 will include an action plan, a discussion on current and future funding needs, a process for evaluating future projects and a progress reporting methodology. The action plan will identify the programs that will be recommended for implementation in the near-, mid-, and long-term. Near-term is defined as starting within 5 years or less, mid-term is 6- 10 years, and long-term is 11-20 years. Both “keep-up” and “catch-up” projects that were identified in the Final Report of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) will be included in the action plan as well as the new potential amenities or enhancements identified through the Master Plan process. Near- term capital projects will be consistent with the City’s 5-year Capital Improvement Plan and will include initial cost estimates as well as long-term operating costs. Chapter 6 will also include a separate discussion of large-scale capital projects that may be considered a priority, but will take years and significant funding to implement. An outline of the implementation chapter is included in Attachment C. Program prioritization and implementation: When considering the priority of programs for the Master Plan and the order in which they will be completed, the following set of criteria are being used as a guide to identify the benefit of the proposed program to the overall parks system and in relation to other programs. These criteria do not provide an overall numerical score to a program, but serve to inform staff, the PRC, and Council to what degree that particular program would serve the needs of the community based on how well it meets the criteria. The criteria are valuable in allowing the prioritization process to identify which programs to complete in the near-, mid-, and long-term and are being applied to each of the programs identified in the Master Plan. City of Palo Alto Page 16 1. Fill existing gaps: Bring recreation opportunities (parkland, facilities, programs) to areas of the City and to users where gaps were identified. 2. Address community preferences: Target the highest priority types of projects and programs identified through citywide outreach. 3. Respond to growth: Add features or programs, modify or expand components of the system to prepare for and address increasing demand. 4. Maximize public resources: Create the most impact for each dollar of capital and operating expenditure possible. 5. Realize multiple benefits: Advance the principles of this Master Plan as well as the goals, projects and directions of other adopted City efforts. Next Steps Staff and the consultant have begun to draft the Master Plan and have completed drafts of Chapters 1 through 4 (Attachment A). The PRC reviewed these chapters as well as the Implementation Plan outline to guide the development of Chapter 6 (Attachment C). Staff and the PRC are now beginning the final phase of the Master Plan work to develop an action plan, measurement and monitoring tools and process for evaluating future projects. Once this is complete staff will present a draft plan for council feedback followed by approval of a final plan. The community and the PRC will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Master Plan prior to the Council’s review of the draft plan in October/November 2016. Timeline September: Council Study Session – update and review November: Council review draft the Master Plan December 2016: Council considers approval of the Master Plan Resource Impact Funding for this study and planning process is in Capital Improvement Program project PE-13003: Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, which was adopted by Council in Fiscal Year 2013. The objective of this plan is to assess the long-term needs and opportunities for City of Palo Alto Page 17 development and improvement of existing parks, open space areas, regional trails and recreation facilities; the acquisition of new park land or expansion of existing park land to meet the on-going needs of the community; meeting the strategic maintenance needs of existing facilities in a cost-effective manner; the prioritization of recommended improvement and acquisition projects; and to provide funding strategies (public and private) for the improvements and acquisitions suggested by the report. The intent of this planning is to utilize limited Capital Improvement Funds and other resources wisely and effectively, and to leverage these resources with grants or private funding whenever possible. The Master plan will make recommendations that could call for new investments in the future including the development of a strategic funding plan to successfully implement the recommendations. The recommended projects and programs that are included in the Master Plan should be considered potential future projects and the level and extent of improvements and expansion will be dependent on the availability of resources. Policy Implications The proposed Master Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. Environmental Review This is a planning study and therefore exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA guidelines. (Public Resources Code section 15262.) The Master Plan recommendations may result in future capital improvement projects. Environmental review will be conducted in compliance with CEQA with respect to proposed capital improvement projects. Attachments A: Draft Master Plan Chapters 1-4 B: Letter to Council from Parks and Recreation Commission recommending a new dog park C: Outline of Chapter 6: Implementation City of Palo Alto Page 18 Attachments: Attachment A - Draft Master Plan Chapters 1-4 (PDF) Attachment B - PRC Letter Supporting Dog Parks (PDF) Attachment C - PTNOSR Chapter 6 Memo MIG (PDF) PB PALOALTO MASTER PLAN AUGUST 2016 DRAFT PARKS TRAILS NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Attachment A i Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO This project was a joint effort of the Community Services and Public Works Departments of the City of Palo Alto. The core team included the following staff members: Rob de Geus, Director of Community Services Kristen O’Kane, Assistant Director of Community Services Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks & Golf Division Manager Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer The Parks and Recreation Commission advised staff throughout the planning process: Jim Cowie Anne Warner Cribbs Jennifer Hetterly Abbie Knopper Ed Lauing David Moss Keith Reckdahl Past Members: Stacy Ashlund Dierdre Crommie Pat Markevitch CONSULTANT TEAM MIG, INC. PALO ALTO COMMUNITY Special thanks to the dedicated Palo Alto residents and community members who contributed their time, energy and ideas to this effort, particularly the members of the stakeholder advisory group. ii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN iiiii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN CONTENTS MASTER PLAN Glossary .............................................................................................................................................................................v Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................................vii Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 2. Elements of Palo Alto’s Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaces & Recreation System ......15 Chapter 3. Analysis and Assessment ....... ......................................................................................................... 31 Chapter 4. Our future: Principles, Policies, Programs & Projects ............................................................. 53 Chapter 5. Site Concept Plans ............................................................................................. Under Development Chapter 6. Implementation ..................................................................................................Under Development Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................................................87 APPENDICES A. Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaces and Recreation Inventory ...........................Under Development B. Community Engagement Summary ............................................................................Under Development C. Geographic Analysis Maps ...............................................................................................Under Development D. Rinconada Park Master Plan ..........................................................................................Under Development FIGURES Figure 1: Planning Process .........................................................................................................................................4 Figure 2: Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Spaces Map .................................................................20 Figure 3: Participation in Palo Alto Recreation Program Areas .................................................................25 Figure 4: Palo Alto Race and Ethnicity..................................................................................................................35 Figure 5: Park Walksheds Map ...............................................................................................................................40 Figure 6: Prioritization Challenge Results ...................................................................................................43-44 Figure 7: Park Search Areas Map ..........................................................................................................................46 Figure 8: Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map .............................................................................................48 Figure 9: Natural Systems Map .............................................................................................................................50 TABLES Table 1: Parks and Natural Open Spaces Inventory .......................................................................................19 Table 2: Palo Alto Facilities ......................................................................................................................................22 Table 3: City of Palo Alto Projected Population.................................................................................................35 Table 4: City of Palo Alto Key Age Groups...........................................................................................................35 iv Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN viv Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN GLOSSARY OF TERMS Creek/Riparian Enhancement: conceptual enhancement opportunity for all of the creeks passing through Palo Alto. Element: one of three divisions of the plan for analysis purposes: parks, trails and natural open space, recreation facilities, recreation programs. Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Route: a concept to improve routes identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to create a network of high quality on and off street connections that link parks. These routes are envisioned to have enhanced crossings, street treatments and other improvements beyond the bicycle infrastructure outlined in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Streetscape and plantings are also linked to the idea of Pollinator Pathways. Facility: a built feature in a park or preserve that adds, supports or enhances a recreation activity. Goals: a broad statement of direction describing the desired end state. Goals are qualitative in nature, and collectively should achieve the system envisioned by the principles. Mean Projected High Water 3ft Sea Level Rise: the line at which water meets the land surface at the mean high water point projected in NOAA models for 3 feet of sea level rise. Natural Open Space Preserve: a category of park land that is designated to protect and provide access to nature. The four natural open space preserves are: Baylands Preserve (which includes Byxbee Park), Esther Clark Preserve, Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Park Connector: a conceptual second tier of enhanced bicycle and pedestrian route that links the major routes to a few isolated sites. Park Search Area: the inverse of the park service areas, highlighting the areas outside of a ½ mile walk from any park land. These areas are the targets for strategies to add to the park system. Policy: a values-based framework that provides clear direction and guides an action toward achieving the goal. Policies state what will be done, but not how. vi Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN Pollinator Pathway: a concept for pathyways, utilizing the Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Route network, that feature plantings and tree canopy along the streetscape to enhance habitat connections for birds and insects with multiple benefits including enhancing pollination. Principles: a fundamental basis that describes a desired state or preferred direction. Collectively, the principles articulate the Palo Alto community’s vision for the future parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. Recreation Program: a class, league, camp, tour or event that facilitates participating in an activity Riparian Connected Parks: sites with a creek (natural or channelized) passing through or adjacent. Universal Design: the concept of designing all products and the built environment to be aesthetic and usable to the greatest extent possible by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life. - Ronald L. Mace on North Carolina State University, College of Design Urban Canopy Target Area: the lowest canopy coverage neighborhoods in the Urban Forestry Master Plan (0-30% coverage). viivi Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN Executive Summary This is under development for the October/ November draft. viii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN Executive Summary This is under development for the October/ November draft. CHAPTER1 PURPOSE AND INTENT It has been fifty years since Palo Alto has taken a comprehensive look at the community’s needs for park lands, natural open spaces, trails and recreation. The visionary 1965 plan shaped our community’s present day parks and recreation offerings, and led to the creation of the Baylands Athletic Center, expansion of athletic fields throughout the city, and an expansion of Greer Park. It called for parks within one-half mile of every residential development, and established City standards for the amount of neighborhood and district park acreage. Today Palo Alto residents, employees and visitors value and enjoy the City’s high-quality system of parks, recreation programs, trails and natural open spaces. To build on and continue the legacy of a INTRODUCTION 2 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION EVOLVE THE SYSTEM TO SERVE A LARGER AND MORE DIVERSE SET OF COMMUNITY NEEDS 32 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION strong parks system, the City developed this Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) to guide ongoing investment in one of the community’s most treasured assets. Over the last five decades, the City has completed a series of planning efforts that impact parks and recreation; implemented capital improvement projects to maintain and renovate City facilities; and applied development impact fees for parks, community centers and libraries. In recent years, several major projects have been completed including the all-new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and the Magical Bridge Playground, both of which opened in 2015 to community acclaim. Palo Alto has the opportunity right now to evolve the system to serve a larger and more diverse set of community needs and tackle challenges to maintain the high standard of living enjoyed by residents. A particular focus will be finding and creating additional spaces for parks and recreation to achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and bring parks and recreation activities within walking distance of all residents. The park system of the 21st century calls for holistic guidance for managing, improving and expanding park and recreation facilities to keep programs, services and facilities relevant to present and future populations; appropriately balance recreation and natural open space conservation; and identify funding to meet these challenges. For this reason, Palo Alto prioritized the development of this Master Plan. The Master Plan presents the vision for the future of Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system, based on guiding principles, goals and concepts developed through a rigorous analysis of the existing system and a robust community engagement process. It builds on this framework with a set of policies, projects, programs, and site specific plans with recommendations for future renovations and capital improvements. It also includes guidance on how to prioritize future recreation, programming, environmental and maintenance investment to meet our community’s changing needs and evolving demands for the next 20 years. 4 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION Planning Process Overview The planning process to develop the Master Plan included the following tracks, as shown in Figure 1. •Community and Stakeholder Engagement: Proactive engagement of the public and a broad range of stakeholders to identify community needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements. •Technical Assessment and Analysis: A comprehensive inventory and analysis of all Palo Alto parks, trails, natural open spaces and recreational facilities and programs; an analysis of current and forecasted demographic and recreation trends; and an analysis of community recreation needs. •Developing and Prioritizing Projects: Preparation of recommendations; identification of capital projects, needed renovations and other improvements; and prioritization of projects into an implementation timeline of short (5-year), medium (10- year) and long-term (20-year) ranges. •Plan Review and Adoption: Public review and approval process to adopt the plan. FIGURE 1: PLANNING PROCESS 54 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION The process was led by the project team, consisting of city and consultant staff. The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) was involved throughout the process, serving as strategic advisors and participating in-depth in reviewing the assessment and analysis tasks. Community and Stakeholder Engagement The Master Plan was designed to be community and data driven, to ensure that Palo Alto’s parks and recreation system reflects the vision and supports the needs of our residents and visitors over the next twenty years. A robust, layered outreach strategy was implemented through each step of the planning process. Engagement methods included a wide variety of tools and activities, offered within a range of formats, time frames and levels of interaction, to engage with Palo Alto’s diverse community members in ways that were comfortable and convenient for them. Master Plan community engagement methods, described in the following section, included: • A project webpage • Public information updates through a variety of online and print communication channels • A community stakeholder advisory group • A series of face-to-face “intercept surveys” at popular locations and community events • A variety of interactive community workshops • A series of online surveys • Interviews with City staff and community experts to better inform topics that emerged from community engagement • Consultations with the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and other appointed commissions • City Council updates and study sessions The process and findings for each of the community engagement activities are detailed in summary reports on the City website. The summary of the key findings from the community engagement are included in Chapter 3 of this plan. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT GOALS • Increase community awareness of the project; • Inform the community about the challenges and opportunities of the project; • Provide easy access to project information and opportunities for participation; • Offer a range of communication and engagement tools to match interests and preferences; • Ensure the final Master Plan reflects community priorities, preferences and values; and • Get community buy-in to support plan adoption and its short-, mid- and long- term implementation. 6 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION PROJECT WEBPAGE A Master Plan project webpage, hosted on the City’s website with a project-specific web address (paloaltoparksplan.org), served as the information portal and document library for the planning effort. PUBLIC INFORMATION UPDATES The project team disseminated public information updates through the City’s established mailing lists, newsletters and social media accounts. These updates informed the community about upcoming meetings, online participation opportunities and project status. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP The Stakeholder Advisory Group provided an informed sounding board for ideas and provided updated information about related efforts and organizations. This group was also asked to help boost participation in other engagement activities by passing along information to existing networks and constituent groups about the Master Plan process. This group consisted of representatives from local advocacy groups, recreation organizations, local employers and landowners, community service providers and others. To respect the time of the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group, the project team designed the process to solicit this group’s input at strategic times during the project. Project webpage 76 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION INTERCEPT EVENTS During the summer of 2014, the project team and PRC members conducted six “intercept surveys” to collect input from visitors outdoors at parks, farmer’s markets and community events. This approach is effective at engaging all age groups, especially families with children, and allows for informal and educational discussions with the public. It also facilitates interaction with people who do not typically attend public meetings, due to schedule conflicts or a lack of awareness. The project team selected intercept times and locations to reach a cross-section of Palo Altans. More than 200 people learned about the park system and the Master Plan effort and informed the planning team about their values and motivations as related to parks, natural open space and recreation. ONLINE MAP-BASED SURVEY During the summer of 2014, the project team hosted an online, interactive, map-based survey using the Mapita application. This tool allows community members to respond to a series of questions and provide geographically tagged comments on specific parks, facilities and transportation routes throughout the City. A total of 487 respondents provided comments on park quality, barriers to access, needs and opportunities. This effort generated a rich data set about how people use the park system, how they Site-Specific Comments on Bol Park from the Online Map-Based Survey 8 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION travel to the places they go, and what their experience is like, including site-specific data. Figures 3 and 4 are example graphics from the map-based survey. COMMUNITY INPUT WORKSHOPS In fall and winter 2014, the project team conducted three interactive public workshops in different areas of Palo Alto, attended by about 65 community members. Participants took part in a visual preference survey about the character and design of parks using real-time keypad polling. This activity, facilitated in small groups, provided opportunities for in-depth discussion of what features participants would like to protect, preserve, improve or add to Palo Alto. The project team collected polling data, recorded group discussion and collected additional input on comment cards. For example, the image below shows the level of participant support (combined from all three workshops) for a landscape with integrated natural plantings. ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY Over 1,100 people completed an online survey developed by the Visual Preference Survey Result from a Community Input Workshop CHAPTER2 ELEMENTS OF PALO ALTO’S PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACES AND RECREATION SYSTEM FROM ITS EARLIEST YEARS, THE COMMUNITY OF PALO ALTO HAS INVESTED IN THE SYSTEM OF PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACES AND RECREATION, LEAVING A LEGACY OF UNIQUE AND HIGHLY VALUED LANDS AND FACILITIES. Philanthropic donations, unique partnerships and forward-thinking acquisitions have positioned the system at the forefront of community identity. The level of investment has created a complex system that provides many different recreation opportunities, as well as important natural functions and habitat for wildlife. To facilitate the analysis and understanding of Palo Alto’s resources, the project team defined three elements that comprise the citywide system of parks, natural open spaces, trails and recreation facilities and programs. These three elements were 16 THE LANDSCAPE OF PARKS, OPEN SPACES AND TRAIL CONNECTIONS PROVIDE THE SPACE WHERE RECREATION FACILITIES, NATURAL HABITAT AND PROGRAMS TAKE PLACE. 1716 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS broken down further into constituent “components” to provide a reference framework for system analysis, community engagement, and development of Master Plan recommendations. Each of the elements is described below, providing a view of the system today and highlighting key features. Parks, Trails and Natural Open Spaces The landscape of parks, open spaces and trail connections provide the space where recreation facilities, natural habitat and pro- grams take place. Most of Palo Alto’s park sites are set in an urban context, within neighborhoods connected by city streets. However, the largest portion of the land in the system is held in natural open space preserves. An expanding network of trails and bikeways supplements the sidewalks and streets that connect these assets together. The analysis related to this element includes the proxim- ity of park lands and recreation activities; opportunities to experi- ence and protect natural habitats; trail connections and the comfort and accessibility of the sites. The System Today Palo Alto maintains over 173 acres of urban park land distributed throughout the city as well as over 4,000 acres in natural open space preserves. The majority of the parks in Palo Alto are neigh- borhood parks, primarily designed to support the everyday activ- ities of local residents. Some parks also feature unique facilities such as community gardens and dog parks. There are several parks that draw visitors from across the city and from neighborhing communities. These typically have a higher concentration of facil- ities, including high quality sports fields. Some of these parks are designed for a specific use and do not serve immediate neighbors (e.g., Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park and Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields), while others, like Greer, Mitchell, and Rinco- nada Parks, also function as neighborhood parks. City parks are diverse in size and amenities, but many are older and/or have aging facilities. Palo Alto parks are highly developed with maintained landscapes across their entire acreage. Native species and less manicured landscapes are generally not present. Due to the era 18 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS when they were built, many parks don’t have flexible spaces that allow different uses to be layered in. Rather, they provide a collec- tion of spaces designed for a single activity. With design interven- tions, many existing parks have the potential to support more use and activity. There are four natural open space preserves: Baylands Preserve (which includes Byxbee Park), Esther Clark Preserve, Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. These sites are large, rich in native species of plants and animal habitat and have extensive internal trail systems. With the exception of Esther Clark Preserve, the preserves also have recreational and interpretive facilities. Palo Alto Open Space has approximately 43.2 miles of trail. The Baylands Preserve trail system is approximately 15 miles long, and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve trail system is approximately 10.3 miles long. The existing trail system is largely within park lands but several segments of designated or off-street trails connect parks and other community destinations. Most significant among these are the Bay to Ridge and San Francisco Bay regional trails. The pub- lic trail system is further enhanced by privately owned trails with public access such as the recently completed Stanford Perimeter Trail. The Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Space map (Figure 2) depicts all City-owned park sites and natural open spaces. Palo Alto Unified School District sites are also acknowledged on this map due to the long-standing partnership and their importance as park-like places. A detailed inventory of these sites can be found in Appendix A, and a complete set of site maps can be found in the Technical Supplement. PALO ALTO PARK ACREAGE Urban Parks: 174 Natural Open Space Preserves: 4,030 NATURAL OPEN SPACE PRESERVES Baylands Preserve (including Byxbee Park) Esther Clark Preserve Foothills Park Pearson-Arastradero Preserve 1918 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS Park or Natural Open Space Ownership Acres Baylands Athletic Center City of Palo Alto 6 Bol Park City of Palo Alto 13.8 Boulware Park City of Palo Alto 1.5 Bowden Park City of Palo Alto 2 Bowling Green Park City of Palo Alto 1.9 (Juana) Briones Park City of Palo Alto 4.1 Cameron Park City of Palo Alto 1.1 Cogswell Plaza City of Palo Alto 0.5 El Camino Park Stanford 12.2 Eleanor Pardee Park City of Palo Alto 9.6 El Palo Alto Park City of Palo Alto 0.5 Greer Park City of Palo Alto 22 Heritage Park City of Palo Alto 2.0 Hoover Park City of Palo Alto 4.2 Hopkins Creekside City of Palo Alto 12.4 Johnson Park City of Palo Alto 2.5 Kellogg Park City of Palo Alto 0.2 Lytton Plaza City of Palo Alto 0.2 Mayfield Park City of Palo Alto 1.1 Mitchell Park City of Palo Alto 21.4 Monroe Park City of Palo Alto 0.6 Peers Park City of Palo Alto 4.7 Ramos Park City of Palo Alto 4.4 Rinconada Park City of Palo Alto 19 Robles Park City of Palo Alto 4.7 Scott Park City of Palo Alto 0.4 Seale Park City of Palo Alto 4.3 Stanford - Palo Alto Playing Fields Stanford 5.9 Terman Park City of Palo Alto/ PAUSD 7.7 Wallis Park City of Palo Alto 0.3 Weisshaar Park City of Palo Alto 1.1 Werry Park City of Palo Alto 1.1 SUBTOTAL CITY PARKS 174 Baylands Preserve (including Byxbee)City of Palo Alto 1,986 Esther Clark Preserve City of Palo Alto 22 Foothills Park City of Palo Alto 1,400 Pearson-Arastradero Preserve City of Palo Alto 622 SUBTOTAL NATURAL OPEN SPACES 4,030 TABLE 1: PALO ALTO PARKS AND NATURAL OPEN SPACES INVENTORY 20 BaylandsPreserve Baylands Athletic Center El Camino Park GreerPark BolPark Esther ClarkPreserve MitchellPark TermanPark Hoover Park EleanorPardeePark Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park RamosPark Rinconada Park Briones Park Johnson Park BowdenPark BowlingGreen Park Boulware Park MonroePark Werry Park Cogswell Plaza CameronPark MayfieldPark WeisshaarPark LyttonPlaza SarahWallis Park KelloggPark StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park El Palo Alto Park Pearson - Arastradero Preserve Scott Park Heritage Park Cubberley Community Center Williams Park San F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C r e ek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k £¤101 §¨¦280 ¬«82 Foothills Park S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y S T A N F O R D 0 10.5 Miles ² Figure 8: Existing Public Parks & Natural Open Space 04.01.2016 | Data Sources: Palo AltoOpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks,Trails, Natural Open Space and Master Plan Recreation Palo Alto Menlo Park Mountain ViewLos Altos Los Altos Hills Atherton Stanford Loyola East Palo Alto Ladera FoothillsPark ArastaderoPreserve City Park City Natural Open Spaces Trail Stanford Perimeter Trail - Private trail with public access Private Recreation Route Major Road Street Water Feature School District Land Palo Alto Other City Santa Clara County San Mateo County FIGURE 2: EXISTING PUBLIC PARKS AND NATURAL OPEN SPACE MAP 2120 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter El CaminoPark GreerPark BolPark Esther ClarkPreserve MitchellPark TermanPark Hoover Park EleanorPardeePark Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park RamosPark Rinconada Park Briones Park Johnson Park BowdenPark BowlingGreen Park Boulware Park MonroePark Werry Park Cogswell Plaza CameronPark MayfieldPark WeisshaarPark LyttonPlaza SarahWallis Park KelloggPark StanfordPalo AltoPlaying Fields Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkinsCreeksidePark El PaloAlto Park Pearson -ArastraderoPreserve ScottPark Heritage Park Cubberley Community Center Williams Park SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron C r e e k Adobe C r e e k £¤101 §¨¦280 ¬«82 Foothills Park S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y S T A N F O R D 0 10.5 Miles ² Figure 8: Existing Public Parks & Natural Open Space 04.01.2016 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Master Plan Recreation Palo Alto Menlo Park Mountain ViewLos Altos Los Altos Hills Atherton Stanford Loyola East Palo Alto Ladera FoothillsPark ArastaderoPreserve City Park City Natural Open Spaces Trail Stanford Perimeter Trail - Private trail with public access Private Recreation Route Major Road Street Water Feature School District Land Palo Alto Other City Santa Clara County San Mateo County 22 Recreation Facilities From community centers to sports fields to community gardens, Palo Alto’s recreation facilities add variety to the experiences pos- sible at each of Palo Alto’s parks and natural open spaces. Twelve types of recreation facilities are found throughout the system, in addition, other specialized recreation facilities such as the skate park at Greer Park, the lawn bowling green at Bowling Green Park, and El Camino Park serve specific recreation needs. The number and type of facilities at each park and preserve are summarized as part of the detailed inventory of the system found in Appendix A. Play Areas The most common, and expected, feature in a Palo Alto park is a play area. Typically play areas include a manufactured playground structure and may or may not include swings or other features. Mitchell Park has particularly unique play experiences that include both a historic Royston-designed “gopher holes” play area and the Magical Bridge Playground, a destination play area designed to be universally accessible for children of all abilities. Basketball and Tennis Courts Courts, primarily for basketball and tennis, are incorporated into many of Palo Alto’s parks. Most of the courts are provided singly or in pairs of facilities with the exception of Mitchell and Rinconada parks with 7 and 9 tennis courts respectively. These concentrations of tennis courts provide a higher capacity for play and the potential to host tournaments. Rectangular and Diamond Sports Fields The city owns, manages and maintains dozens of rectangular and diamond sports fields located throughout the city. Rectangular fields accommodate a variety of sports including soccer, and foot- ball. Diamond fields are designed for particular levels of baseball or PALO ALTO RECREATION FACILITIES •Play areas •Basketball Courts •Tennis Courts •Rectangular Sports Fields •Diamond Sports Fields •Picnic Areas •Off-Leash Dog Areas •Community Gardens •Swimming Pools •Community Centers •Special Purpose Buildings in Parks •Other Indoor Facilities •Golf Course Number of Facilities in Palo Alto Play Areas 29 Basketball Courts 14 Tennis Courts 24 Rectangular Sports Fields 22 Diamond Sports Fields 10 Picnic Areas 39 Pools 2 Dog Parks 2 Community Centers 3 Community Gardens 2 Interpretive Centers 3 TABLE 2: PALO ALTO FACILITIES CHAPTER3 ANALYSIS & ASSESSMENT THE MASTER PLAN WAS DEVELOPED WITH A COMPREHENSIVE, DATA-DRIVEN AND COMMUNITY FOCUSED PROCESS THAT INCLUDED AN ARRAY OF ASSESSMENT, ANALYSIS AND OUTREACH STRATEGIES. This process resulted in a detailed understanding of Palo Alto’s current system of parks, trails, natural open spaces, recreation facilities and recreation programs and services, the opportunities that system presents, and the current and future needs of the community it serves. The following sections provide brief descriptions of the analysis completed and key findings from the process. More detailed versions of the reports and work products summarized here can be found in the Technical Supplement on the City website. 32 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE ENHANCEMENTS TO PARKS THROUGHOUT THE CITY INCLUDING MORE TYPES OF PLAY EXPERIENCES AND ENVIRONMENTS. 3332 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Community Engagement Results The project team, with support from the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), successfully collected and analyzed input from hundreds of residents and stakeholders through a variety of community outreach methods. The following sections describe the goals and structure of the Master Plan community engagement process, its key topics and themes and brief summaries of each method. KEY COMMUNITY TOPICS AND THEMES: The following topics and themes were referenced multiple times by the community, City staff, partners and decision makers. They were critical in shaping the overall analysis of the system, and provided direction for the development of the Master Plan principles, goals, policies and recommended actions. • Respondents value, support and appreciate their parks system. They recognize that it is a high-quality system. • Respondents believe that strategic enhancements and improvements are needed to better meet evolving needs and trends, adapt to growth and changing demographics, and to continue to provide world-class experiences to residents. • Limited land availability and high cost is seen as the major limiting factor to pursuing new park opportunities. • Providing accessible and safe active transportation (walking, biking, etc.) routes to natural open spaces, community centers and parks is a high priority. • Enhancing physical and mental well-being is a critical function of parks for Palo Altans. Loop trails, bicycle and pedestrian paths to parks, and places to relax are top priorities, along with exercise equipment or additional classes. • Protection of nature is very important to residents. There is widespread support for the continued protection, enhancement and restoration of open spaces and wildlife habitat. • Residents also want to feel connected to nature in their urban parks. There is interest in adding nature play elements and wildlife habitats to more traditional parks. 34 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT • There is widespread interest in bringing community gardens, dog parks and aquatic facilities to new areas of the city to improve access to these amenities for all neighborhoods. • Residents strongly support improved and additional restrooms in parks. In addition, there is a clear preference for features and amenities that support comfort, convenience and longer stays at parks, including water fountains and places to sit. • The Palo Alto community strongly supports universal design and access and there is interest in adding inclusive play elements to more parks. • Current policies that prioritize facility availability for Palo Alto residents are widely supported, and stakeholders generally agree that Palo Alto is (and should be) focused on providing services to local residents, rather than providing regional attractions. • Residents would like to see enhancements to parks throughout the city including more types of play experiences and environments. There is also support for smaller, more locally focused events and programs (e.g., movies in the park) that are held in different parks throughout the city. • The community strongly supports the kinds of local and regional partnerships (particularly with the school district) that expand recreation opportunities and services for youth, teens and residents of all ages and abilities. The input from the community was provided at several stages in the process and guided decisions about how the system was analyzed. This includes the analysis of walkability and park access, as well as analysis of access to those experiences highly desired by Palo Altans (such as play for children). In addition, specific facilities, such as restrooms, dog parks and community gardens were analyzed (examining equitable distribution and need) as a result of the community interest in these features. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THEMES • Walkability and Equity of Park and Preserve Access • Activity Access: Play for Children • Activity Access: Exercise and Fitness • Activity Access: Throw/ Catch/Shoot/Kick/Hit • Activity Access: Gather Together • Activity Access: Relax and Enjoy the Outdoors • Experience Nature • Preservation of Nature • Trail Connections • Availability of Restrooms • Site Amenities and Experience • Universal Accessibility 3534 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Demographic and Recreation Trend Analysis Note: This section is under further development in coordination with Planning and Community Environment. The project team evaluated the existing demographic profile in Palo Alto, including household characteristics and transportation behavior, to identify patterns and trends that could influence recreation preferences. In addition, this analysis evaluated regional and national trends in health, sports, socializing, recreation, family and urban form for their potential to affect the direction of the Master Plan. KEY DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS: • The city has grown steadily since the 1970’s and has a large share of long-term residents., 37% living in the City for over 20 years. • While the average age of residents is increasing, the city has a sizable population of children under 18 years of age (over 23% of the City population in 2013). • The city has a significant share of commuters who travel by bike (11%). • National and regional recreation trends emphasize an outdoor lifestyle, physical and mental health, diverse options for older adults at multiple stages of life, universal design and access for people of all abilities, and a movement to connect children with nature. TABLE 4: CITY OF PALO ALTO KEY AGE GROUPS Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey Age Percent Total Population 64,234 Persons under 5 years 5.1% Persons under 18 years 23.3% Persons 65 years and over 16.9% Population Population 2013 66,368 Population projection 2035 84,000 Percent Change 27% Average Annual Change 1.1% TABLE 3: CITY OF PALO ALTO PROJECTED POPULATION Source: California Department of Finance and Association of Bay Area Governments FIGURE 4: PALO ALTO RACE AND ETHNICITY 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% White Black or AfricanAmerican American Indianand Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Two or MoreRaces Hispanic orLatino 2000 2010 2014 36 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Analysis of the System The analysis of the system began with a site visit to each park, facility and preserve to document and evaluate existing conditions so an accurate and in-depth foundation of base information could be developed. The analysis of observations during these visits was recorded in a set of existing conditions maps. These maps include the history, a summary of features and a description of opportunities and constraints for each site. Each map also incorporates site-specific public input gathered through the community engagement process. For the full set of existing conditions maps, see the Technical Supplement on the City website. Geographic Analysis The project team developed a geographic analysis of the parks, trails and natural open spaces system to evaluate its walkability and accessibility. To conduct the analysis, the project team developed a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) model of the surrounding streets, sidewalks, trails and pathways, using ESRI Network Analyst to identify “walksheds” or catchment areas for each park. This approach reflects the way people move through the city. The desired travel distances used were ¼ and ½ mile, reflecting research on the distance a typical person can walk in five and ten minutes. This analysis refined the understanding of the ½ mile distance first cited in the 1965 parks plan and aligned with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The project team also factored in physical barriers that impede access, incorporating feedback from the public engagement process about specific streets and intersections people report as being difficult to cross. Figure 5, on page 38, shows the ¼ and ½ mile walksheds for all parks in Palo Alto. Many communities also analyze park systems using a function- based parks classification scheme (neighborhood parks, community parks, regional parks). However, the parks in Palo Alto serve multiple functions. Feedback from the community through the engagement process indicated that people in Palo Alto are looking for the park system to deliver five categories of activities on a widely accessible basis, regardless of how the park is classified functionally. To conduct an assessment of the community’s access to each of these activities, the project team defined analysis criteria for each category and applied the criteria to the geographic analysis model. 3736 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT The five categories of activity and their analysis criteria are summarized below. • Relax and Enjoy Outdoors. Palo Altans place a high value on parks that provide a place to relax and enjoy the outdoors. This activity is supported in most parks, which usually include a quiet and calm place to walk or sit. However, some Palo Alto parks were identified as not supporting this activity because of their proximity to a highway or a loud/busy street, their dedication to and heavy use for competitive sports, or based on comments made by the public on the online interactive map (and verified in a site visit). • Play for Children. Children and youth were regularly cited as one of the most important audiences for the park system. Parks that provide a playground, play area or unique play feature (sculpture, nature play, etc.) support this activity and this audience. • Throw a Ball. This activity encompasses throwing, catching, shooting, kicking and hitting a ball, and includes both self-directed and competitive (league-based) play. Parks that have a large open turf area or that incorporate formal sports fields and courts support this activity. Organized sports for both youth and adults have been important to residents going back to the early days of the park system. • Exercise and Fitness. Exercise and fitness in a park setting generally occurs by walking or running (top recreation activities in Palo Alto, as well as nationally), or by swimming. Those parks with perimeter or looped paths, extensive trail systems, fitness stations or a pool support this activity. Health and wellness has been shown to be important to Palo Alto residents in this and other planning processes. • Gathering. The Palo Alto community sees the park system as an important provider of space for family, friends and the larger community to gather for picnics, social events and group activities. Formal picnic areas, shelters and features such as amphitheaters support this activity. PB Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation 38 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Baylands Preserve Baylands Athletic Center El Camino Park GreerPark BolPark Esther ClarkPreserve MitchellPark TermanPark Hoover Park EleanorPardeePark Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park RamosPark Rinconada Park Briones Park Johnson Park BowdenPark BowlingGreen Park Boulware Park MonroePark Werry Park Cogswell Plaza CameronPark MayfieldPark WeisshaarPark LyttonPlaza SarahWallis Park KelloggPark StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park El Palo Alto Park Pearson - Arastradero Preserve Scott Park Heritage Park Cubberley Community Center Ventura Community Center S a n F ra ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C r e e k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k £¤101 §¨¦280 ¬«82 Foothills Park SAN MATEO COUNTY STANFORD 0 10.5 Miles ² Figure 10: Park Walksheds 12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Palo Alto Menlo Park Mountain ViewLos Altos Los Altos Hills Atherton Stanford Loyola East Palo Alto Ladera FoothillsPark ArastaderoPreserve Park Walksheds 1/4 mile 1/2 mile City Park City Natural Open Spaces Trail Stanford Perimeter Trail - Private trail with public access Private Recreation Route Major Road Street Water Feature School District Land Palo Alto Other City; Other City Santa Clara County San Mateo County FIGURE 5: PARK WALKSHEDS MAP 3938 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Baylands Preserve Baylands Athletic Center El Camino Park GreerPark BolPark Esther ClarkPreserve MitchellPark TermanPark Hoover Park EleanorPardeePark Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park RamosPark Rinconada Park Briones Park Johnson Park BowdenPark BowlingGreen Park Boulware Park MonroePark Werry Park Cogswell Plaza CameronPark MayfieldPark WeisshaarPark LyttonPlaza SarahWallis Park KelloggPark StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park El Palo Alto Park Pearson - Arastradero Preserve Scott Park Heritage Park Cubberley Community Center Ventura Community Center SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k £¤101 §¨¦280 ¬«82 Foothills Park SAN MATEO COUNTY STANFORD 0 10.5 Miles ² Figure 10: Park Walksheds 12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Palo Alto Menlo Park Mountain ViewLos Altos Los Altos Hills Atherton Stanford Loyola East Palo Alto Ladera FoothillsPark ArastaderoPreserve Park Walksheds 1/4 mile 1/2 mile City Park City Natural Open Spaces Trail Stanford Perimeter Trail - Private trail with public access Private Recreation Route Major Road Street Water Feature School District Land Palo Alto Other City; Other City Santa Clara County San Mateo County 40 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Additional geographic analysis evaluated access to experiences, natural open space and recreation facilities that were identified as highly desired by the community during the intercept surveys. These include: • The experience and preservation of nature; • Equitable access to natural open spaces (preserves); • Community gardening; • Recreation with dogs; and • Distribution of indoor recreation space. GEOGRAPHIC NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES: The spatial analysis revealed the following: • Most Palo Alto residents have access to a city park within a ¼ and ½ mile. Gaps exist north of the Oregon Expressway near Highway 101 and south of El Camino Real near commercial and institutional land uses. • Fewer neighborhoods have activity access to all five identified activities within a ½ mile. • Parks that offer exercise and fitness opportunities are more common south of the Oregon Expressway. • Dog parks are all located south of the Oregon Expressway. • Community gardens are located entirely north of Oregon Expressway. Recreation Program Analysis To evaluate the capacity of Palo Alto’s facilities and programs to meet demand, the project team reviewed and analyzed data on reservations, minimum participation, program registrations and waitlists, and considered the observations of staff and consultants. A crucial performance indicator in recreation programming is minimum participation. This is the minimum number of participants needed to achieve the cost recovery goals of each class. These goals are set according to the City’s cost recovery policy and the individual class budget. This, along with classes indicated as full or with waitlists, provided insight into the capacity and demand for categories and specific types of programs. 4140 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT RECREATION PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES: • The highest participation in City programs is in sports (adult and youth), aquatics (youth and teen) and day camps. • The current policy of “everyone plays” is widely supported for middle school athletics. However, expanding these programs is difficult due to limited gym and field space. • Demand for some classes and programs varries greatly by time of day. • Facility constraints and a shortage of instructors and coaches prevent the expansion of most sports programs. In contrast, outdoor and open space programs can be more easily expanded because of the outdoor setting. • Academic support programs offered to youth and teens are typically operating under capacity. • Programs offered by the Art Center, the Junior Museum and Zoo and the Children’s Theatre that are included in the registration system serve thousands of additional adults, youth and teens. Many of these programs have waitlists, partly because of limited space in the specialized buildings associated with these divisions. Needs and Opportunities Summary As major elements of the Technical Assessment and Analysis and the Community and Stakeholder Engagement were completed, the PRC and the project team began a detailed review of the accumulated data as it related to each element of the Master Plan, tying these two tracks of the Master Plan process together in preparation for Developing and Prioritizing Projects. As described in Chapter 1, the process for this review resulted in a detailed reference matrix (with supporting documentation) identifying needs and opportunities across the system. The Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix included in the technical supplement synthesizes findings from both the Technical Assessment and Analysis and the Community and Stakeholder Engagement tracks across nine topics: • Current Service/Inventory • Level of Control 42 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT • Geographic Analysis • Capacity/Bookings • Perception of Quality • Expressed Need • Demographic Trends • Barriers to Access/Participation • Projected Demand The final step of the process was to summarize opportunities to enhance Palo Alto’s system through the addition, distribution or modification of a particular element and component. These opportunities represent potential actions that would benefit the system. These actions were prioritized to develop the Master Plan’s final recommendations, based on the constraints posed by limited land, staff, funding and other resources in the community. Areas of Focus The planning team and the PRC reviewed the matrix in great detail and through this process identified groupings of opportunities that had emerged across many analysis and community input activities. The groups of opportunities were crafted into a set of twelve Areas of Focus, which represent a major development step toward goals for the master plan. The Areas of Focus are: • Distributing park and recreation activities and experiences across the city • Improving the accessibility of the full range of park and recreation opportunities • Exploring new types of programs, classes, events and activities for all ages and abilities • Improving and enhancing community center and recreation spaces across the community • Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields • Increasing the variety of things to in existing parks • Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming • Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and programs 4342 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT • Integrating nature into Palo Alto parks • Improving spaces and increased options for off-leash dogs • Expanding the system • Offering more of the existing programs, classes, events. These “areas of focus” were utilized to review the direction of the plan with the community using the community prioritization challenge, a combination of online survey and in-person workshop. Participants were asked to allocate a $10 budget across each of the areas of focus, with the amounts allocated indicating the priority they place on a particular area. The analysis of the results reflects the strong interest heard throughout the process for community center space improvements, integrating nature more thoroughly in the park system and making parks more welcoming. The full summary is available in the technical supplement. A relatively smaller number of participants placed a very high priority (and resulting budget allocation) on improving options for off-leash dogs. These results clarify and validate the findings of the analysis and community engagement and informed the a refined direction for the future of Palo Alto’s system. Figure 6 shows a sample survey question result. Full results are available in the technical supplement. FIGURE 6: PRIORITIZATION CHALLENGE RESULTS 44 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Opportunities for the System Three concept maps illustrate a multi-layered system of park lands and connections that serve both people and natural systems. The maps can also serve as tools for supporting decisions on individual policies, programs and projects. EXPAND THE SYSTEM Figure 6 identifies areas of Palo Alto where residents lack access to parks and natural open spaces within ¼ mile of their homes. These “park search areas,” labeled A through E for planning purposes, will help the City focus future park additions in neighborhoods with the greatest need, for example those with the highest density and/or largest population. Meanwhile, public access to school grounds that fall within park search areas (noted in purple) should be maintained and expanded to better support neighborhood park uses and enhance their natural open space value. Other City- owned properties (noted in brown) may represent future park opportunities, but nearly all of these lands fall outside of the park search areas. CONNECT THE SYSTEM A selection of Palo Alto’s existing and planned bikeways and pedestrian routes can be leveraged to improve park and recreation access. Figure 7 illustrates this potential network of trails and enhanced roadways that connect neighborhoods to local and regional parks, recreation facilities and natural open spaces. These routes are part of the City’s adopted Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Recommended enhanced routes, labeled 1 through 3 for planning purposes, provide main north to south travel corridors between Palo Alto’s parks and into neighboring communities. Regional trails like the Bay to Ridge and San Francisco Bay trails provide similar travel corridors from Foothills Park and Arastradero Preserve in the southwest to the Baylands Preserve and other shoreline parks and natural open spaces to the northeast. Recommended park connectors complete the network by linking the remaining park sites. 4544 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT CONNECT NATURAL SYSTEMS Figure 8 illustrates how the same corridors recommended for bike and pedestrian enhancements can also provide connectivity for natural systems. Landscape design features such as increased urban forest canopy, native species plantings and stormwater bioswales can create safe paths of travel and provide habitat value for local wildlife. Creek and riparian enhancements, supported by these “pollinator pathways,” would improve water quality and habitat connections between regionally significant habitats in the hills and in the bay. New street and park trees would benefit areas that currently have low tree canopy coverage, highlighted in tan. UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY SITES In the overall context of limited land, three properties in Palo Alto represent unique opportunities in that they are already owned by the City and are not yet designated for a specific use. These three sites each have unique opportunities but also constraints. The status of each is summarized below: • Cubberly Community Center: The City owns 8 of the 35 acres of this former high school campus and has managed leases within the buildings with a number of community organizations and businesses while also scheduling the gym and field space. The City and the Palo Alto Unified School District have agreed to jointly master plan the redevelopment of the site by 2020. • Foothills Park Expansion: The City acquired 7.7 acres of land adjacent to Foothills Park and has dedicated it as an expansion of the park. The expansion is cut off from the developed portion of the park by the existing maintenance facility. Discussion of the future of this site is pending the results of a hydrology study. • Baylands Athletic Center Expansion: As a result of the redesign of the Palo Alto Golf Course, 10.25 acres of land was added to the adjacent Baylands Athletic Center site for future recreation opportunities. This may be the last large addition to Palo Alto’s park land and many ideas have been proposed for this site. Considerations for developing this site include its relative isolation from residences, its proximity to adjacent park sites, site limitations due to wetland and its location below the mean projected high water line after 3 feet of sea level rise. 46 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Williams Park Baylands Preserve Baylands Athletic Center El Camino Park GreerPark BolPark Esther ClarkPreserve MitchellPark TermanPark Hoover Park EleanorPardeePark Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park RamosPark Rinconada Park Briones Park Johnson Park BowdenPark BowlingGreen Park Boulware Park MonroePark Werry Park Cogswell Plaza CameronPark MayfieldPark WeisshaarPark LyttonPlaza SarahWallis Park KelloggPark StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park El Palo Alto Park Pearson - Arastradero Preserve Scott Park Heritage Park Cubberley Community Center Ventura Community Center San F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C r eek Barron C r e e k Ado b e C r e e k £¤101 §¨¦280 ¬«82 Foothills Park SAN MATEO COUNTY STANFORD 0 10.5 Miles ² Draft Park Search Areas, Priority School Sites and Other City-Owned Property 12.8.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, .ATURAL Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Palo Alto Menlo Park Mountain ViewLos Altos Los Altos Hills Atherton Stanford Loyola East Palo Alto Ladera FoothillsPark ArastaderoPreserve City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City-owned Property Trail Stanford Perimeter Trail - Private trail with public access Private Recreation Route Major Road Street Water Feature School District Land Palo Alto Other City; Other City Santa Clara County San Mateo CountySan A Park Search Areas Park Search Areas kk BowBowParkarkPark e P rkeen Park SarahSarah ParkPark S w edwdwddenenennene Johnson Johnson BoBoGre swell Plazaswell Plaza LyttonLyttonPlazaPlaza KelloggKellogg Hopkins opk nsHopkins eekside Parkeekside Park Scott ParkScott Park tageHeritageerHeritage anoeanoardearderPararPar wlinwlingeeParkeen Park EEEE eaaanEElElEElleeaeaeaeaeanPParPPPPaaPaPrdPPa PaaarkrkkPPaaaPrkrkkkk kark ee PPP rrarkkPkkePPPPParararkkkk BaylandsBaylands Athletic Athletic rntCtCenter reerGreerarkPark conada Parkknconadnconada Park ororekkkk RinRin gling a kkakkkPaPPrkkrk BoBoBolParkPark obles PaRobles Pa Briones Parki PkBriones Park lto g Fieldsssldg Fields yCommunity RRoRoRoRoRR BBB yyyyyCotyyyyCoCoCCCCoCoCoCoommmmmmnnununnuutitittiyyyyy rrrtCetCentntnterererrree MitcheMMitchellPrkarkkPark SealSealerrPParkPark RaRamoRamoParkPark CubbCubb ¤¤¤££££££££££££££££££££££ BoulwBoulw oover Parkoover ParkHoover Park SS VenturaVentura tity VVVe ttVeVeVeVeVentntn oooooommmmmmmmmmununnuunuititittiyyy rrrrrrrrwarreePPPakkkkkwaaarreeePPPParararararrrkkkkkkkkk BBaBarBarronron CC BarBarron C BBaBrrron CCCCrCreekeekCreekCekkkkk BarBarronron CrCreekeekkk A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary SchoolDuveneckElementary School Palo Verde Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary SchoolEl Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary SchoolOhlone Elementary School Jordan Middle SchoolJordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School 04.01.2016 Figure 12: Park Search Areas Map Williams ParkWilliams Park FIGURE 7: PARK SEARCH AREAS MAP 4746 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Williams Park Baylands Preserve Baylands Athletic Center El Camino Park GreerPark BolPark Esther ClarkPreserve MitchellPark TermanPark Hoover Park EleanorPardeePark Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park RamosPark Rinconada Park Briones Park Johnson Park BowdenPark BowlingGreen Park Boulware Park MonroePark Werry Park Cogswell Plaza CameronPark MayfieldPark WeisshaarPark LyttonPlaza SarahWallis Park KelloggPark StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park El Palo Alto Park Pearson - Arastradero Preserve Scott Park Heritage Park Cubberley Community Center Ventura Community Center SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k £¤101 §¨¦280 ¬«82 Foothills Park SAN MATEO COUNTY STANFORD 0 10.5 Miles ² Draft Park Search Areas, Priority School Sites and Other City-Owned Property 12.8.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, .ATURAL Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Palo Alto Menlo Park Mountain ViewLos Altos Los Altos Hills Atherton Stanford Loyola East Palo Alto Ladera FoothillsPark ArastaderoPreserve City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City-owned Property Trail Stanford Perimeter Trail - Private trail with public access Private Recreation Route Major Road Street Water Feature School District Land Palo Alto Other City; Other City Santa Clara County San Mateo CountySan A Park Search Areas Park Search Areas kk BowBowParkarkPark ePrkeen Park SarahSarah ParkPark S wedwdwddenenennene Johnson Johnson BoBoGre swell Plazaswell Plaza LyttonLyttonPlazaPlaza KelloggKellogg Hopkins opknsHopkins eekside Parkeekside Park Scott ParkScott Park tageHeritageerHeritage anoeanoardearderPararPar wlinwlingeeParkeen Park EEEEeaaanEElElEElleeaeaeaeaeanPParPPPPaaPaPrdPPa PaaarkrkkPPaaaPrkrkkkk kark eePPPrrarkkPkkePPPPParararkkkk BaylandsBaylands Athletic Athletic rntCtCenter reerGreerarkPark conada Parkknconadnconada Park ororekkkk RinRin gling akkakkkPaPPrkkrk BoBoBolParkPark obles PaRobles Pa Briones Parki PkBriones Park lto g Fieldsssldg Fields yCommunity RRoRoRoRoRR BBB yyyyyCotyyyyCoCoCCCCoCoCoCoommmmmmnnununnuutitittiyyyyy rrrtCetCentntnterererrree MitcheMMitchellPrkarkkPark SealSealerrPParkPark RaRamoRamoParkPark CubbCubb ¤¤¤££££££££££££££££££££££ BoulwBoulw oover Parkoover ParkHoover Park SS VenturaVentura tity VVVettVeVeVeVeVentntn oooooommmmmmmmmmununnuunuititittiyyy rrrrrrrrwarreePPPakkkkkwaaarreeePPPParararararrrkkkkkkkkk BBaBarBarronron CC BarBarron C BBaBrrron CCCCrCreekeekCreekCekkkkk BarBarronron CrCreekeekkk A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary SchoolDuveneckElementary School Palo Verde Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary SchoolEl Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary SchoolOhlone Elementary School Jordan Middle SchoolJordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School 04.01.2016 Figure 12: Park Search Areas Map Williams ParkWilliams Park 48 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT MAY B E L L LYTT O N HOM E R NE W E L L C O W P E R BR Y A N T C O W P E R BR Y A N T DAN A L EDITH M I R A N D A LO U I S CAS T R O SAN D H I L L B A Y S H O R E GU I N D A LO S A L T O S EM E R S O N ADD I S O N JUNI P E R O S E R R A WI L K I E VIEW UNIV E R S I T Y FA B I A N ROCK AR N O L D LA S U E N SAN L U I S OA K LA C R E S T A REN G S T O R F F BO N I T A GO L F EMBARC A D E R O WALKER MAY B E L L AL T A ARASTRAD E R O MAT A D E R O LO M I T A HAN O V E R DIS T E L WELC H EL C A M I N O R E A L PLYMOUTH SHO W E R S CEN T R A L SP R I N G E R OLD P A G E M I L L ELY TODD 4W D R O A D POR T E R GE R T H LI N D E N LUPINE SO U T H ORE G O N MEA D O W W A V E R L E Y PA L O CASI T A DAL M A CHA R L E S T O N MA R I N E STIERLIN GE N G GER O N A OAK CREEK AL I C I A DO U D MARILYN BY R O N PAUL COLO R A D O AMPHITHEATRE DE B E L L CRITTENDEN CRIS A N T O SHOREBIRD ELD O R A DEER CRE E K GALLI GEO R G I A OR M E SANT A Y N E Z PITMA N SO L A N A SAN J U D E IS A B E L L E MONTE C I T O SERRA MI D D L E F I E L D HAWTHO R N E CO N C E P C I O N COYOTE HILL PA N A M A MERRITT ANN A AL M A AL M A RA Y BELDEN LA AVENIDA PASTEUR SPACE PARK PA T R I C K ELSIE ROTH MIR A D A ST A N F O R D STIRRUP CAMELLIA LAGUNITA BO Y C E JUANITA PASA ROBLES HI G D O N FA Y E T T E MO N T A L T O TAS S O LEO N G CLAR A RAYMUNDO FORK ALVARADO TERRA BELLA SEVELY JUD S O N BE T L O WILLM A R LIDA KIPL I N G NINA NB S R 8 5 T O S H O R E L I N E VASS A R LOUCKS SYLVIAN CH A B O T SA L A D O GA L V E Z VE R N O N SCARFF PAT R I C I A HOM E R SA N P I E R R E CO U N T R Y BUSHNE L L HI G G I N S MAY F I E L D O R I O N ROBB ESC U E L A SA N R A F A E L DREW SEVILLA TO L M A N RO R K E MO N T R O S E DURAND MATA D E R O C A N A L PIO N E E R RIC H MA N U E L A EHR H O R N MO N T E LORE T O WARREN O L D A D O B E GA R L A N D VAN BUREN LLOYD WING AL I S O N GAB R I E L WALTER HAYS HARKER NE W E L L CE N T E R D R CE N T E R D R RHODA AR B O L CELI A SULLIVA N LA LANNE KI N G S L E Y WELLS JOR D A N WALCOTT ASC E N S I O N HI L B A R KEN D A L L EDG E W O O D JO H N M A R T E N S POL A R I S LELA N D TAM A L P A I S PALO ALTO SIL V I A PET T I S OB E R L I N DE FRANCE CHANNING OLD MIDDLEFIELD BO R E L L O TO F T QU A R R Y R D LA N E A CYPR E S S P O I N T GOVERNO R S FAI R M E D E VAQ U E R O STUART SNYDER FAI R M O N T CREEDEN ALGER DE S O T O TH E N D A R A OLD T R A C E FRA N K L I N OXF O R D BEA T R I C E ALICANTE EV E R G R E E N WES C O A T ENCINA VARI A N CA T H C A R T MAYV I E W MIT C H E L L GA S P A R CES A N O LO C K H A R T FRE N C H M A N S MI R M I R O U MAD E L I N E FER N A N D O WILD PLUM GIL M A N TEMP L E T O N JA S O N WHI T S DU E N A FRO N T NICH O L A S GEA R Y SH O L E S SOU T H W O O D SONIA ELB R I D G E SI M K I N S CA R I L L O MAC L A N E CA M P TORELLO M A D R O N O MI D T O W N LEAF LINDERO NEW M A N MAR I O N DE L S O N EMM O N S DO N E L S O N AV E R Y HI G H ADOBE DO N THO M A S PRAT T BU S H MO N T E B E L L O AR G U E L L O MAR I P O S A A L L E Y FU L T O N LOW E L L ME A D O W PAC I F I C PH Y L L I S CROTH E R SFRE M O N T SNELL AM E S RO S S RO S S ST I E R L I N PAL O A L T O PIA Z Z A CA S A G R A N D E PA L M BRY A N T TODD AL M A VINEY A R D IRIS STATE PORT O L A BRUC E YUBA TULIP YAL E BYR O N OA K BAY PEAR CERR I T O STARDUST CAMPUS MOORPA R K PI N E FU L T O N DOLO R E S OAK 2 N D VIST A GA L V E Z CASEY CH U R C H 1 S T LINC O L N UN N A M E D S T R E E T BLO S S O M WRIGHT HI L L V I E W FRANCES PAR K PAR K Williams ParkWilliams Park 0 10.5 Miles ² 12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan City Park City Owned Property City Natural Open Spaces Major Road Street Train Tracks Water Feature School District Land Palo Alto Other City Santa Clara County San Mateo County Trails Private Recreation Routes Existing Bicycle Boulevards Stanford Perimeter Trail- Private trail with public access Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails, San Francisco Bay Trail) Recommended Park Connectors Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes1 Figure 13: Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map 04.01.2016 Baylands Preserve Baylands Athletic Center El Camino Park GreerPark BolPark Esther ClarkPreserve MitchellPark TermanPark Hoover Park EleanorPardeePark Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park RamosPark Rinconada Park Briones Park Johnson Park BowdenPark BowlingGreen Park Boulware Park MonroePark Werry Park Cogswell Plaza CameronPark MayfieldPark WeisshaarPark LyttonPlaza SarahWallis Park KelloggPark StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park El Palo Alto Park Pearson - Arastradero Preserve Scott Park Heritage Park Cubberley Community Center Ventura Community Center S a n F ra ncisquito Creek Matad e ro C re e k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k 2 2 1 1 3 3 Palo Alto Menlo Park Mountain ViewLos Altos Los AltosHills Atherton Stanford Loyola East Palo Alto Ladera FoothillsPark ArastaderoPreserve £¤101 §¨¦280 ¬«82 Foothills Park S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y S T A N F O R D FIGURE 8: BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN ROUTES MAP 4948 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT MAY B E L L LYTT O N HOM E R NE W E L L CO W P E R BR Y A N T CO W P E R BRY A N T DAN A L EDITH MI R A N D A LO U I S CAS T R O SAN D H I L L B A Y S H O R E GU I N D A LO S A L T O S EM E R S O N ADD I S O N JUNI P E R O S E R R A WI L K I E VIE W UNI V E R S I T Y FA B I A N ROCK AR N O L D LA S U E N SAN L U I S OA K LA C R E S T A REN G S T O R F F BO N I T A GO L F EMBARC A D E R O WALKE R MAY B E L L AL T A ARASTRA D E R O MATA D E R O LO M I T A HAN O V E R DIS T E L WELC H E L C A M I N O R E A L PLYMOUTH SHO W E R S CEN T R A L SP R I N G E R OLD P A G E M I L L ELY TODD 4W D R O A D PO R T E R G E R T H LIN D E N LUPINE SO U T H OREG O N MEA D O W WA V E R L E Y PA L O CAS I T A DAL M A CHA R L E S T O N MA R I N E STIERLIN G E N G GER O N A OAK CREEK AL I C I A DO U D MARILYN BY R O N PAUL COLOR A D O AMPHITHEATRE DE B E L L CRITTENDEN CRIS A N T O SHOREBIRD ELDO R A DEER CREE K GALLI GEO R G I A OR M E SANT A Y N E Z PITMA N SO L A N A SAN J U D E IS A B E L L E MONT E C I T O SERRA MI D D L E F I E L D HAWTHO R N E CO N C E P C I O N COYOTE HILL P A N A M A MERRITT ANN A AL M A AL M A RA Y BELDEN LA AVENIDA PASTEUR SPACE PARK PA T R I C K ELSIE ROTH MI R A D A STA N F O R D STIRRUP CAMELLIA LAGUNIT A BO Y C E JUANITA PASA ROBLES HI G D O N FAY E T T E MO N T A L T O TAS S O LEON G CLAR A RAYMUNDO FORK ALVARADO TERRA BELLA SEVELY JUD S O N BE T L O WILLMA R LIDA KIP L I N G NINA NB S R 8 5 T O S H O R E L I N E VASSA R LOUCKS SYLVIAN CH A B O T SA L A D O GA L V E Z VE R N O N SCARFF PAT R I C I A HOM E R SA N P I E R R E CO U N T R Y BUSHN E L L HIG G I N S MA Y F I E L D O R I O N ROBB ESC U E L A SA N R A F A E L DREW SEVILLA TO L M A N RO R K E MO N T R O S E DURAND MATA D E R O C A N A L PIO N E E R RIC H MA N U E L A EHR H O R N MO N T E LORE T O WARREN OL D A D O B E GA R L A N D VAN BUREN LLOYD WING AL I S O N GABR I E L WALTER HAYS HARKER NE W E L L CE N T E R D R CE N T E R D R RHODA ARB O L CELI A SULLIVA N LA LANNE KIN G S L E Y WELLS JO R D A N WALCOTT ASC E N S I O N HI L B A R KEN D A L L EDG E W O O D JO H N M A R T E N S PO L A R I S LEL A N D TAM A L P A I S PALO ALTO SIL V I A PET T I S OB E R L I N DE FRANCE CHANNING OLD MIDDLEFIELD BO R E L L O TOF T QU A R R Y R D LA N E A CYPR E S S P O I N T GOVERNO R S FAIR M E D E VA Q U E R O STUART SNYDE R FAIR M O N T CREEDEN ALGER DE S O T O TH E N D A R A OLD T R A C E FRA N K L I N OXFO R D BEA T R I C E ALICANTE EV E R G R E E N WE S C O A T ENCINA VARIA N C A T H C A R T MAY V I E W MIT C H E L L GA S P A R CESA N O LO C K H A R T FRE N C H M A N S MI R M I R O U MAD E L I N E FER N A N D O WILD PLUM GI L M A N TEMP L E T O N JAS O N WHI T S DU E N A FRO N T NICH O L A S GEAR Y SH O L E S SOU T H W O O D SONIA ELB R I D G E SI M K I N S CA R I L L O MAC L A N E CA M P TORELLO M A D R O N O MI D T O W N LEAF LINDER O NEW M A N MA R I O N DE L S O N EMM O N S DO N E L S O N AV E R Y HI G H ADOBE DO N THO M A S PRAT T BU S H MO N T E B E L L O AR G U E L L O MAR I P O S A A L L E Y FU L T O N LOW E L L ME A D O W PAC I F I C PH Y L L I S CROT H E R S FRE M O N T SNELL AM E S RO S S RO S S ST I E R L I N PAL O A L T O PIA Z Z A CA S A G R A N D E PAL M BRY A N T TODD AL M A VINEY A R D IRIS STATE PORT O L A BRUC E YUBA TULIP YAL E BY R O N OA K BAY PEAR CERR I T O STARDUST CAMPUS MOORP A R K PIN E FU L T O N DOLO R E S OAK 2 N D VIS T A GA L V E Z CASEY CH U R C H 1 S T LIN C O L N UN N A M E D S T R E E T BLO S S O M WRIGHT HI L L V I E W FRANCES PA R K PA R K Williams ParkWilliams Park 0 10.5 Miles ² 12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan City Park City Owned Property City Natural Open Spaces Major Road Street Train Tracks Water Feature School District Land Palo Alto Other City Santa Clara County San Mateo County Trails Private Recreation Routes Existing Bicycle Boulevards Stanford Perimeter Trail- Private trail with public access Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails, San Francisco Bay Trail) Recommended Park Connectors Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes1 Figure 13: Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map 04.01.2016 Baylands Preserve Baylands Athletic Center El Camino Park GreerPark BolPark Esther ClarkPreserve MitchellPark TermanPark Hoover Park EleanorPardeePark Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park RamosPark Rinconada Park Briones Park Johnson Park BowdenPark BowlingGreen Park Boulware Park MonroePark Werry Park Cogswell Plaza CameronPark MayfieldPark WeisshaarPark LyttonPlaza SarahWallis Park KelloggPark StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park El Palo Alto Park Pearson - Arastradero Preserve Scott Park Heritage Park Cubberley Community Center Ventura Community Center San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Ado b e C r e e k 2 2 1 1 3 3 Palo Alto Menlo Park Mountain View Los Altos Los Altos Hills Atherton Stanford Loyola East Palo Alto Ladera FoothillsPark ArastaderoPreserve £¤101 §¨¦280 ¬«82 Foothills Park S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y S T A N F O R D 50 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Williams ParkWilliams Park 0 10.5 Miles ² 12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan City Park City Natural Open Spaces Major Road Street Water Feature School District Land Palo Alto Other City Santa Clara County San Mateo County Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Urban Canopy Target Areas Mean Projected High Water - 3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Wetland Habitat Figure 14: Natural Systems Map Baylands Preserve Baylands Athletic Center El Camino Park GreerPark BolPark Esther ClarkPreserve MitchellPark TermanPark Hoover Park EleanorPardeePark Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park RamosPark Rinconada Park Briones Park Johnson Park BowdenPark BowlingGreen Park Boulware Park MonroePark Werry Park Cogswell Plaza CameronPark MayfieldPark WeisshaarPark LyttonPlaza SarahWallis Park KelloggPark StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park El Palo Alto Park Pearson - Arastradero Preserve Scott Park Heritage Park Cubberley Community Center Ventura Community Center S a n F ra ncisquito Creek Matad e r o C r e e k Barron C r e e k Ado b e C r e e k Trails Private Recreation Routes Stanford Perimeter Trail- Private trail with public access Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los Altos Los Altos Hills Atherton Stanford Loyola East Palo Alto Ladera £¤101 §¨¦280 ¬«82 Foothills Park S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y S T A N F O R D Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve:Western burrowing owlCalifornia seablite Northern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek: SteelheadCalifornia red legged frogWestern pond turtle Showy rancheria clover Valley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve: Western pond turtle Serpentine bunchgrassIndian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park: Western Leatherwood Valley oak woodland FoothillsPark ArastaderoPreserve BaylandsPreserveBaylandsPreserve Regional Habitat Connection Concept 04.01.2016 FIGURE 9: NATURAL SYSTEMS MAP 5150 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Williams ParkWilliams Park 0 10.5 Miles ² 12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan City Park City Natural Open Spaces Major Road Street Water Feature School District Land Palo Alto Other City Santa Clara County San Mateo County Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Urban Canopy Target Areas Mean Projected High Water - 3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Wetland Habitat Figure 14: Natural Systems Map Baylands Preserve Baylands Athletic Center El Camino Park GreerPark BolPark Esther ClarkPreserve MitchellPark TermanPark Hoover Park EleanorPardeePark Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park RamosPark Rinconada Park Briones Park Johnson Park BowdenPark BowlingGreen Park Boulware Park MonroePark Werry Park Cogswell Plaza CameronPark MayfieldPark WeisshaarPark LyttonPlaza SarahWallis Park KelloggPark StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park El Palo Alto Park Pearson - Arastradero Preserve Scott Park Heritage Park Cubberley Community Center Ventura Community Center San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Trails Private Recreation Routes Stanford Perimeter Trail- Private trail with public access Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Palo Alto Menlo Park Mountain View Los Altos Los Altos Hills Atherton Stanford Loyola East Palo Alto Ladera £¤101 §¨¦280 ¬«82 Foothills Park S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y S T A N F O R D Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve: Western burrowing owl California seablite Northern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek:Steelhead California red legged frog Western pond turtle Showy rancheria clover Valley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve: Western pond turtleSerpentine bunchgrassIndian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park: Western Leatherwood Valley oak woodland FoothillsPark ArastaderoPreserve BaylandsPreserveBaylandsPreserve Regional Habitat Connection Concept 04.01.2016 CHAPTER 4 THROUGH THE MASTER PLAN PROCESS, THE PALO ALTO COMMUNITY HAS DEFINED A FUTURE FOR PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACES AND RECREATION. Distilled community input and themes from the analysis process result in principles, goals and system-wide concepts that describe the community’s long-term vision for the future system. The priciples and goals will be realized through the recommended prorgams described in this chapter. The recommendations were developed through an assessment of community input and an analysis of needs and opportunities. These recommendations reflect both changing needs and evolving demands for parks, trails, natural open spaces and recreation. They are organized within the framework of the eight principles and six goals, with policies and programs following each goal. OUR FUTURE: PRINCIPLES, GOALSPOLICIES, PROGRAMS & PROJECTS 54 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS A MULTI-LAYERED SYSTEM OF PARK LANDS AND CONNECTIONS THAT SERVE BOTH PEOPLE AND NATURAL SYSTEMS. 5554 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Principles Building on our assets, our vision for the continuing evolution of the park system is encapsulated in the following eight principles: • Playful: Inspires imagination and joy. • Healthy: Supports the physical and mental health and well-being of individuals as well as the connectedness and cohesion of the community. • Sustainable: Stewards natural, economic and social resources for a system that endures for the long-term. • Inclusive: Responsive to the entire Palo Alto community, all ages, abilities, languages, cultures and levels of income. • Accessible: Easy for people of all abilities to use year- round and to get to by all modes of travel. • Flexible: Supports multiple uses across time with adaptable spaces that can accommodate traditional, emerging and future uses. • Balanced: Is not dominated by any one type of experience or place, and includes both historic elements and cutting- edge features, highly manicured and more organic spaces, and self-directed and programmed activities. • Nature: Incorporates native species and habitat corridors, and creates opportunities to learn about and interact with nature. Together, these principles provide the foundation for the Master Plan. Master Plan Goals The input from the community, including all twelve Areas of Focus, form the long term direction for the City’s park and recreation system. The following six goals state the outcomes and provide an organizational structure for the policies, programs and projects that form the recommendations of this plan: 1. Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, inclusive, and distributed equitably across Palo Alto. 56 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 2. Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation, and open space facilities and services. 3. Create environments that encourage regular active and passive activities to support health, wellness and social connections. 4. Preserve and integrate nature, natural systems and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto. 5. Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the system 6. Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures. Recommended Programs The goals, policies and programs are intended to be a guide for decision making. Choices will need to be made annually through the City budget process, recognizing the City has limited resources, multiple priorities and competing resource needs. The goals, polices and programs that follow represent a path to a preferred future, it is aspirational while also tangible providing a specific menu of potential investment and resource allocation opportunities for the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation system. Chapter 6, titled Implementation, provide tools and recommendations on how the community and City can effectively evaluate options and make sound and reliable choices to improve the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation system. Each goal is numbered, and under each goal a list of related policies is provided. The policies are numbered according to goal and ordered by letter for easy reference (1.A, 1.B, 1.C, 2.A, 2.B, etc.). Most policies are followed by a list of programs, which have complementary numbering (1.A.1, 1.A.2, 2.A.1, etc.). The numbering is for reference only. Prioritization is covered in Chapter 6. Privately-Owened Public Open Spaces (POPOS) are built and managed by private entities and are required to allow public accessIMAGE: Privately Owned Public Open Space POPULATION STANDARDS Formula for calculating level of service: Acreage/Population x 1,000 Example: City park acreage: 174 Population (2013): 66,368 174 acres/66,368 people x1,000 = 2.62 acres/1,000 5756 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Goal 1: Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, affordable, inclusive and distributed equitably across Palo Alto. Policy 1.A Emphasize equity and affordability in the provision of programs and services and the facilitation of partnerships, to create recreation opportunities that: • Advance skills, build community and improve the quality of life among participants, especially Palo Alto youth, teens and seniors; and • Are available at a wide range of facilities, at an increased number of locations that are well distributed throughout the city. PROGRAMS 1.A.1 Periodically evaluate the use and effectiveness of the Fee Reduction Program for low income and disabled residents. 1.A.2 Develop free or low cost teen programs that develop life skills and developmental assets, such as leadership, community service and health. 1.A.3 Develop a teen advisory committee to provide feedback on newly proposed parks, recreation and open space projects and programs. 1.A.4 Partner with local recreation providers to relocate existing programs or offer new programs in Palo Alto parks. 1.A.5 Recruit or develop programs for additional and alternative sports that can take place in existing parks and make use of existing outdoor recreation facilities. Examples include cross country running, track and field, rugby and pickleball 1.A.6 Expand offerings of preserves’ interpretive facilities to area schools through curriculum packages (backpacks, crates, etc.) that can be brought into the field or the classroom. 1.A.7 Evaluate the geographic distribution of program offerings and make adjustments to equally offer programs throughout the City. Williams Park Baylands Preserve Baylands Athletic Center El Camino Park GreerPark BolPark Esther ClarkPreserve MitchellPark TermanPark Hoover Park EleanorPardeePark Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park RamosPark Rinconada Park Briones Park Johnson Park BowdenPark BowlingGreen Park Boulware Park MonroePark Werry Park Cogswell Plaza CameronPark MayfieldPark WeisshaarPark LyttonPlaza SarahWallis Park KelloggPark StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park El Palo Alto Park Pearson - Arastradero Preserve Scott Park Heritage Park CubberleyCommunityCenter VenturaCommunityCenter SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron C r e e k Adobe C r e e k £¤101 §¨¦280 ¬«82 Foothills Park SAN MATEO COUNTY STANFORD 0 10.5 Miles ² Draft Park Search Areas, Priority School Sites andOther City-Owned Property 12.8.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, .ATURAL Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainViewLosAltos Los AltosHills Atherton Stanford Loyola EastPalo Alto Ladera FoothillsPark ArastaderoPreserve City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City-owned Property Trail Stanford Perimeter Trail - Privatetrail with public access Private Recreation Route Major Road Street Water Feature School District Land Palo Alto Other City; Other City Santa Clara County San Mateo CountySan A Park Search Areas Park Search Areas kk BowBowParkarkPark e P rkeen Park SarahSarah ParkPark S w edwdwddenenennene Johnson Johnson BoBoGre swell Plazaswell Plaza LyttonLyttonPlazaPlaza KelloggKellogg Hopkins opknsHopkins eekside Parkeekside Park Scott ParkScott Park tageHeritageerHeritage anoeanoardearderPararPar wlinwlingeeParkeen Park EEEEeaaanEElElEElleeaeaeaeaeanPParPPPPaaPaPrdPPa PaaarkrkkPPaaaPrkrkkkk kark eePPP rrarkkPkkePPPPParararkkkk BaylandsBaylands Athletic Athletic rntCtCenter reerGreerarkPark conada Parkknconadnconada Park ororekkkk RinRin gling a kkakkkPaPPrkkrk BoBoBolParkPark obles PaRobles Pa Briones Parki PkBriones Park lto g Fieldsssldg Fields yCommunity RRoRoRoRoRR BBB yyyyyCotyyyyCoCoCCCCoCoCoCoommmmmmnnununnuutitittiyyyyyrrrtCetCentntnterererrree MitcheMMitchellPrkarkkPark SealSealerrPParkPark RaRamoRamoParkPark CubbCubb ¤¤¤££££££££££££££££££££££ BoulwBoulw oover Parkoover ParkHoover Park SS VenturaVenturatityVVVettVeVeVeVeVentntnoooooommmmmmmmmmununnuunuititittiyyy rrrrrrrrwarreePPPakkkkkwaaarreeePPPParararararrrkkkkkkkkk BBaBarBarronronCC BarBarronC BBaBrrronCCCCrCreekeekCreekCekkkkk BarBarronronCrCreekeekkk A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary SchoolDuveneckElementary School Palo Verde Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary SchoolEl Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary SchoolOhlone Elementary School Jordan Middle SchoolJordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School 04.01.2016 Figure 12: Park Search Areas Map Williams ParkWilliams Park 58 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 1.B Expand parkland inventory using the National Recreation and Park Association standard as a guide (see sidebar) for park development in Palo Alto’s Urban Service Area. New parkland should be added to meet and maintain the standard of 4 acres/1,000 residents. Parkland should expand with population, be well distributed across the community and of sufficient size to meet the varied needs of neighborhoods and the broader community. Maximum service area should be one-half mile. PROGRAMS 1.B.1 Develop design standards for privately-owned public open spaces (POPOS) that clearly set the expectation for public access, recreation activities and natural elements. . 1.B.2 Establish a system in the City’s real estate office that identifies land being sold and reviews it for park potential, prioritizing review of land within park search areas. (See Figure 7: Park Search Areas). 1.B.3 Review all city owned land and easements (starting in park search areas) for potential parkland development or connection locations. (See Figure 7: Park Search Areas and Figure 8 Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes to Parks and Recreation Facilities). 1.B.4 Examine City-owned right-of-way (streets, which make up the biggest portion of publicly owned land) to identify temporary or permanent areas for improvements that connect or add recreation activity space. (Examples: California Ave., Indianapolis Cultural Trail, Parklets). 1.B.5 Identify and approach community organizations and institutions that own land in park search areas to create long-term agreements and improvements for public park space. (Examples: Friendship Sportsplex, New Riverside Park). 5958 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 1.B.6 Create usable park space on top of utilities, parking or other infrastructure uses. (Examples: Anaheim Utility Park, UC Berkeley Underhill Parking Structure, Portland’s Director Park, Stanford University Wilbur Field Garage). 1.B.7 Monitor properties adjacent to parks that are smaller than the minimum recommended size for potential acquisition to expand existing parks. 1.B.8 Increase collections through revised or alternative park impact fee structures that are sufficient to expand inventory. Develop a system to reserve funds for parkland acquisition and proactively pursue strategic opportunities for expansion. 1.B.9 Acquire and develop a new neighborhood park in each park search area, starting with the most underserved areas and targeting a central and well-connected location to maximize access. 1.B.10 Develop a creek walk along Matadero Creek that links parks and creates open space and habitat corridor. 1.B.11 Incorporate other underutilized City-owned outdoor spaces for park and recreational programming. 1.B.12 Identify and dedicate (as parkland) City-controlled spaces serving, or capable of serving, park-like or recreational uses (e.g., Winter Lodge, Gamble Gardens, Rinconada Community Gardens, GreenWaste Facility at the former PASCO site, former Los Altos Sewage Treatment Plan, Kingsley Island.) Policy 1.C Ensure the maximum distance between residents’ homes and the nearest public park or preserve is ½-mile, ¼-mile preferred, that is evaluated using a walkshed methodology based on how people travel. 60 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS PROGRAMS 1.C.1 Maintain the City’s digital map developed during this Master Plan process, updating for new activities and access points. 1.C.2 Establish a review step in the Planning and Community Environment Department for any major redevelopment or the purchase/sale of any City land in the park search areas. Policy 1.D Adopt the wayfinding signage used at Rinconada Park as the standard for Palo Alto parks and provide standardized directory signs for all large parks, preserves and athletic field complexes. PROGRAMS 1.D.1 Create and implement a signage and wayfinding program that conveys the park system identity, incorporates art, connects bike paths to parks and enhances the experience of park visitors 1.D.2 Install directional signs at parks that include the walking time to the next nearest park or parks. Policy 1.E Apply universal design principles as the preferred guidance for design solutions in parks, striving to exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. PROGRAMS 1.E.1. Create a process to address adaptive program requests for individuals with cognitive, sensory, and physical disabilities (to be coordinated with upcoming ADA Transition Plan). 1.E.2. Adopt a standard of universal park design for accessibility and/or upgrade play areas and picnic facilities to meet or exceed the standard. (Note: a source and reference will be added). 1.E.3. Upgrade Open Space trails to be more universally accessible where environmentally appropriate. IMAGE: Natural Area Volunteers 6160 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 1.F Maintain a Field and Tennis Court Brokering and Use Policy as well as the Gymnasium Use Policy (as well as any subsequent updates) to guide the allocation of these recreation facilities with a preference for youth and Palo Alto residents. PROGRAMS 1.F.1. Periodically review the existing Field and Tennis Court Brokering and Use Policy and Gymnasium Policy and update as needed. 1.F.2. Develop an annual field usage statistics report, including number of prime timeslots that were unused due to field condition/resting and the number of requests for field space that were unfilled due to capacity. Policy 1.G Encourage walking and biking as a way of getting to and from parks, supporting implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. PROGRAMS 1.G.1 Select parks as destinations along routes for “Ciclovia” or “Sunday Streets” type events where streets are closed to traffic and opened up for citizens of all ages to interact with each other through exercise, entertainment and fun. 1.G.2 Provide bike parking for cyclists as a standard feature at parks, open spaces, preserves and community centers. 1.G.3 Provide, identify and mark “Safe Routes to Parks” from locations such as schools, shopping centers, libraries, after-school programs, community centers, and residential neighborhoods; 1.G.4 Educate residents about the city’s Bike Boulevards – streets prioritized for bicycles – to promote greater use, and plan new Bike Boulevard projects that connect parks, open spaces and recreation facilities. 62 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 1.G.5 Identify gaps in the walking and cycling network to improve access to parks, open spaces, preserves and community centers, including sidewalk repairs, easements, trail improvements/repair and improved pedestrian visibility. 1.G.6 Collaborate with school communities to enhance routes to schools, especially where they pass through parks. 1.G.7 Develop a regular bicycle and walking tour of Palo Alto parks and preserves as a new recreation program. Develop online materials for self-guided tours. 1.G.8 Improve trail connections to neighboring communities (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Stanford University, Portola Valley, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, East Palo Alto, etc.) Policy 1.H Incorporate cultural diversity in projects and programs to encourage and enhance citizen participation. PROGRAMS 1.H.1. Conduct a survey at least every two years of cultural groups to identify gaps barriers to access, preferred design, and awareness in recreation programming. 1.H.2. Provide multi-cultural and multi-lingual recreation programs, signage, and educational information. 1.H.3. Encourage and provide opportunities for civic engagement by directly connecting with cultural groups. Policy 1.I Increase stewardship and volunteerism by creating and promoting opportunities for youth and adults to participate in parks, recreation, open space events, projects and programs. IMAGE: Natural Turf Sports Field 6362 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS PROGRAMS 1.I.1 Create a robust volunteer recruitment and management program. 1.I.2 Continue to offer volunteer habitat and landscape improvement projects, and support partnership organizations that offer volunteer programs in Parks and Open Space areas. Goal 2: Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation and open space facilities and services. Policy 2.A Sustain the community’s investment in parks and recreation facilities. PROGRAMS 2.A.1 Collaborate with Palo Alto Unified School District to develop and implement a vision and master plan for the future of the Cubberley Community Center. 2.A.2 Continue to program and prioritize projects for existing facilities as identified in the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission report, and plan the keep up of new facilities as they come on line, recognizing their expected lifespan and revised based on real-world experience. 2.A.3 Research best practices to design park and recreational facilities that can be maintained with existing or lower budgets. 2.A.4 Encourage residents to organize and participate in park maintenance and cleanup events to foster a sense of ownership, establish social connections, and reduce maintenance costs. 2.A.5 Develop a proactive Asset Management Program to maintain existing park and recreation infrastructure. IMAGES: High quality, high use dog parks 64 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 2.A.6 Provide additional lighting to enhance park safety and expand park use to dusk while minimizing impacts to wildlife. 2.A.7 Find ways to mitigate conflicts between different trail user groups, particularly in the Pearson Arastradero Preserve where bicyclists, equestrians, and hikers share trails. Policy 2.B Provide opportunities for creative expression in park and recreation facilities and programs. PROGRAMS 2.B.1 Incorporate artists and art into youth recreation programming, particularly day camps, utilizing the expertise of the Arts and Sciences Division. 2.B.2 Create outdoor studios and program spaces for creating art in parks (Coordinated with the Public Art Master Plan). 2.B.3 Encourage the community to participate in more expressive projects lead by the department, such as community mural projects in facilities, pop up open mics or chalk art programs in parks. 2.B.4 Continue to provide “maker” space to Palo Alto teens to encourage creative thinking and expression. Policy 2.C Design and maintain high quality natural and synthetic turf fields to support maximum use in parks by multiple local organized sports and casual users with areas large enough for practice or play. PROGRAMS 2.C.1 Conduct an athletic field condition and maintenance assessment of the City’s natural turf fields, and upgrade fields at select parks to high quality natural turf standards including irrigation system upgrades, drainage improvements, etc. The field assessment report should IMAGE: Community garden 6564 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS include analysis and recommendations regarding the soil profile, agronomy, irrigation systems, field slope, drainage, field-use demand, and maintenance. 2.C.2 Actively to monitor and track industry developments and the latest reputable scientific studies regarding synthetic turf to understand the environmental and human safety impacts of our existing synthetic turf fields. 2.C.3 Assess the type of turf (new synthetic turf product or natural turf) that should be used when replacing an existing synthetic turf field that is due for replacement. 2.C.4 Synthetic turf fields should be striped for multiple sports to maximize use. Whenever possible, synthetic turf playing fields should have lights in order to maximize use of the field. Policy 2.D Actively pursue adding dedicated, fenced dog parks in multiple neighborhoods, equitably distributed between north and south Palo Alto. The size of the dog parks will vary, but should strive to be at least .25 acres. Dog parks should not be placed in Open Space Preserves. PROGRAMS 2.D.1 The City will evaluate and select at least six dedicated, fenced dog parks, equitably distributed across north and south Palo Alto, from the following list of potential locations: • Eleanor Pardee Park (North, .41 Acres)-Near Term • Bowden (North, .37 Acres)-Near Term • Greer Park (Improve existing) (South, .87 Acres) • Peers Park (North, .73 Acres) • Hoover (Improve existing) (South, 1 Acre) • Robles (South, .47 Acres) • Mitchell Park (Expand existing) (South, 1.2 Acres) • Kingsley Island (North, .27 Acres) • Werry Park (North, .31 Acres) HEALTHY CITY / HEALTHY COMMUNITY In 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution recognizing its role and responsiblity to promote and support a Healthy City/ Healthy Community. Four areas of action are identified in this resolution: • Healthy Culture • Healty Environment • Healthy Food Access • Healthy Workplace IMAGE: Walking Path or Outdoor Fitness 66 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS • Juana Briones Park (South, .47 Acres) • Heritage (North, .27 Acres) *We acknowledge that Hoover and Greer’s current dog parks are inadequate in terms of size, and they should not be counted in their current configuration towards the minimum of six dog parks recommended in this program. 2.D.2 Develop rules and regulations specific to dog parks focusing on safety and limits of use. Policy 2.E The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms in parks that are approximately two acres or larger, have amenities that encourage visitors to stay in the park, have high level of use, and where there are no nearby public restrooms available. PROGRAMS 2.E.1 Develop a restroom standard, in collaboration with the Architectural Review Board, for neighborhood parks. 2.E.2 The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms at the following potential locations: • Bol Park • Bowden Park • Eleanor Pardee Park • Johnson Park • Ramos Park • Robles Park • Terman Park Policy 2.F Develop additional community gardens focusing on underrepresented areas of the City, and provide community engagement opportunities around gardens. IMAGE: Art Image from Public Art Plan 6766 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 2.G At least every five years, quantitatively evaluate demand and capacity of major recreation facilities including pools, gyms, tennis courts, and teen centers with appropriate attention to geographical distribution in the city. Adjust plans as appropriate to accommodate significant demographic or demand changes. Goal 3: Create environments that encourage active and passive activities to support health, wellness and social connections. Policy 3.A Implement the Healthy City Healthy Community resolution with the community’s involvement. PROGRAMS 3.A.1 Convene and lead a Healthy City Healthy Community stakeholder work group consisting of other agencies, nonprofit organizations and citizens that supports building a health community. 3.A.2 Develop an annual plan that supports implementation of the resolution. 3.A.3 Achieve designation as an Age-Friendly Community. 3.A.4 Add drop-in programs (free or BOOST!) focused on physical and mental health in settings that are near home/work and maximize the health benefits of being outside and surrounded by nature. 3.A.5 Connect walking paths within and between parks to create loop options of varying length that encourage walking and jogging. 3.A.6 Enhance seating areas to take advantage of quiet spaces or to create opportunities for social interaction. 3.A.7 Promote and enforce the ban on smoking in Palo Alto’s parks through a marketing campaign and signage program. IMAGE: Nature education programming 68 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 3.A.8 Upgrade or add drinking fountains with water bottle filling and water for dogs. 3.A.9 Develop adult fitness areas in parks including exercise areas for the exclusive use of older adults (seniors). Policy 3.B Incorporate art into park design and recreation programming (consistent with the Public Art Master Plan). PROGRAMS 3.B.1 Promote temporary public art installations in local parks. 3.B.2 Promote interactive public art features that also serve as play features (i.e. climbable sculptural elements integrated into the natural environment that invite touch and exploration). 3.B.3 Update park design policies to incorporate artistic elements consistent with the Public Art Master Plan. 3.B.4 Commission artwork that interprets local history, events and significant individuals; represents City core values of sustainability, youth well-being, health, innovation. 3.B.5 Bring in performance-based work, social practice, temporary art and community art. 3.B.6 Explore suitable art for preserves and natural areas. 3.B.7 Incorporate public art in the earliest stages of the design of parks and facilities that may utilize wind direction, sunlight and ambient sound (Coordinated with the Public Art Master Plan). 3.B.8 Install permanent and temporary installations and exhibits in well-trafficked parks and plazas, following the guidance of the Public Art Master Plan. 3.B.9 Integrate functional public art into play areas, seatwalls and other built features in parks across the system. 6968 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 3.B.10 Integrate art and nature into bike lanes, routes and paths as appropriate. Policy 3.C Require that proposed privately owned public spaces that are provided through the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, meet Palo Alto design guidelines and standards for publicly owned parks, allow public access, and are designed to support recreation, incorporate natural ecosystem elements and comply with the policies of the Urban Forest Master Plan. PROGRAMS 3.C.1 Develop and apply clear expectations and definitions of public access (hours, rules) for privately owned public spaces Goal 4: Protect natural habitat and integrate nature, natural ecosystems and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto. Policy 4.A In Natural Open Space, ensure activities, projects and programs are compatible with the protection of nature. PROGRAMS 4.A.1 Prioritize development of comprehensive conservation plans for Baylands Preserve, Foothills Park, Esther Clark Park, and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve to identify strategies to balance ecosystem preservation, passive recreation, and environmental education. 4.A.2 Continue to work with partnership organizations to remove invasive weeds and plant native plants and trees in riparian and natural open space areas. 4.A.3 Update the Arastradero Preserve Trail Master Plan (March 2001) and the Foothills Park Trail Maintenance Plan ( January 2002), and incorporate into in the Foothills Park, 70 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Pearson Arastradero Preserve, and Esther Clark Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan Project. Policy 4.B Connect people to nature and the outdoors through education and recreation programming. PROGRAMS 4.B.1 Expand access to nature through elements and interpretive features that explore ecological processes, historical context, adjacent waterways, specific plant/ animal species that can be encountered onsite and elements tailored to be of interest to youth as well as multiple ages, cultures and abilities. 4.B.2 Update or rebuild interpretive centers with modern interactive exhibits. 4.B.3 Improve and increase access to creeks for learning and stewardship experiences by designing access points that minimize impact on the waterway. 4.B.4 Expand programs such as Foothills camps to connect youth with parks year-round. 4.B.5 Partner with boys/girls scouting organizations for outdoor education programs and/or the Junior Rangers program. 4.B.6 Expand and increase events that educate and promote native plants, species and wildlife. 4.B.7 Provide shade for play areas using shade trees as the preferred solution. 4.B.8 Update and improve the Toyon Trail Interpretive Guide to make it more engaging and educational. 4.B.9 Develop a Trail Interpretive Guide for Pearson Arastradero Preserve and the Baylands Nature Preserve. IMAGE: Examples of Placemaking improvements 7170 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 4.C Connect natural areas, open spaces, creeks and vegetated areas in parks and on public land to create wildlife, bird, pollinator and habitat corridors by planting with native oaks and other species that support pollinators or provide high habitat values. PROGRAMS 4.C.1 Develop a map that identifies locations for habitat corridors including the appropriate plant palette for each corridor. 4.C.2 Work with local environmental groups to grow native plant species and utilize their network of volunteers to install and maintain planted areas. 4.C.3 Establish low-impact buffer zones with native plant species along creeks to enhance habitat value. Policy 4.D Promote, expand and protect habitat and natural areas in parks and open space. PROGRAMS 4.D.1 Identify and pursue strategies and opportunities to expand native trees and planting areas in urban parks. 4.D.2 Integrate and implement the Urban Forest Master Plan Policies and Programs as applicable to parkland in Palo Alto. 4.D.3 Update the preferred planting palette and approved tree species list. 4.D.4 Collaborate with habitat restoration organizations such as Save the Bay, Canopy and Acterra 4.D.5 Replace low-use turf areas with native shrubs and grasses, incorporating educational elements about native habitats. 4.D.6 Support regional efforts that focus on enhancing and protecting significant natural resources. Underhill Parking Garage at UC Berkeley ncludes a full size soccer field built over 1,000 space, four-level parking facility 72 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 4.D.7 Utilizing volunteers, expand programs to remove invasive species, and to plant native vegetation in open space, parks, and creek corridors. 4.D.8 Collaborate with regional partners to control the spread of invasive species and plant pathogens. Goal 5: Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the park and recreation system. Policy 5.A Identify and pursue strategies to activate underused parks and recreation facilities PROGRAMS 5.A.1 Implement short-term placemaking improvements (flexible, small scale interventions such as seating, art, programming or planters that have minimal capital cost) to attract users and experiment with potential longer-term options. 5.A.2 Emphasize flexibility and layering uses (allowing for different uses at different times of day, week, etc.) in parks over installing fixed-use equipment and single-use facilities. 5.A.3 Expand Day Camp program opportunities, utilizing all preserves and more local park sites and additional topic areas, to meet excess demand. 5.A.4 Leverage social media and develop marketing materials to encourage “pop-up” recreational activities in rotating parks. 5.A.5 Create small (10-12 people) and medium-sized (20-25 people) group picnic areas that can be used for both picnics and programming. 5.A.6 Assess high-demand park features and identify those that can be added or relocated to low use parks. PARKLET: An inexpensive infrastructure investment that creates a public gathering space or small park from on-street parking spaces. Parklet on Noriega Street in San Francisco 7372 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 5.B Support innovation in recreation programming and park features and amenities. PROGRAMS 5.B.1 Review program data based on clearly communicated objectives for reach, impact, attendance and financial performance. 5.B.2 Retire, end or refresh programs that require staff, facility and financial resources but do not achieve program objectives, thereby freeing up resources for new programs. 5.B.3 Actively develop a small number of pilot programs each year to test new ideas, locations and target audiences. 5.B.4 Build on partnership with Avenidas to expand intergenerational programming as well as additional older adult programming. 5.B.5 Expand BOOST!, the pay-per-use exercise class system to cover fees for any drop-in classes or facility use (lap swim, drop-in gym time, new programs in parks). 5.B.6 Set goal of 10% new program offerings each season; new programs should be offered based on needs assessment, industry trends, and/or class evaluation data. 5.B.7 Create a robust marketing and outreach program to highlight new and innovative programs to community. 5.B.8 Develop short-term recreation access strategies (such as temporary use agreements for vacant or park like property) and seek long-term or permanent park and recreation space in each park search area. Actively recruit property and facility owners to participate in the development of the short and long-term strategies. IMAGE: Focus Group 74 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 5.C Expand the overall parks and recreation system through repurposing public land, partnering with other organizations for shared land, incorporating public park spaces on parking decks and rooftops and other creative means to help address shortages of available land. Policy 5.D Explore alternative uses for newly acquired parkland to optimize for long-term community benefit. PROGRAMS 5.D.1 Determine optimal usage for Foothill Park 7.7 acres of parkland. 5.D.2 Evaluate optimal usage, including open space, for 10.5- acre land bank created by golf course reconstruction. 5.D.3 Evaluate feasible uses for the south end of El Camino Park. Policy 5.E Explore and experiment with parklets and other temporary park spaces for both long and short-term uses. Policy 5.F Enhance partnerships and collaborations with Palo Alto Unified School District and Stanford University to support access and joint use of facilities, where appropriate for effective delivery of services and programs. PROGRAMS 5.F.1 Partner with PAUSD to open middle and high schools recreation facilities for community use (basketball, badminton, indoor soccer, swimming pools, tennis courts) during the evening, weekend, and summer hours. 5.F.2 Develop a steering committee that consists of key officials from the City, PAUSD and Stanford to develop 7574 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS partnership agreements and connect facility managers and programmers. 5.F.3 Increase access to PAUSD public schools (outside of school hours) to increase the availability of recreation activity spaces. Target school sites that are within or adjacent to “park search areas”. 5.F.4 Partner with Stanford to create or increase access to athletic facilities and other recreational facilities for Palo Alto residents. 5.F.5 Develop a common reservation system for community access to shared facilities. Policy 5.G Pursue other/private funding sources for recreation programming, capital improvement projects and facility maintenance. PROGRAMS 5.G.1 Encourage foundations to assist with soliciting sponsorships and grants. 5.G.2 Create a more formalized annual or one-time sponsorship program that provides the donor with marketing and promotional opportunities. 5.G.3 Contract or add job responsibilities for managing fundraising and developing donors for the park system to pursue funding opportunities and sponsorships. 5.G.4 Engage nonprofit friends groups to seek donor funding, including foundation grants, corporate giving and small and major philanthropic gifts by individuals, for priority projects and programs. Policy 5.H Partner with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and other land conservation groups to expand access to open space through new acquisitions and improved connections. 76 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Goal 6: Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures. Policy 6.A At least every five years actively review demographic trends and interests of city population by segment for critical drivers of facility usage including school children, teens, seniors, and ethnic groups and adjust programs and plans accordingly. PROGRAMS 6.A.1 Create pilot recreation programs to test the public’s interest in new types of classes, events and activities utilizing an evaluation process. 6.A.2 Initiate a community-wide focus group on an annual basis to provide feedback on programs, facilities and long-term roadmaps. 6.A.3 Create a streamlined and effective quarterly survey system that solicits feedback from customers, including program participants, facility renters, and the general community. Policy 6.B Continue to implement the Cost Recovery Policy for recreation programs, refining the cost and fees using the most current information available. PROGRAMS 6.B.1 Periodically benchmark the City’s Cost Recovery Policy against other cities’ cost recovery models. 6.B.2 Invest in and market city facilities to increase revenue for cost recovery. Policy 6.C Limit the exclusive use of Palo Alto parks (booking an entire park site) for events by outside organizations that are closed to the general public. IMAGE: Palo Alto Park Maintenance IMAGE: Solar installation 7776 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS PROGRAMS 6.C.1 No exclusive use of parks by private parties is permitted on peak days (e.g., weekend, holidays) or peak times (e.g., evening hours on weekdays, 10 am – 6 pm on weekends) as defined by Community Services staff unless approved in advance by the Director of Community Services. Exclusive use of certain sites and facilities within parks, such as reservable spaces like picnic areas, is generally permitted during peak days and times. 6.C.2 Use of parks for locally focused events, where more than 50% of participants are expected to be Palo Alto residents and that allow registration by the general public (e.g., events such as, races, obstacle course events, triathlons, etc.) may be considered by staff if consistent with this Master Plan. 6.C.3 Private events that are closed to the general public (e.g., corporate events, private weddings) and are intended to use an entire park (rather than a reservable space in excess of capacities as defined in the Special Event Permit procedures) may only be considered outside of peak days and times as defined by Community Services staff. These events should recover 100% of all associated costs, including wear and tear on public parks and facilities. 6.C.4 Events that allow public access are permitted, in accordance with Special Event Permit procedures. Policy 6.D Periodically review and update existing guidance for development, operations, and maintenance of Palo Alto’s Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaces, and Recreation system based on the best practices in the industry and this Master Plan, including: • Park Rules and Regulations; • Open Space Policy & Procedure Handbook; IMAGE: Examples of Urban Greening/Green Infrastructure 78 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS • City of Palo Alto Landscape Standards; • City of Palo Alto design guidelines and standards; and • Tree Technical Manual. Policy 6.E Incorporate sustainable best practices in the maintenance, management, and development of open spaces, parks, and recreation facilities where consistent with ecological best practices. PROGRAMS 6.E.1 Increase energy efficiency in Palo Alto parks, including allocating funding to retrofit facilities for energy efficiency with increased insulation, green or reflective roofs and low-emissive window glass where applicable. 6.E.2 Conduct energy audits for all facilities, establish an energy baseline for operations, benchmark energy performance against comparable facilities, and implement energy tracking and management systems for all park facilities and operations. 6.E.3 Select Energy Star and equivalent energy-efficient products for Park equipment purchases. 6.E.4 Expand the collection and use of solar power (parking lots, roofs) and other renewable energy sources at parks and facilities (e.g. pools). 6.E.5 Provide convenient and well-marked compost and recycling receptacles throughout the park system, in recreation facilities and at special events. 6.E.6 Ensure that trash, recycling, and compost receptacles have covers to prevent wildlife access to human food sources. 6.E.7 Review purchasing policies and improve employee education to reduce overall consumption of materials throughout the system. 6.E.8 Procure environmentally preferable products (as required by the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policy) as the “default” purchasing option. 7978 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 6.E.9 Initiate composting of green waste within the park system. 6.E.10 Work with Public Works to replace the vehicle fleet with electric vehicles whenever practical. 6.E.11 Install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at park facilities with parking lots. 6.E.12 Enforce a “No Idle” program with vehicles and other gas- powered equipment. 6.E.13 Conduct water audits for all parks and recreation facilities and park operations. 6.E.14 Install high-efficiency urinals, toilets, sinks and showers in all facilities. 6.E.15 Extend recycled water use to more park sites; 6.E.16 Explore water capture opportunities in parks for irrigation and recycling. 6.E.17 Ensure any irrigation systems on public landscapes are run by a smart controller and/or sensors and that staff are trained in programming them. 6.E.18 Link all park facilities to a centralized irrigation management system to maximize water use efficiency. 6.E.19 Promote urban greening by integrating storm water design into planting beds, reducing irrigation and providing interpretive information about park contributions to city water quality. 6.E.20 Train City maintenance staff and include specific standards and expectations in maintenance contracts for the care of for low-water, naturalized landscapes, natural play environments and other new types of features in the system. 6.E.21 Ensure project designs for new facilities and retrofits will be consistent with sustainable design principles and practices. This includes evaluating all projects for opportunities to implement Green Stormwater Infrastructure such as bioswales, stormwater planters, rain gardens, permeable pavers and porous concrete and asphalt. 80 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 6.E.22 Identify locations and develop swales, detention basins and rain gardens to retain and treat storm water. Policy 6.F Strengthen the Integrated Pest Management (“IPM”) policy as written. While some parks may be managed as “pesticide free” on a demonstration basis, IPM should continue to be Palo Alto’s approach, grounded in the best available science on pest prevention and management. PROGRAMS 6.F.1 Periodically review and update the IPM policy based on best available data and technology. Policy 6.G Strategically reduce maintenance requirements at parks, open spaces, natural preserves and community centers while maintaining Palo Alto’s high quality standards. PROGRAMS 6.G.1 Locate garbage and recycling receptacles in a single- location that is easily accessible by maintenance staff and vehicles. 6.G.2 Explore high capacity, compacting and smart garbage and recycling receptacles that can reduce the frequency of regular collection; and 6.G.3 Select standardized furnishing palettes for durability, vandal-resistance and ease of repair. Policy 6.H Coordinate with and/or use other relevant City plans to ensure consistency, including: • Baylands Master Plan; • Urban Forest Master Plan; • Urban Water Master Plan; 8180 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS • Long-term electric acquisition plan (LEAP); • Water Reclamation Master Plan; • Recycled Water Project; • Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan • Comprehensive Plan; and • Others adopted in the future. • Public Art Master Plan Policy 6.I Continue to engage other relevant City departments and divisions in planning, design and programming, drawing on the unique and specialized skills and perspectives of: • City Managers Office • The Palo Alto Art Center; • Library, including Children’s Library; • Junior Museum and Zoo; • Children’s Theatre; • Public Art; • Transportation; • Urban Forestry; • Planning; • Public Works, and • Palo Alto Youth and Teen Leadership Policy 6.J Participate in and support implementation of regional plans related to parks, recreation, natural open space and trails, such as: • 2014 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision; • Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan; and • Land Use near Streams in Santa Clara County. DATE: AUGUST 23, 2016 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SUBJECT: DOG PARKS Additional off leash dog parks for the City of Palo Alto have been the subject of much community, PRC and City Council discussion for at least a decade. The Master Plan process has confirmed that this is an urgent unmet need, highly ranked as a priority for residents. Following extensive study and working closely with community stakeholders and staff, the PRC Dog Park Ad Hoc Committee developed a two prong recommendation presented in the March 22, 2016 Staff Report to the PRC (Attachment A). The recommendation includes: 1.A specific Dog Park Policy and Program to be included in the Parks, Trails, NaturalOpen Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan); and2.Near term implementation of at least one new dog park in the interim period priorto approval and execution of the Master Plan.The March 22, 2016 Staff Report recommended two locations for near-term implementation: Eleanor Pardee Park and Bowden Park, both located north of Oregon Expressway where demand is high and no dog parks currently exist. We ask that City Council agree to our recommendation to pursue at least one dedicated dog park in advance of final approval of the Master Plan and provide direction to staff to proceed with installing a much needed dog park north of Oregon Expressway consistent with the Master Plan and Ad Hoc Committee findings. The implementation process will require public outreach in the surrounding neighborhood, a Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO), bids from contractors and installation of fencing and simple amenities. Typical costs for a basic dog park, smaller than ½ acre and with limited amenities, range upwards from $30k depending on size and design. If water, benches, shade structures or additional amenities are added, the cost escalates. Remaining recommended dog parks would be evaluated and prioritized with other park projects identified in the Master Plan. Attachments: Attachment A: March 22, 2016 Staff Report to the Parks and Recreation Commission presenting draft Dog Park Recommendation Attachment B 1 | Page Chapter 6 - Outline of the final chapter titled “Implementation” Date: August 24, 2016 In ongoing discussions with the project team we are developing an approach to the Master Plan Chapter 6: Implementation that seems most appropriate for the needs of Palo Alto. This final chapter will be a toolkit that provides the key information for implementing the plan. Chapter 6 will provide staff with three tools that can inform decisions by the City Council to set the strategic direction for funding levels and building community support: •A prioritization process, •A process for evaluating future projects, and •A progress reporting methodology. The outline presented below provides detail on the proposed sections of this chapter. Chapter 6 Outline A.Action Plan: proposed actions for the next 20 years (across all areas of the plan) and phasing recommendations of what moves forward first B.Funding Today and Tomorrow: summary of existing funding and potential funding opportunities C.Evaluating Future Projects: the process for incorporating new ideas while remaining true to the direction from the community D.Progress Reporting Methodology: indicators to show how the City is moving forward with the plan direction over time E.Call to Action: a closing statement summarizing what needs to happen next to put this plan into motion Attachment C 2 | Page A. Action Plan This section of the plan will represent the recommendations of what projects and programs should move forward first. The Action Plan will: o Align with the City’s 5-year capital planning process, which is revisited annually o Include “keep-up” and “catch-up” projects that were identified in the Final Report of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) o Include potential new facility and park amenities o Provide a recommended roll-out of projects over the 20-year planning horizon, distinguished between near-term, mid-term or long-term. o Include an Action Plan specific to recreation programming o Estimated capital, operational, and/or programming investments for those projects and programs that will occur in the near-term (within five years of Master Plan adoption) o Include a separate analysis of long-range, high investment capital projects (for example, Cubberley Community Center) including a prioritization process for competing projects B. Funding Today and Tomorrow The description of funding, both existing and potential, is critical to the practicality of this plan. This section will include: o Existing funding sources o IBRC programmed investments (“keep-up” and “catch-up” work that is already identified) o The gap in funding o Potential funding options C. Evaluating Future Projects While the Master Plan will provide direction for enhancing the parks, trails, natural open space, and recreation system over the next 20 years, it is likely that additional new projects or programs will be proposed in the future. This chapter will include a process for evaluating those projects not identified in the Master Plan. D. Progress Reporting Methodology As a long-range plan, it will be important to keep the community up-to-date on the City’s progress toward meeting the goals of this plan. This section will focus on identifying and reporting on a set of indicators that are relevant and measurable, and relate directly to the goals, policies and programs of the plan. Examples of what indicators could be included are: o Number of users in parks 3 | Page o Amount of water used for irrigation o Teen participation numbers in recreation programs o Senior participation numbers in recreation programs and services o Acres of new native landscape and new habitat o Number of dog park users by site o Number of timeslots used on sports fields o Number of new recreation programs, events and locations piloted E. Call to Action As the final chapter in the plan, a wrap-up statement describing the compelling needs and opportunities and a call to action will be added. The summary of the plan will be handled in the executive summary at the front of the document. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 6, 2016 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the August 22, 2016 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Attachement A: 08-22-16 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOC) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 7 Special Meeting August 22, 2016 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:36 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt arrived at 5:45 P.M., DuBois, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Filseth Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY Subject: Written Liability Claim Against the City of Palo Alto by Gilles Boccon-Gibod (Claim No. C16-0026) Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Berman, DuBois, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach yes, Holman, Kniss not participating, Burt, Filseth absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:38 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 5:59 P.M. Mayor Burt announced the Council voted (7-0 Burt, Filseth absent) to authorize a settlement in the matter of Claim No. C16-0026, filed by Gilles Boccon-Gibod. The matter settled for $59,434.42. Special Orders of the Day 2. Proclamation of the City Council Honoring Robert Kelley. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/22/16 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Consent Calendar MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-10, including changes outlined in the At Place Memorandum for Agenda Item Number 8- Approval of Contract Amendment Number 4 With Van Scoyoc Associates Inc… 3. Approval and Authorization of the City Manager to Execute a Contract With Builders Protection, LLC in a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $4,620,000 for Three Years for Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric, Storm Drain, and Street Resurfacing Construction Inspection Services; and Finding That the Contract’s Approval is not a Project Requiring California Environmental Quality Act Review. 4. Resolution 9618 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Correcting Clerical Errors in two Items Previously Approved as Part of the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) Program.” 5. Approval of Contract Number C16163335 With Sierra Traffic Markings, Inc. in the Amount of $850,000 to Provide On-call Traffic Safety Services, Allowing Them to Implement Minor Roadway Improvements in Response to Community Service Requests. 6. Approval of a Revenue Agreement With the County of Santa Clara in the Amount of $250,000 Over two Years for Support of Intensive Case Management in Connection With Housing Subsidies to be Provided by the County of Santa Clara for Palo Alto’s Homeless. 7. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to City Council for Next Steps in the City's Neighborhood Engagement Initiative Including: Establishing a Yearly Goal of Three Town Hall Meetings; Updating the Co-Sponsorship Agreement; Adopting a List of Neighborhood Associations; and Amending the Annual Budget to DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/22/16 Reduce the General Fund and Increase the General Liabilities Insurance Program Fund by $5,000. 8. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 4 (Contract Number C12146667) With Van Scoyoc Associates Inc. for Federal Legislative Representation to Extend the Contract for two Years Through July 31, 2018 and add $202,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $606,000. 9. Approval of an Amendment to the Existing Joint Powers Authority Agreement With the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority to Include Participation by the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority. 10. Approval for the Consolidation of the Unscheduled Vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission With the Fall 2016 Board and Commission Recruitment. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Filseth absent Action Items 11. Resolution 9691 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Net Energy Metering Successor Rate E-EEC-1 (Export Electricity Compensation); Establishing the Net Energy Metering Transition Policy; and Amending Rule and Regulation 2 (Definitions and Abbreviations) and 29 (Net Energy Metering and Interconnection) (Continued From June 27, 2016).” MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to adopt a Resolution adopting a Net Energy Metering (NEM) Successor Rate, E-EEC-1 (“Export Electricity Compensation”) and amending Utilities Rule and Regulation 2 (“Definitions and Abbreviations”) and 29 (“Net Energy Metering and Interconnection”); and direct Staff to return with options and a recommendation for the NEM Transition Policy. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “to Council within four months” after “direct Staff to return.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add at the end of the Motion, “return to Council DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/22/16 within one year of reaching the cap from the expiring NEM program with a report describing other NEM programs in California with a comparison to the Palo Alto program including the effectiveness of our program in spurring local residential solar options.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “change the method for calculating the NEM cap to five percent of the customer class non-coincident peak.” MOTION RESTATED: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to adopt a Resolution adopting a Net Energy Metering (NEM) Successor Rate, E-EEC-1 (“Export Electricity Compensation”) amending Utilities Rule and Regulation 2 (“Definitions and Abbreviations”) and 29 (“Net Energy Metering and Interconnection”); direct Staff to return to Council within four months with options and a recommendation for the NEM Transition Policy; return to Council within one year of reaching the cap from the expiring NEM program with a report describing other NEM programs in California with a comparison to the Palo Alto program including the effectiveness of our program in spurring local residential solar options; and change the method for calculating the NEM cap to five percent of the customer class non-coincident peak. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Filseth absent Council took a break from 8:08 P.M. to 8:17 P.M. 12. Interim Retail Preservation Ordinance: Request for a Waiver at 100 Addison, Discussion Regarding Applicability to Retail and "Retail-Like" Uses Which do not Have Required Entitlements, and Discussion Regarding Potential Ordinance Improvements and Next Steps. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to direct Staff to return to Council with a framework for an Ordinance for the Downtown Area, including South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan Phase 2 (SOFA II) and a more flexible framework for the City as a whole. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “including: A. Requiring display windows on properties with non-conforming uses; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/22/16 B. Considering adjustments to the Ground Floor (GF) boundary; and C. Considering protections outside the GF and for basements; updating definitions as needed; and D. Options to amortize out certain non-conforming uses along University Avenue.” AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “somewhat” after “(SOFA II) and a.” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add to the requirement of Retail; ‘generally open to the public with a minimum number of hours.’” (New Part E) MOTION RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to direct Staff to return to Council with a framework for an Ordinance for the Downtown Area, including South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan Phase 2 (SOFA II) and a more flexible framework for the City as a whole, including: A. Requiring display windows on properties non-conforming uses; and B. Considering adjustments to the Ground Floor (GF) boundary; and C. Considering protections outside the GF and for basements; updating definitions as needed; and D. Options to amortize out certain non-conforming uses along University Avenue; and E. Add to the requirement of Retail; “generally open to the public with a minimum number of hours.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Filseth absent DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/22/16 MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to deny the request for a waiver at 100 Addison Avenue from the Retail Protection Ordinance and uphold the Director’s decision. AMENDENT: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to add to the Motion, “and allow education uses in the Interim Ordinance.” AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE SECONDER AMENDENT: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to add to the Motion, “and allow education uses in the Interim Ordinance.” AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AMENDENT: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to add to the Motion, “and allow education and medical office uses in the Interim Ordinance.” INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Amendment, “for properties in SOFA II, Residential Transition-35 Zone (RT-35).” INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Amendment, “on Alma Street.” INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Amendment, “or abutting” after “(RT-35), on.” AMENDENT RESTATED: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to add to the Motion, “and allow education and medical office uses in the Interim Ordinance for properties in SOFA II, Residential Transition-35 Zone (RT-35), on or abutting Alma Street.” AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-4 DuBois, Holman, Scharff, Schmid no, Filseth absent AMENDENT: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to add to the Motion, “and allow education uses in the Interim Ordinance for DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/22/16 properties in SOFA II, Residential Transition-35 Zone (RT-35), on or abutting Alma Street.” AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-3 DuBois, Holman, Schmid no, Filseth absent MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to deny the request for a waiver at 100 Addison Avenue from the Retail Protection Ordinance and uphold the Director’s decision and allow education uses in the Interim Ordinance for properties in SOFA II, Residential Transition-35 Zone (RT-35), on or abutting Alma Street. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Filseth absent 13. Policy Discussion on Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Impact Report Scenarios 5 & 6 (Staff requests this item be continued to August 29, 2016). This Item was continued to August 29, 2016. Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs 14. Status Update and Potential City Responses to the Governor's "By Right" Housing Bill and Pending Bills Addressing Housing Issues. NO ACTION TAKEN Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements None. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 6, 2016 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Vote to Endorse the Slate of Candidates for the Division’s Executive Committee for 2016-17 and Direct the City Clerk to Forward to Seth Miller, the Regional Public Affairs Manager for the Peninsula Division, League of California Cities the Completed Ballot for the City of Palo Alto RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should formally vote to endorse the slate of candidates for the Division’s Executive Committee for 2016-17 and direct the City Clerk to forward to Seth Miller, the Regional Public Affairs Manager for the Peninsula Division, League of California Cities the completed ballot for the City of Palo Alto. BACKGROUND: The election for the Executive Committee for the Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities will be held on Friday, October 7, 2016 at the Division’s annual breakfast meeting during the League of California Cities Annual Conference in Long Beach, CA. The Peninsula Division Nominating Committee’s Division President and Palo Alto Council Member Liz Kniss, and the At- Large Division Representative from East Palo Alto, Vice Mayor Larry Moody, submit the following candidates for the Peninsula Division’s Executive Committee for the 2016-17 Ballot: President: Alicia Aguirre, Council Member, Redwood City Vice President: Marilyn Librers, Council Member, Morgan Hill Secretary-Treasurer: Larry Moody, Council Member, East Palo Alto Board of Director (Two Year Term) Liz Kniss, Council Member, City of Palo Alto At-Large – VOTE FOR ONE CANDIDATE FOR EACH COUNTY Santa Clara County Cory Wolbach, Council Member, City of Palo Alto Page 2 San Mateo County Shelly Masur, Council Member, Redwood City The ballots will be opened and tabulated at the Annual Breakfast meeting. The new officers will be introduced at that time. Each city is entitled to one vote for each office. Attached please find the biographies submitted for these candidates. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 2016-08-15 League Letter (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 3 ~ ~\. LEAGUE ~ OF CALIFORNIA CITIES PENINSULA DIVISION MEMBER CITIES ATHERTON BELMONT BRISBANE BU RU NGA ME CAMPBELL COLMA CUPERTINO DALY CITY EAST PALO AL TO FOSTER CITY GILROY HALF MOON BAY HILLSBOROUGH LOS ALTOS Los ALTOS HILLS LOS GATOS MENLO PARK MILLBRAE MILPITAS MONTE SERENO MoRGANH1LL MOUNTAIN VIEW PACIFICA PALO ALTO PORTOLA VALLEY REDWOOD CITY SAN BRUNO SAN CARLOS SAN FRANCISCO SANJOSE SAN MATEO SANTA CLARA SARATOGA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SUNNYVALE WOODSIDE DIVISION OFFICERS PRESIDENT LIZ KNISS COUNCILMEMBER CITY OF PALO ALTO VICE PRESIDENT ALICIA AGUIRRE COUNCILMEMBER CITY OF REDWOOD CITY SECRETARY/TREASURER MARILYN LlBRERS COUNCILMEMBER CITY OF MORGAN HILL DIRECTOR KIRSTEN KEITH COUNCILMEMBER CITY OF MENLO PARK AT LARGE REPRESENTATIVES JIM DAVIS COUNCILMEMBER, SUNNYVALE LARRY MOODY VICE MAYOR, EAST PALO ALTO STAFF LIAISON SETH NIILLER EMAIL: SMILLER@CACITIES.ORG August 15, 2016 Mayor Patrick Burt 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Burt, ''ffl ~ lOi& AIJ(; / 9 Alt 9: "' . R£Cf:.IV£D CfTt MAfiAli£R•s OFFICE The election for the Executive Committee for the Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities will be held on Friday, October 7th, 2016 at the Division's Annual Breakfast meeting during the League of California Cities' Annual Conference in Long Beach, CA. The Peninsula Division Nominating Committee -Division President and Palo Alto Councilmember Liz Kniss and At-Large Division Representative from East Palo Alto Vice-Mayor Larry Moody -submit the enclosed the 2016-17 Peninsula Division Executive Committee Officers ballot. Each city is entitled to one vote for each office on the ballot. Ballots should be mailed back to Seth Miller in the enclosed envelope by Friday, September 16th or can be delivered in person at the Annual Breakfast on Friday, October September 7th. All ballots will be opened and tabulated at the Annual Breakfast meeting. The new officers will be introduced at the breakfast meeting. If you have any questions regarding the election, I can be reached by email at SMiller@cacities.org or by phone at (415) 595-8629. Thank you for your consideration and participation. ~~IL Seth Miller Regional Public Affairs Manager Peninsula Division League of California Cities .~~tcn2~~ CITIES PENINSULA DMSION MEMBER CITIES ATHERTON BELMONT BRISBANE BURLINGAME CAMPBELL COLMA CUPERTINO DALY CITY CAST PALO ALTO FOSTER CITY GILROY HALF MOON BAY HILLSBOROUGH Los ALTOS Los ALTOS HILLS LOS GATOS MENLO PARK MILLBRAE MILPITAS MONTE SERENO MORGAN HILL MOUNTAIN VIEW PACIFICA PALO ALTO PORTOLA VALLEY REDWOOD CITY SAN BRUNO SAN CARLOS SAN FRANCISCO SANJOSE SAN MATEO SANTA CLARA SARATOGA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SUNNYVALE WOODSIDE DIVISION OFFICERS PRESIDENT LIZ KNISS COUNCILMEMBER CITY OF PALO ALTO VICE PRESIDENT ALICIA AGUIRRE COUNCILMEMBER CITY OF REDWOOD CITY SECRETARY/TREASURER MARILYN LIBRERS COUNCILMEMBER CITY OF MORGAN HILL DIRECTOR KIRSTEN KEITH COUNCILMEMBER CITY OF MENLO PARK AT LARGE REPRESENrATIVES JIM DAVIS COUNCILMEMBER, SUNNYVALE LARRY MOODY VICE MAYOR, EASTPALOALTO STAFF LIAISON SETH MILLER EMAIL: SMILLER@CACITIES.ORG PENINSULA DIVISION 2016-17 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS BALLOT CITY: Palo Alto Please return to the Peninsula Division c/o Seth Miller, 450 Taraval Street, PMB #236, San Francisco, CA 94116 by September 15th or deliver in person at the Annual Breakfast on October 7nd. President: Alicia Aguttre, Council Member, Redwood City Vice President: Marilyn Llbrers, Councilmember, Morgan Hill Treasurer: Larry Moody, Councilmember, East Palo Alto Secretary Charles Stone, Councilmember, Belmont Board Director (Two Year Term) Liz Kniss, Councilmember, Palo Alto Yes __ Yes __ Yes __ Yes __ Yes __ At-Lar2e: VOTE FOR ONE CANDIDATES FOR EACH COUNTY San Mateo County Shelly Masur, Councilmember, Redwood City Yes __ Santa Clara County Cory Wolbach, Councilmember, Palo Alto Yes __ Name (please print) Title Signature Alicia Carmen Aguirre Executive Committee Application for the Position of: PRESIDENT I have served on the Redwood City Council since January 2005. Since then I have been involved and participated with the League in various capacities. I have attended Lobby Days with my colleagues from the Peninsula and I attend the annual conference every year. I am also the current President of the Latino Caucus of the League. The Peninsula Division is a very important and influential organization that brings together Mayors and Council Members together to address the specific issues and concerns of this region. I would be honored to serve as President of the Peninsula Division of the League. BIO: Alicia Carmen Aguirre Alicia is a professor at Canada College. She has taught there since 1988 in the English Institute and the Spanish Department. She was Coordinator of the English Institute, Chair of the District Curriculum Committee and on the District Academic Senate. She holds an M.A. from Eastern Michigan University and has done Doctoral studies in Social Anthropology at the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City. She was a Fulbright Exchange Professor in Argentina. Resume: Alicia Carmen Aguirre Alicia C. Aguirre is a former Mayor of the City Redwood City and a serving member of the City Council. She is the first Latina/o Mayor in the history of Redwood City. She was appointed in January, 2005 and was elected in November, 2005, 2007, 2011, and 2015. She served as a Trustee and the President of the Redwood City Elementary School Board. As an active community member, she has served on numerous community boards in San Mateo County and the State of California and has received many awards, including: • Woman of the Year 2012 State of California 21st Assembly District's by Assemblyman Rich Gordon • Recipient of the OHTLI Award and Medal by the Mexican Government • Madrina Award, One Million NIU (New Internet Users) PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 1 • President of the Statewide Latino Caucus Executive Board of the League of California Cities • Inducted into the Redwood City San Mateo County Chamber Hall of Fame • Treasurer of the Latino Political Action Committee of San Mateo County • Chair, CCAG -City County Association of Governments Board • Vice President of the Peninsula Division of the League of CA Cities • Board Member of the Redwood City Chamber-San Mateo County • Chair of the Redwood City San Mateo Chamber Leadership Committee • Treasurer, Academic Senate, Ca:fiada College • Board Member of Dreamer's RoadMap • Board Member of Kid's Vision • Board Member of Stem Stars • Advisory Council, Sequoia Adult Student Scholars Foundation • Metropolitan Transportation Commissioner, representing the Cities of SMC • President of the Board of the Service League of San Mateo County • Former Trustee, Notre Dame De Namur University • Former Latina Mentor Advisory Council of the San Mateo County Office of Education • Former Board Member, Redwood City Library Foundation • Former Board Member Shelter Network • Former Board Member Hispanos Unidos • Former Board Member of Mt. Carmel School Board and the Garfield Charter School Board For more information please visit her website at www.aliciaaguirre.com Face book: https ://www .facebook.com/reelectaliciaaguirre/ Twitter: https ://twitter.com/acaguirre Linkedln: https://www .linkedin.com/in/ aliciaaguirre PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 2 BIO: Marilyn Librers Executive Committee Application for the Position of: VICE-PRESIDENT Marilyn Librers was elected in November 2008 for a four year term to the City Council of Morgan Hill and re-elected in 2012 for an additional four year term. She is no stranger to Morgan Hill having lived here for over 40 years she is passionate about the City. As a retired Mt. Madonna YMCA employee she applied a wealth of knowledge as a Morgan Hill Parks and Recreation Commissioner for 6 years and served 2 consecutive terms as chairperson. This experience gave her knowledge to transition on to the City Council. Marilyn has served on many non profit boards of directors over the years and is an active member of the Morgan Hill Rotary Club. In July of2016 she was elected as President of China Silicon Valley, a non-profit dedicated to economic commerce between China and Silicon Valley. I have been on the Executive Board for the League of California Cities serving a two year term from 2013 -2015. Also she is currently serving as the treasurer for the Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities. Presently she is the Executive Director of the Pauchon Research Foundation and travels worldwide awarding grants for medical and scientific research. Resume: Marilyn Hennessey-Librers Executive Director, Pauchon Research Foundation July 1, 2008 -Present Executive Director of nonprofit private Foundation. The Mission is to support and fund research in the fields of science, medicine and business for the betterment of mankind. This funding can be for individuals who have achieved proven accomplishments or are working towards a project with a goal of completion. Responsibilities include daily operation of the organization, fiscal management of a two million dollar diversified portfolio, board of director interaction and public relations. Identifying grant recipients, award of grants and visitation of science labs and institutions. Accomplishments include: ./ Open first business office in 2008 and facilitating move to larger space in 2012 . ./ Awarding over $100,000 in grants and materials to awardees globally . ./ Establishing local science fair for students to encourage science at a young age. These science fairs are funded by fund raising efforts at no cost to the Foundation. A total of $10,000 has been awarded to local students in the last three years. PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE3 Executive Committee Application for the Position of: VICE-PRESIDENT Elected City Council Member -Council Member November 2008 -Present Responsible for all facets of running and operation of the City of Morgan Hill, population 41,000 people. Elected to second four year term in November 2012. Departments include parks, roads, building, recreation, library and arts, police and fire services, legal, records, finance department, utilities, administration, tourism, youth development, public works, flood control, emergency services and economic development. City Manager, City Attorney and Police Chief report directly to the City Council. My outside committee assignments include Board of Directors of the Morgan Hill Economic Development Corporation, Sister City International, Health Foundation of Morgan Hill, Economic Development Committee liaison for Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Association, City Corporation Yard Commission, Waste Water and Flood Control Board, and Habitat Conservation Committee. Webco Sweeping, Sales Manager, April 1995 -January 2007 Reported directly to the owner ofa large service company which included the supervision of two customer service representatives. Responsible for company sales in Northern California and Nevada. Developed and implemented the first marketing plan that increased sales four times over previous year. Sales continued to increase annually at rate of at least 100% over each previous year. Responsible for generating accounting reports and monthly billings. Took on the responsibility of a first ever business budget for the company which included income and expenses. Negotiated all corporate and government sales contracts. Implemented customer services procedures and conducted ongoing training. Dunnhill Consultants, Owner, January 1993 -January 2008 Opened and operated the only event management firm in South County specializing in non profit fund raising. Organized and run over 25 events that were all profitable to individual agencies. These varied from golf tournaments to exclusive dinner and dance events. Organized New Years Eve event for City of Morgan Hill for two consecutive years. Employed two part time employees. Upon election to City Council I closed my business so there would not be any perception of conflict of interest where City resources might be used or requested. Affiliations Editorial Board for Morgan Hill Today Magazine Santa Clara County Cities Association League of California Cities -Peninsula Division -Treasurer Silicon Valley Leadership Group -Women Executives China Silicon Valley Foundation -President Co-chair of Cobs and Robbers Ball 2013 & 2014 supporting Morgan Hill Police Department Safe Trick or Treat Committee for Downtown Association -ongoing each year Gilroy Elks Lodge -Fashion Show Chairman -since 2001 -ongoing each year PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE4 Bio/Resume: Larry Moody Vice-Mayor, City of East Palo Alto Board of Directors Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency Larry Moody was appointed by the City of East Palo Alto Executive Committee Application for the Position of: TREASURER to the Board of Directors of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency in April of2016. The city's water utility is operated and managed by a private contractor, American Water Services, Inc. The service area is a residential community with some commercial and industrial development. Mr. Moody was elected to the City Council in 2012 and was appointed as Vice-Mayor in 2015. He serves on the Council Ad Hoc Committees for Education, Housing, and Infrastructure, and is actively involved with the League of California Cities where he serves on the Community Services Policy Committee, and was a member of the Housing Community and Economic Development. Mr. Moody was recently appointed by Congresswoman Speier to the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals pertaining to aircraft noise in the region. He is currently serving on the Peninsula League Executive Committee, and the San Mateo County Task Force on Jobs and Housing. Mr. Moody was born in Hartford Connecticut and studied Political Science at Trinity College. Following a 16-year management career in the Hospitality Industry, he and his family moved to East Palo Alto in 1992, where he served as Director of Parks & Recreation for 8 years. Mr. Moody served as Director of Social Education of the Boys & Girls Club of the Peninsula, and in 2000, was selected to serve as Director of Local Ministry for Menlo Park Presbyterian Church, where he provided leadership in launching the Compassion Weekend Project which is now in its 15th year. Mr. Moody was a member of the Ravenswood City School Board from 2006 -2010. Mr. Moody is Executive Director at Glad Tidings Church of God in Christ, Hayward, a Board member of the Silicon Valley Black Chamber of Commerce, and a member of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity. Mr. Moody is married with four adult sons. He is a Veteran of the United States Air Force. PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGES Bio: Charles Stone, Esq. Executive Committee Application for the Position of: SECRETARY Charles Stone grew up in San Mateo County, California. Charles attended UC San Diego ('97) and Santa Clara University School of Law ('02.) He began his career as a litigator with the well-respected Redwood City, CA firm of Roger, Scott & Helmer. After moving his family from San Mateo to Belmont in 2004, Charles became active as a volunteer in the public school community and youth sports. In 2010, Charles began volunteering with the Belmont- Redwood Shores School District Education Foundation (School- Force!). In 2012, he was appointed to the School-Force! Board of Directors as Endowment Chair and helped lead an effort that resulted in new fundraising records. In 2013, Charles was elected to the Belmont City Council and currently serves as Belmont's Vice-Mayor. He was appointed to the San Mateo County Transit District ("SamTrans") Board of Directors in December, 2013. He currently serves as the Board's Finance Committee Chair. In addition to the Belmont City Council and SamTrans, Charles currently serves as a Governing Member of the San Mateo County Library JPA, a Board Member on the South Bay Waste Management Agency ("ReThink Waste,") a member of the Congestion Management and Environmental Quality sub-committee of C/CAG, and as Belmont's representative for the San Mateo County Jobs/Housing Imbalance Task Force. Recently, he was also appointed to serve on the Peninsula Clean Energy ("PCE") JP A Board. Resume: Charles Stone, Esq. ROGER, SCOTT & HELMER, LLP, Senior Associate, Redwood City, CA 2004 -March, 2011 Responsibilities: Initial review, analysis, and set-up of cases. Created litigation plans, budgets, and recommendations. Drafted pleadings. Reviewed, analyzed, and summarized client documents, medical records, and deposition testimony. Client interface. Written Discovery. Legal research. Pre-trial motions (demurrers, motions to strike, discovery, summary adjudication/judgment.) Party, non-party and expert witness depositions. Client/percipient/expert depositions. Mediation/arbitration briefs. Mediations/Arbitrations. PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE6 Executive Committee Application for the Position of: SECRETARY SAN MATEO/SANT A CLARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Certified Law Clerk/Intern, Redwood City/San Jose, CA, June 2001-December 2001 Areas of Experience: Trial. Motions and opposition briefs. EDUCATION J.D., Santa Clara University Law School, 2002; B.A., University of California, San Diego, CA 1997 HONORS & ACTIVITIES Elected to the Belmont City Council (term: November, 2013-November 2017.) School-Force (51 O(c)(3) Belmont School District Ed foundation) Board of Directors (2011-13) Save the Music Festival Planning Committee Member (2011-present) Graduate Redwood City/San Mateo County Chamber of Commerce Leadership Class (2014) Scorer in San Mateo County High School Mock Trial Competition (2005 -present) Youth Softball, Youth Basketball, and AYSO coach/referee/umpire. 2011 and 2012 Tough Mudder Endurance Run/Obstacle Course. Santa Clara Law School: Criminal Law Society, Excellence in Oral Arguments Award, Honors Moot Court. UCSD: 1st-string UCSD Rugby team, Provost's Honors List. PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE7 Bio: Liz Kniss Executive Committee Application for the Position of: BOARD DIRECTOR Application Statement: I have lived and worked in Palo Alto and in Santa Clara County for many years, and have served in public office since 1985. As a school board member, City Council member and Supervisor in Santa Clara County, I have been involved with each governing body's professional organization and have served in leadership on Palo Alto School Board, Palo Alto City Council and Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, as well as many committees. I was Vice Mayor of the Palo Alto City Council in 2014. I have recently been appointed to the Employee Relations committee after being back on the PACC since 2013. While on the City Council previously I was active in both the Peninsula League and in the League of California Cities. I am particularly interested in the "voice" that the League can have in Sacramento, and in Washington. We must establish good long term relationships with our elected officials on the Peninsula and Bay Area, and with longer terms for office in the California State legislature, we can work toward our League goals over a greatly increased period of time. Our relationships make us stronger and bring greater influence in decision making at that level. While I was on the Board of Supervisors, I chaired the Legislative Committee for six years, and oversaw both our state and federal advocates, following the budgets, the bills, and the trends in public spending. I interacted with both our state lobbyists and the federal law firm who represented and advocated for us in Washington. We frequently visited Sacramento and DC to visit with our elected officials to work with them and their staff on issues important to our communities. Council Member Education BS, PHN, Simmons College, Boston, MA MPA, Public Administration and Health Care Policy, Cal State University Graduate work in Health Policy and Economics, UC Berkeley Public Service -Elected 2013 -Present: Palo Alto City Council Member, Vice Mayor 2014 (see pg 3) 2001 -2012: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, President 2005 and 2009 1989 -2000: Palo Alto City Council, Council Member, Mayor 1994 and 2000 1985 -1989: Palo Alto School Board, Member, President 1988 Palo Alto City Council-2013-15 Elected in November 2012 (Returning after 3 terms on Board of Supervisors*) PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGES January -2014, Elected Vice Mayor, Policy Committee -2013 Chair Policy Committees Executive Committee Application for the Position of: BOARD DIRECTOR Health and Hospital Committee; Vice-Chair 2001, Chair 2002 -2012 Legislative Committee; Vice-Chair 2001-2005, Chair 2006 -2012 Housing, Land Use, Environment, Transportation Committee; Vice-Chair 2009 -2012 Finance and Government Operations Committee; Vice-Chair 2006 -2008 Public Safety and Justice Committee; Chair 2001 Vice-Chair 2002 -2005 County-Wide County Library District Joint Powers Authority; 2001 -2012 Santa Clara County Health Authority Board of Directors; 2001-2011 Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Council 2004 -2011 First Five Santa Clara County Board of Directors 2009 SCC Cities Association Joint Economic Development Policy Committee; 2005-2008 County Internal County Fire Department Liaison; 2001-2012 County Planning Commission Liaison; 2001-2009 Disaster Council 2006 -2011 Energy Task Force 2001 Juvenile Detention Reform Planning Committee 2004 Juvenile Detention Reform Oversight Committee 2005 -2008 Regional Representation Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 2001-present Bay Conservation and Development Commission; 2001-2011 Local Agency Formation Commission; 2009 -2012 Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District Financing Authority 2001-2012 Regional Hazardous Waste Management Facility Allocation; 2001-2006 Valley Transportation Authority; 2005 -2012, Chair 2008 State and National Representation California State Association of Counties Board of Directors; 2006 -2012 California State Association of Counties; Health and Human Services Committee; Member 2003 -present, Vice-Chair 2006, Chair 2007 -2012 California Urban Counties Caucus; Member 2006 -present, Chair 2011 National Association of Counties; 2006 -present, Board of Directors 2010 -2012 National Association of Counties; Health Steering Committee; Member 2004 -2012, Chair 2010 -2012 National Association of Counties; Large Urban County Caucus Steering Committee 2006 -2012 PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE9 Executive Committee Application for the Position of: At-Large Member, Santa Clara Application Statement: Cory Wolbach I would be honored to serve as an At-Large Member of the League of CA Cities Peninsula Division Executive Committee. Palo Alto's geography in the heart of the San Francisco Peninsula, bordering six neighboring cities and Stanford, stretching from the bay to skyline, makes our city particularly vulnerable to regional challenges. That same geography, combined with our resources, makes Palo Alto particularly well situated to be a leader in addressing those problems in close coordination with our neighbors. Particularly acute this decade are the challenges of 1) housing affordability, (2) transportation, (3) economic inequality, and (1) sea level rise resulting from climate change. Through regional collaboration, we in Palo Alto and the Peninsula can solve these most serious problems, protect and strengthen our economy and culture, and benefit current and future generations of Peninsula residents. The League of CA Cities, Peninsula Division, must play a key role in efforts to avert existential threats to our communities. BIO: Cory Wolbach Cory Wolbach was elected to the Palo Alto City Council in November 2014, focused locally on housing affordability, income inequality, transportation, and climate sustainability and adaptation. From 2012 to 2015, Cory worked in the District Office of State Senator Jerry Hill, liaising with Peninsula communities on education policy, public safety, and other issues of local concern. Cory earned a B.A. in Political Science/International Relations from University of California San Diego, Cum Laude, and an associate's degree from Santa Monica Community College. As a Public Policy Intern with People for the American Way, he worked on the early stages of the ongoing effort reduce the role of money in politics by overturning Citizens United v. FEC (2010). Cory has been active in local Democratic clubs since college. Outside of politics and public policy, Cory's hobbies include trail running, motorcycling, and martial arts. A Palo Alto native, Cory has also lived locally in Menlo Park, Mountain View, and San Jose. Resume: Cory Wolbach Elected Office • City of Palo Alto, Council Member • Finance Committee Member, 2016 • Policy and Services Committee Member, 2015 • City/School Liaison Committee Member, 2016 • Human Relations Commission Alternate, 2015, Liaison 2016 • Library Advisory Commission Liaison, 2015 • Youth Liaison Alternate, 2015, Liaison 2016 • Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Alternate, 2016 PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 10 • Executive Committee • Application for the Position of: At-Large Member, Santa Clara • League of California Cities, Peninsula Division Alternate, 2016 • Santa Clara County Cities Association Legislative Action Committee Alternate, 2016 • Palo Alto Housing Corp. Liaison, 2015, Alternate 2016 • Valley Transportation Authority, El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Policy Board, 2015 • Valley Transportation Authority, Policy Advisory Committee Alternate, 2015 -Present Employment (Selected) • California State Senate, District Office of Senator Jerry Hill • Field Representative, Dec. 2012 -May 2015 • California State Assembly, District Office of Assemblymember Jerry Hill • Field Representative, Sep. -Dec. 2012 Education • UC San Diego • B.A., Political Science/International Relations, 2012, Cum Laude • Santa Monica College • A.A., Liberal Arts, 2010 Honors Legislation 1. Neighborhood Engagement Town Halls (Lead Author). Goal: Hold regular town halls in neighborhoods throughout the city, to better facilitate communication and understanding between city hall and residents. We have initiated the program, and held our first two town halls. 2. Secondary Dwelling Units (Lead Author) Goal: Update existing regulations which prohibit such housing units (also known as Accessory Dwelling Units, "in-law units" or "granny units") for most properties in the city. This initiative is currently undergoing analysis and discussion by the Planning & Transportation Commission, supported by staff. 3. Surveillance Technology Standards (Lead Author). Goal: Establish a standard operating procedure (SOP) for use prior to adoption of any technological tools by the City which could raise privacy concerns. The memo was unanimously referred by Council to the Policy & Services Committee for detailed discussion and recommendations back to Council. Palo Alto's chief of police, the ACLU, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation all spoke in favor of this effort to improve clarity and transparency in light of rapidly evolving technology. 4. Minimum Wage (Co-Author). Goal: Raise the minimum wage. Palo Alto has now set a goal of $15/hour by 2018, Organizations (Selected) • Young Elected Officials (YEO) Network, Member, 2015 -Present • Peninsula Democratic Coalition (PDC), Board Member, 2013 -Present • Peninsula Young Democrats, President, 2013-2014 • College Democrats at UCSD, Political Director, 2011-2012 PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 11 Executive Committee Application for the position of: At-Large Member, San Mateo Bio: Shelly Masur Shelly Masur is the CEO of Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation. She brings almost twenty years of experience working with youth-serving non-profits and in education-related leadership roles to CDEF. Shelly is a well-known and recognized leader in the education community having been named in 2013 one of the "100 Women of Influence" by the Silicon Valley Business Journal for her work in education. She is a former school board member in the Redwood City School District in San Mateo County where she served for 10 years and is currently a city councilmember in Redwood City. Shelly serves on the council's communications committee and on Redwood City 2020, as well as on the California League of Cities Community Services Committee, the Local Policymakers Workgroup for High Speed Rail and CalTrain Modernization, and the Public Engagement Advisory Committee of the Institute for Local Government. Shelly holds a Master's Degree on Public Health and lives in Redwood City with her husband, two high school-aged sons and three dogs. She texts regularly with her college-aged daughter. Resume: Shelly Masur 212014- present CEO, Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation, Redwood City, CA Overall strategic and operational responsibility for programs, staff, and organizational growth for a 5-year old, $3 million organization. Lead and support board in all aspects including developing strategic direction. Secure adequate funding to support all programmatic and administrative work including staffing. Accomplishments include: • Implemented statewide coalitions for NGSS implementation, Common Core communications, labor- management collaboration. Members include CSBA, CT A, ACSA, and PT A. • Directed development and distribution of Common Core communications messaging and materials currently in use by districts and organizations across the state. • Hosted first statewide Labor Management Symposium. Exceeded attendance goals and received overwhelmingly positive evaluations. Subsequent convenings have engaged 97 district teams. • Oversaw successful execution of3'd annual California STEM Symposium in partnership with the CA Department of Education attended by 3,100 teachers, administrators, higher education, philanthropy and business leaders. • Created collaboration among CA Department of Education, 4 county offices of education, local school districts & Attendance Works that increased local capacity to address chronic absence. PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 12 2005-2015 2007-2013 2010-2012 Trustee, Redwood City School District Elected official governing K-8 school district of9,200 students with 16 schools and 1,000 employees. Set direction for diverse district by overseeing and approving $80 million budget, supervising superintendent, and setting policy. Ensured ongoing communication and input by conducting outreach on district issues to staff and community members, meeting with constituents, and participating in community events. Represented district on issues affecting public education through regular meetings with state and local elected officials, including advisory committees for Assemblymembers, and committee testimony as requested by state legislators. Board representative to Redwood City 2020, a public-private collaborative focused on healthy children and youth. Accomplishments include: • Served as board president two times • Initiated and led development of district vision, mission, and goals. • Initiated Call to Action Committee and conducted outreach to approximately 40 organizations and over 800 community members including parent groups, business and service organizations to gamer support · for the district and encourage advocacy on its behalf. • Co-chaired Yes On E parcel tax campaign, exceeded fundraising goals and coordinated over 200 campaign volunteers. Principal, SKM Consulting. Selected Clients: 2013: Clifford Moss/The Children's Partnership: Partner engagement on ALL IN for Healthcare. A statewide campaign focused on schools as access points for health coverage enrollment under Covered California. 20 l 3: Children Now: Local policymaker and CBO engagement to help build a statewide coalition supporting education funding policy changes passed by Legislature and signed by the Governor. 2010: Fighting Back Partnership: Proposal development and strategic planning for US Department of Education Full Service Community Schools grant resulting in ongoing collaborative focused on healthy and academically successful children and supported families. 2010: Glen Price Group: State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson's Transition Advisory Team. Facilitated policy work group meetings and drafted section of Blueprint for Great Schools; Grant proposal development for various clients, including writing sections of California's Race to the Top application. 2007: Partnership for Children & Youth (formerly Bay Area Partnership): Local policymaker education and outreach. Supported and led policymaker convenings to develop local coalitions including goal-setting and budget planning focused on children and youth. 2007: ACLU of Northern California: Developed statewide teen health rights campaign including writing materials, creating a dissemination plan, and establishing a collaboration with major healthcare provider to provide web-based information; provided technical assistance to schools, organizations and community members to implement new sexuality education law and advised lobbyist on technical issues in legislative proposals. 2004-07: California Coalition for Reproductive Freedom: Coordinated 2006 & 2007 statewide annual lobby day for over 200 participants; authored toolkit designed to help communities implement a family communication social marketing campaign; developed and led trainings on toolkit use. Executive Director, Teen Talk Sexuality Education, Redwood City, CA Provided overall leadership and direction to rebuild organization after fiscal crisis. Reestablished relationships with funders and community partners resulting in increased stable funding and expanded programming. Supported and provided leadership for board of directors, managed staff, responsible for all fundraising and budgeting -increased budget from $200,000 to $500,000 in less than two years. Served as public spokesperson and community liaison. Initiated county-wide partnership to develop and hold teen pregnancy summit. PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 13 2008-2009 2007-2008 2004-2005 1999-2003 1998-1999 1996-1999 Director, Community Youth Development Programs, John W Gardner Center for Youth & Their Communities, Stanford, CA In a new position with a budget of$1 million, oversaw programming that included youth development and youth advocacy programming for middle school youth, middle school reform efforts, and a community-wide plan for youth development. Directed collaborative work on development of two toolkits focused on full- service community schools. Directed research examining linkages between preschool and full-service community schools and linking summer programming with school year programming. Led efforts to develop policy-related documents focused on Federal Race to the Top funds. Senior Director, After-School Programs, Girls Inc. of Alameda County, San Leandro, CA Set direction for and oversaw all aspects of after school and summer youth development programming serving over 600 girls, ages 5 through 18, in Oakland and San Leandro. Managed and supervised staff of 45. Developed and administered budgets of over $2 million. Directed program evaluation and development. Served on Senior Leadership Team. Developed cross-department programming and new projects. Initiated and fostered partnerships with schools and other community-based organizations resulting in new funding and additional programming. Director, Adolescent Health Collaborative, San Francisco, CA Oversaw all research and policy projects as well as general operations of statewide public-private partnership. Responsible for program planning and development, conducting research, preparing grant proposals, facilitating steering committee meetings, overseeing implementation of all activities conducted by staff, consultants and members. Initiated revision of statewide strategic plan for adolescent health, developed partnerships with public education campaign on teen pregnancy and with a foundation, oversaw mental health policy project that culminated in bringing young people to Sacramento to lobby elected officials. Associate Director, Teen Pregnancy Coalition of San Mateo County, Redwood City, CA Directed all programs, including staff supervision, reporting to funders, working with schools, and evaluating programs. Implemented new family communication project, including training educators and community organizations, developing partnerships with schools and community organizations, scheduling, and budgeting, exceeded all goals in first year. Developed, secured funding for, and oversaw youth advocacy program. Initiated collaboration among agencies to create a countywide media campaign and helped secure funding. Developed and updated sexuality education curricula for middle-and high-school students and for parents. Created and implemented staff evaluation procedures and criteria. Participated in monthly board meetings; served on program, marketing and fundraising committees of board. Served as media spokesperson. Upper School Health Education Coordinator, Trinity School, New York, NY Health Education Specialist, Phase V Communications, New York, NY PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 14 ... ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES EDUCATION Selected Speaking Engagements: • Communicating About Common Core: California School Boards Association Annual Conference, 2014, Association of California School Administrators Superintendents Conference & Delegate Assembly, 2014 • Developing and operating community-school & civic partnerships to leverage funding and improve outcomes for children: California State Association of Counties Annual Conference, 2012, California School Boards Association Annual Conference 2012, 2011, 2010 & California School Boards Association Curriculum Institute 2008; Association of California School Administrators Every Child Counts Symposium 2009 • Successfal community outreach and communication: California School Boards Association Annual Conference 2012 & 2010 • The link between health and academic achievement: National School Boards Association Annual Conference 20 I 0 California School Boards Association Annual Conference 2010 & School Wellness Conference 20 IO • Working with youth advocates, Society for Public Health Education Annual Meeting 2001& National Organization on Adolescent Parenting and Pregnancy Prevention Annual Conference 2002 • Featured Speaker, California Coalition for Reproductive Freedom Lobby Day, 2005, 2004, 2003 Assistant Editor, California Journal of Health Promotion. As part of founding editorial board, review journal articles for topic appropriateness, validity and quality to determine publication acceptance (2002-2004) Reviewer, Health Promotion Practice, Review journal articles for publication acceptance (2000-2001) Master of Public Health, Hunter College/CUNY, New York, NY Bachelor of Arts, Sociology, Macalester College, St. Paul, MN COMMUNITY SERVICE City Councilmember, City of Redwood City Board Member & Treasurer, Partnership for Children & Youth Selection Advisory Council, Green Light Fund Public Engagement Advisory Committee, Institute for Local Government A WARDS & PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS 100 Women of Influence 2013, Silicon Valley Business Journal California School Boards Association, Member, Annual Education Conference Planning Committee; elected Delegate for Delegate Assembly; School Health Advisory Committee. San Mateo County School Boards Association, President (2009-2011 ); Secretary 2008. Cities, County, Schools Partnership of San Mateo County. Developed and implemented a forum on statewide reform efforts and their impact on San Mateo County (2009) and a forum addressing health needs in San Mateo County (2011 ). PENISULA DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ELECTION PACKET: AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 15 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7259) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/6/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Animal Services Assessment and Possible New Service Model Title: Direct Staff to Proceed with Discussions with Pets In Need Regarding Animal Care Services and the Construction or Rehabilitation of the Animal Shelter Facility From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Direct staff to proceed with exclusive negotiations with Pets In Need, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, to provide animal care services and develop a plan for animal shelter facility construction or rehabilitation, and to return to City Council by December 2016 with a recommended agreement. Background Following the Great Recession and withdrawal of an agency (City of Mountain View) previously receiving Animal services from Palo Alto, in May 2012 the City Council's Policy and Services Committee and Finance Committees discussed the City’s current service and revenue models. As a result, the City Council directed staff to take immediate steps to make the operation more self-sufficient to reduce reliance on the General Fund. After a series of subsequent actions and service changes, through Fiscal Year 2014 the goals of establishing sustainable service levels and expenses were not achieved. In fact, over time, the costs and general fund subsidy to shelter operations have increased. In June 2014, the City Council referred a Colleagues Memo regarding the Palo Alto Humane Society’s (PAHS) interest in partnering with the City to the Finance Committee. The City Auditor was then engaged, and in April 2015 the City Auditor presented an audit concluding that Animal Services could not become revenue neutral under its current financial model, and faced challenges that were unlikely to be resolved if it continued operating as solely a city-managed function without a significant increase in general fund subsidy, donations, and/or revenue- generating contracts. In approving the Fiscal Year 2016 budget, the City Council directed staff to pursue an alternative service model and allocated $250,000 to assist with possible transition costs. City of Palo Alto Page 2 During Fiscal Year 2016, the City Manager’s Office continued outreach and engagement with various community and City department stakeholders, including the Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter (FoPAAS) and PAHS. With active participation from these stakeholders, staff conducted two Requests for Proposals (RFP) to assess the market for alternative services providers. Through the process of developing the first RFP and documenting the services and organizational support structure being sought, both FoPAAS and PAHS determined that they would not submit proposals. The first RFP was issued on October 15, 2015 and closed December 11, 2015 with one respondent, Pets In Need, a local animal rescue service provider located in Redwood City. Due to the low response rate and in accordance with procurement best practices, staff conducted debriefing sessions with local animal care providers who did not submit a response to better understand current market conditions. These included Peninsula Humane Society, Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority, Humane Society of Silicon Valley and the County of Santa Clara. The consistent feedback was that the initial RFP was too prescriptive and limited their abilities to apply existing business models and best practices. City staff met with community stakeholders and the Services Employees International Union (SEIU) about the feedback. In collaboration with the stakeholders, the City re-issued a revised RFP with a less strictly defined scope. The new RFP was issued on January 27, 2016 and after one extension, closed on March 18, 2016. The City received one proposal from Pets In Need, a letter from the County of Santa Clara and a letter from the Humane Society of Silicon Valley. Staff conducted an evaluation of the responses and has concluded that the proposal most advantageous to the City is from Pets In Need. Staff has therefore negotiated with Pets In Need to outline the terms of an agreement for animal care services. Recognizing that the City has multiple goals for animal care services, including the manner and level of care, improvement of the animal shelter, and community engagement, in addition to financial terms, staff is seeking City Council discussion and direction prior to finalizing an agreement for services. Staff also recognizes that as a nonprofit organization, Pets In Need is a prospective partner for whom this agreement represents a significant decision and commitment that must align with its mission and organizational capabilities. As has been demonstrated by the RFP process to date, there is not a robust marketplace of providers bidding for this service as defined. Discussion In consultation with Pets In Need, staff has developed the attached Term Sheet that outlines the substantive issues to be finalized in an agreement for services. City Council direction is recommended to finalize terms into a recommended contract and to return to City Council before the end of the calendar year for approval. The purpose of the Term Sheet is to identify the manner in which key policy issues are being addressed. These policy items are summarized below and further defined in the Term Sheet. The Term Sheet is nonbinding and presents the parameters for negotiations. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Why Pets In Need? Pets In Need was selected as providing the most advantageous proposal due to their commitment to retain the shelter in Palo Alto, to lead a fundraising campaign to remodel or build a new shelter, to work closely with the Friends of Palo Alto Animal Shelter and the Palo Alto Humane Society, and to provide the services in a cost effective manner. The County of Santa Clara’s letter was deemed not cost effective. Additionally, the County was not willing to contribute or fundraise in the same capacity as a nonprofit could to a new or remodeled facility. The Humane Society of Silicon Valley’s letter did not meet the City’s required level of service due to their recommendation to turn the Palo Alto shelter into a stray holding facility and to outsource services to Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority and Pets In Need. Facility Improvements As recommended in the audit and supported by the City Manager, the shelter is in need of a substantial remodel or possibly a new facility. The City and Pets In Need are committed to a partnership to develop a plan to remodel or rebuild a new shelter. The Term Sheet outlines initial commitments between the City and Pets In Need. To summarize: An initial needs assessment will be conducted to determine immediate improvements. The City and Pets In Need will ensure the facility is in a condition that meets the expectations of the new contract. Within one year of commencing operations, Pets In Need will finalize a plan and begin to lead a capital campaign to fundraise for facility improvements. Cost of Services The RFP requested potential service partners to provide: a two year financial plan with quarterly financial targets which includes earned income, fundraising and other revenue; direct labor rates for proposed staff; overhead rate and breakdown of overhead elements; sub- consultant billing rates and mark-up percentage for other direct costs; all reimbursable expenses; any other cost and price information; a not-to-exceed amount; bank and audit statements. Pets In Need was the only responsible bidder and provided the requested data. In discussions with animal care providers throughout the RFP process, and prior to that through various internal and external stakeholder engagement processes, it became apparent to staff that, in order to retain animal care services in Palo Alto, a certain level of General Fund subsidy would have to be provided for a defined set of shelter services and that a fully cost-recovery model with high service level expectations is not viable. Therefore, staff considered analogous public private partnerships and concluded that the ideal agreement would be a fee for service model where the City pays an annual management fee and provides a facility at minimal charge in return for services. This model provides a predictable subsidy level. In the preliminary discussions, Pets In Need requested that the City consider a fee for service model which is based on a $30 per animal per day cost with a cap of thirty days. Pets In Need would then be responsible for the ongoing cost after the thirty days. The attached Term Sheet adds additional parameters for this model. Recognizing that the details of the financial structure will need to be negotiated between the City and Pets In Need, Council approval of this report will direct staff to negotiate a fee structure with Pets In Need. The three-year average cost for shelter operations City of Palo Alto Page 4 is approximately $520,000. The City’s subsidy amount will stay at or below the three-year average cost. Staff will return to City Council for approval of an operating contract before the end of the calendar year. Types of Animals and Quantity of Animals Currently the Palo Alto Animal Shelter takes dogs, cats, rabbits, wildlife, chickens, horses, goats, and other animals. The City’s expects that Pets In Need will be responsible for intakes of all animals and maintain the same service levels as the City currently provides. In preliminary discussions Pets In Need has committed to maintaining services levels and meeting the community expectations. As discussions continue between the City and Pets In Need, adjustments may be required to service levels based on the negotiated fee structure and facility’s capacity. Moreover, Pets In Need has a “no kill” philosophy which is a fundamental principle of the organization. Staff will need to work with Pets in Need to evaluate their ability, given the facility constraints, to continue current service levels as a “no kill” shelter operation. Contracts with Los Altos and Los Altos Hills Partner agencies agreements make up of 15% of the City’s total annual Animal Shelter and Animal Control costs, 11% from Los Altos and 4% from Los Altos Hills. The partner agencies are billed annually, during the summer months, by calculating previous year costs with projected upcoming year forecasts. For the purposes of a partnership with Pets In Need we do not recommend disrupting the agreements with Los Altos or Los Altos Hills. Both agencies are aware of our RFP and City Council direction. If the City enters into a contract with Pets In Need, the contract will impact the City’s budget for Fiscal Year 2017. This impact could be positive or negative depending on the contract’s start date and transition issues as finalized. Staff expects that a contract with Pets In Need can be finalized before beginning discussions with partner agencies about service changes. In the short term, service levels for Los Altos and Los Altos Hills will be held constant. City Staff and Ongoing Staffing Currently, the City’s budget includes staffing for 10.66 FTE’s (Full-Time Equivalent positions) in the Animal Services program. Of the budgeted positions, 4 FTE’s are dedicated to Animal Control (including 1 Lead Animal Control Officer and 3 Animal Control Officers). As always planned, the 4 Animal Control positions will remain budgeted with the City and will not be included in the transition to Pets In Need. As such, the 4 Animal Control positions would remain represented by SEIU. Additionally, 2 FTE’s (Veterinarian Technician and Superintendent of Animal Services) are currently vacant. The Animal Shelter contract to be negotiated between the City and Pets In Need will outline the proposed staffing levels, exclusive of Animal Control. The City will strive to minimize the negative impacts to current City employees. Any impacts to union-represented employees resulting from a future transfer of services will be identified and discussed with SEIU. The City is committed to meeting any obligations related to collective bargaining and the City’s Merit Rules. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Ongoing City Support Currently the Animal Services is a division of the Police Department. The City Manager’s Office, working closely with the department, has been leading the assessment process. Under the proposed model, the Police Department will retain the Animal Control functions. As a non- profit partnership, however, shelter operations through the Pets in Need contract is expected to be managed of the Community Services Department. When the item returns to City Council, staff will provide a recommendation and resource needs to manage the contract. Resource Impact The Animal Services budget was approved by City Council on June 13, 2016. Funding is in place to continue operations through June 30, 2017. Additionally, City Council in the Fiscal Year 2016 budget process allocated $250,000 for transition costs. This funding was not expended in Fiscal Year 2016 and was reappropriated to Fiscal Year 2017. As noted in the Cost of Services section, discussions need to continue with Pets In Need with regards to the City’s ongoing General Fund subsidy and fee for services model. Any necessary adjustment to the Fiscal Year 2017 budget will be proposed to City Council at the time of contract approval. Attachments: Attachment A: Term Sheet - City and Pets In Need (PDF) Attachment B: Pets In Need Letter and Narrative (PDF) Attachment C: County of Santa Clara Letter (PDF) Attachment D: Humane Society of Silicon Valley Letter (PDF) Attachment E: Blank (PDF) Term Sheet Framework between the City of Palo Alto and Pets in Need This Term Sheet provides a summary of key business terms to be addressed in a Contract for Animal Care Services (Contract) between Pets in Need (PIN) and the City of Palo Alto (City). This non‐binding term sheet provides the foundation for negotiation and definition of a full Agreement for Services to be recommended for approval by the Palo Alto City Council and the Pets In Need Board of Directors. 1. Term of Agreement. The Agreement for services will commence on a date to be mutually agreed upon by the parties, but no sooner than January 1, 2017 and no later than July 1, 2017 for a five year period; and will extend for a period mutually determined by PIN and the City. The option to extend the Contract will be exercised no less than one year in advance of the expiration of the Contract. 2. Scope of Services. PIN will provide animal care services within Palo Alto and other communities under contract (Los Altos and Los Altos Hills). These services will be acceptance and care of animals, owner redemptions, veterinary care, spaying/neutering, vaccinations, adoptions, partnerships, foster care, marketing, community education and ongoing work with local stakeholder’s groups. a. Relationship to Animal Control Services: Animal Control will be provided by the City. These field services involved with responding to animal‐related issues are not included in the Scope of Services, except where interfacing with Animal Care at the shelter. b. Commitment to operation in Palo Alto: PIN understands that maintaining a local animal shelter is critically important to the City and will operate a shelter in Palo Alto except as may be necessary to accommodate renovations, new construction or unanticipated circumstances. c. PIN and the City will mutually draft policies and procedures that may limit the intake of animals for the purpose of improving animal care and to operate the shelter as a “No Kill” shelter, a fundamental principle of PIN. d. PIN and the City will mutually draft performance metrics and measures for services along with rewards for exceeding and consequences for not meeting expectations. e. The City will finalize the reporting relationship of PIN with a City department before the agreement is finalized. Currently, Animal Services is a division with the Palo Alto Police Department. PIN understands that the City may transition the reporting relationship of PIN to the Community Services Department with Police retaining the Animal Control unit. 3. Costs of Services. PIN has proposed a fee structure based on the number and duration of stray of animals brought into the shelter by Animal Care Officers and through owner surrenders. The parties will negotiate and finalize contract terms to address maximum and minimum fees to be paid to PIN. Additionally, the Contract will itemize the revenues that will be collected by PIN and those to be retained by the City. The Contract will also finalize whether PIN will act as the fiscal agent for the City on revenues collected to offset Animal Control costs. 4. Transition Issues. Prior to execution of the Agreement: a. The City will satisfy its remaining obligations, if any, with applicable employee bargaining units. b. PIN will meet with current City employees at the Animal Shelter to discuss employment opportunities with PIN, but PIN is under no obligation to retain current shelter staff. c. PIN and the City will conduct an assessment of the physical condition, inventory and equipment at the shelter to determine which items will be allocated to PIN and Animal Control and what will need to be replaced. 5. Animal Shelter Facility Improvements. Prior to the execution of the Agreement, PIN will engage an architect for the purpose of assessing repairs and improvements needed to be made to the Palo Alto Animal Shelter facility. a. The City and PIN will agree upon the cost and responsibilities of any immediate facility improvements needed for PIN to begin operation at the shelter, the amount of which is to be approved by City Council upon approval of the Contract. b. Upon mutual agreement, PIN will operate the current shelter while renovations and facility upgrades are being performed. c. PIN will operate the facility in will maintain the facility in good working condition during the term of the Contract. d. PIN will be responsible for all ongoing operations and routine facility maintenance costs, except as noted in the Contract. e. The City will provide the use of the existing facility at no lease cost to PIN, and as part of discussions associated with fees for service will evaluate providing utilities such as electricity, gas, water, and Internet connectivity at no cost to PIN during the duration of this Contract. f. Within one year of commencement of services, PIN will begin consultation with the City and community stakeholders on more comprehensive facility improvements. It is the intent of the parties that, either through remodeling of the current building or construction of a new building the shelter will meet industry and community standards. g. The City will continue to own the land, facility and all improvements. 6. Volunteer Engagement. PIN will develop a volunteer development program as described in its proposal and will consult with the City before making substantive change in the City’s existing volunteer engagement programs. 7. Termination. Either party may terminate the Agreement with at least twelve months written notice based upon terms to be mutually determined by the City and PIN. 8. Insurance and Indemnification: The Contract, at minimum, will include the City’s standard liability language. The City currently requires $1 million dollar liability coverage. PIN and the City will discuss additional liability insurance. Pal I. Org II. Qu Alth vol effo mo inco sev lo Alto Ani ganizational p Pets In N Pets In N PIN is a Our ope We have Our Red for 160 In 2015, We are We offe 1,426 fr We have includin alifications an 1. Pets In N 2. Our med 15% of a 3. We have shelter i 4. We can develop 5. Pets In N 6. We have 7. We have 2013 to 8. We have 9. We are 10. We have hough Pets In unteer netwo orts, we have obile surgical v ome commun veral rescue g imal Shelte profile Need was est Need’s missio 501 (c) 3 non erating budge e an endowm dwood City fa animals and i , we successfu governed by er free spaying ee surgeries a e rescued ani g the followin nd Certificatio Need was the dical operatio animal shelte e animal shel in 2008 into a bring “econo pment, financ Need has had e a vibrant vo e a cost‐effec a projected t e an excellent a member of e relationship n Need’s facil ork, a visible s e been able to van to travel nities with ch groups that br er RFP (#1 ablished in 19 on is to rescue n‐profit suppo et (FY 2016) is ment fund wit cility, refurbi is operated w ully complete a volunteer b g/neutering f at our Redwo imals and per ng cities: Mod ons e first no‐kill a on is fully acc ers in the U.S. ter construct a LEED certifie omies of scale e and animal d balanced bu olunteer prog ctive fundrais total of $825, t reputation w f the WeCare ps with Friend ity’s capacity social media o increase ado throughout N ronic pet hom ring animals t 161631A) r 965 as North e dogs and ca orted through s $1.4M and w h a current va shed in 2008 with a staff of ed 627 adopti board compri for the pets o ood City facilit rformed surge desto, Los Ba animal shelte redited by th have achieve tion and desig ed [silver leve e” opportunit care staff an udgets for the gram, includin ing program t ,000 at the co within the an Alliance (com ds of Palo Alto is limited (ap presence and options and s Northern CA t melessness p to our shelter response fr ern California ats and find th h private gifts we expect to alue of $5M. at a cost of a 20. ions, up from sed of 13 com of all CA reside ty and throug eries through nos, Vallejo, r in Northern e American A ed this distinc gn experience el] facility) ties in using P nd resources e last several y ng a foster fam that has grow onclusion of F nimal welfare mprised of she o Animal She pproximately d aggressive m surgeries ove to perform fr roblems. We r for free spay rom Pets I a’s first no‐kil hem safe, lov s, adoption an end the year approximately m 462 in 2014 mmunity and ents. In 2015 gh our mobile hout Northern Hollister, Mil n California Animal Hospit ction) e (having reno Pets In Need’s years. mily network wn from $597 FY 2016 (April community elters in Sant elter and the P 160 animals) marketing and r the last two ee spay/neut also work ex ying/neuterin n Need (P ll animal shelt ving homes. nd program fe with a surplu y $6M, has ca and 399 in 2 business lead we complete e surgical van n California, pitas and San tal Associatio ovated our ex s medical, ken 7,000 raised i l 30, 2016). ta Clara Count PA Humane S ), through a s d advertising o years. We u ter surgeries xtensively wit ng and medic IN) ter. ees. us. apacity 013. ders. ed n. n Jose. on (only xisting nnel, n FY ty) Society trong se our in low‐ h al care. Our Executive Director, Al Mollica, came to PIN in June 2014. Al has a master’s degree in education, a Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE) credential and more than 37 years of experience in the non‐profit sector. Prior to coming to PIN, Al was executive director of a financially solvent and well‐ respected statewide no‐kill and open access animal shelter with two locations, statewide law enforcement responsibilities and an animal control contract with a metropolitan city. Al’s experience as a director of a major animal shelter, his track record at Pets In Need and his extensive experience in leadership positions in the non‐profit sector make him uniquely qualified to manage the operations of multiple shelters. Al’s depth of experience in fundraising and business management, including direction of several successful capital campaigns, make him ideally suited to manage the development, marketing and business operations of PAAS. III. Work Plan Animals collected by PAAS animal control officers will be delivered to the Palo Alto shelter (or to Pets In Need’s facility in Redwood City if a shelter does not exist in Palo Alto). Processing will occur in accordance with PIN intake procedures (Manuals describing intake procedures in detail are available upon request). Animals will be examined, behaviorally assessed by trained staff and treated for any medical problems. Assuming a facility remains in Palo Alto, animals collected will be kept in Palo Alto to make it easier for residents to collect lost animals. If a facility does not remain in Palo Alto, intake, adoptions and returns will occur out of our Redwood City shelter. The staff structure at PAAS (again, assuming a facility remains in PA) will be similar to what currently exists at PIN. Staff would consist of medical, animal care, kennel and administrative teams. The current intake and processing procedures at Pets In Need are well‐honed and efficient. We would anticipate a comparable structure at PAAS, which would include twice‐daily feeding and kennel/cage cleaning, twice‐daily outdoor time, and extensive socializing by volunteers (a more detailed explanation of shelter operations and procedures is available upon request). We propose to handle owner‐requested euthanasia requests in accordance with standard practices for no‐kill shelters. Our protocol will involve a careful assessment by our medical staff and shelter manager of all animals surrendered, including those from owners requesting euthanasia. No animal will be euthanized unless, in the professional opinion of our veterinarian, certified vet tech and shelter manager, the animal poses a risk to staff, other animals, the general public, or is so physically disabled that there is no other viable alternative. Under the model we are proposing, PAAS will be financially self‐sufficient within the first year of operations. Revenue will be generated through payments from the City of Palo Alto for each animal collected within the PAAS service area, private sector fundraising and adoption, licensing and program fees. Included in the array of program fees that would provide revenue would be income from a humane education program that will be developed and implemented in cooperation with Friends of the Palo Alto Shelter and the Palo Alto Humane Society. Programming for youth through summer camps, local schools and libraries, and the general public will be offered. IV. Proposed innovations 1. There is precedent that having a no‐kill and open access shelter is possible. Long‐term success in operating the Palo Alto Animal Shelter as a no‐kill/open access facility will validate the no‐kill movement, enhance the reputation of PAAS and the City, establish PAAS as an important community resource, and increase fundraising opportunities. 2. Pets In Need provides free spaying/neutering at our Redwood City facility and via a mobile surgical van that travels to communities throughout the Bay Area with the most chronic pet homelessness problems. We believe that reducing the flow of animals into the pipeline is the most effective way to impact the number of homeless, neglected and abused animals that enter shelters. Fewer animals entering the system will drive down operational costs. We would propose continuing this popular and effective program. Pets In Need will provide free spay/neuter services at our Redwood City facility, in Palo Alto and through our mobile van. 3. PIN proposes to implement a humane education program, in cooperation with the local volunteer groups, that will generate revenue, educate the public and engage the community in the life of the shelter. Pets In Need currently has relationships with several local schools (e.g., Everett High School and Summit Charter School), the Redwood City library, Girl Scouts troops from Atherton and Menlo Park, and a number of Redwood City‐based senior and community centers. Youth visit our Redwood City shelter to learn about animal care as part of internship programs and spring break and summer camp programs. The humane education program will include summer camps and volunteer opportunities for older youth. 4. Finally, an immediate priority would be for PIN staff and volunteers to work with Palo Alto City officials and local volunteers to assess options and address the functional shortcomings with the current facility. At some point, assuming the decision is made to retain a shelter in Palo Alto, there will need to be a feasibility study conducted as a precursor to a campaign to raise funds to renovate PAAS or construct a new shelter. V. Project staffing Pets In Need processes approximately 650 animals per year, roughly the same number of animals processed by PAAS. We operate our shelter with a staff of 20 – nine full‐time and 11 part‐time. Assuming there is a facility in Palo Alto, we would propose the following staff structure for PAAS: FTE Position 1 – veterinarian (FT) 1 – Registered Veterinary Technician (FT) 2 – vet assistants (FT) 1 – lead kennel attendant (FT) 1 – volunteer and adoption manager (FT) 1 – administrative assistant (FT) 4 – kennel staff (eight part‐time staff working 25 to 35 hrs. per week) 11 FTE VI. Proposal cost sheet and rates See attachments for proposed cost breakdown and budget. County of Santa Clara Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management Animal Care and Control Division Licensing/Field Services 80 W. Highland Ave., Bldg. K San Martin, CA95046 (408) 201-0660 Fax (408) 683-4247 Animal Shelter 12370 Murphy Ave. San Martin, CA 95046 (408) 686-3900 Fax (408) 683-2776 San Jose Office 1553 Berger Dr., Bldg. I San Jose, CA95ll2 (408) 918-4600 (408)286-2460 http ://www. sccountypets.org February 17,2016 City of Palo Alto Purchasing and Contract Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Letter of Interest: Palo Alto Animal Shelter Operations Re: RFP NO. 1616314 City of Palo Alto Purchasing and Contract Administration: The County of Santa CIara desires to express interest in submitting a bid to provide professional services for animal care operations at the Palo Alto Animal Shelter. The County of Santa Clara currently operates a shelter with an intake of approximately 3,000 dogs/cats annually. Our shelter has maintained a live-release rate of over 90Yo since 2012. We pride ourselves on excellent care of animals, great customer service and a wonderful reputation in our community. ,. Our proposal for staffrng would include oversight by the Animal Control Program Manager ,.' 1 (existing) as well as recruitment, supervision and training of a Shelter Supervisor, 4 full-time Kennel Attendants, Veterinarian, Veterinarian Assistant and an Office Specialist III. These new positions would be supported by existing administrative "County" staff. Our estimate also includes supplies and materials related to care and keep of shelter animals, clerical duties, adoptions, veterinary care, spaylneuter services, record keeping, computer services, euthanasia and return-to-owner. As our estimate is based on cost-recovery only, we would anticipate use of existing supplies and materials within the shelter. Below is an itemized estimate of the yearly costs associated with operating a full service animal shelter; these costs are based on costs we incur at the County animal shelter. This cost estimate does not include oversight of development of a new shelter facility. Additional costs would apply if the City desired County staff involvement in that endeavor. Personnel: Uniforms/Safety Shoes : Communications/Telephone Services : FeedlBedding/Litter: Veterinary Supplies TrainingÆducation Emergency/Specialty Medical Services I)ata Processing Services $1,4020828.91$ 3,396.00 s 1,626.49 $ 3,896.43 s 35,307.77$ 1,oo7.oo $ 38,349.64 $ 20,184.00 Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Janitorial/Landscape Services Disposal Services Small ToolsÆquipment TraveUMileage Misc. Supplies Facility Maintenance $ 1,134.84$ 2,864.33$ 319.72 $ 1,717.97 $ 6,630.22 $ 8.676.51 $ 1,527,939.83 The County of Santa Clara proposes integrating on-call duties with City of Palo Animal Control so that officers from both agencies benefit. Animal Control Officers could divide rotational duties so that each individual officer would serve less. When ACOs serve on-call, they would respond to both City of Palo Alto and Unincorporated Santa Clara County. This letter does not constitute an official offer. We are interested in engaging in an interactive process with the City of Palo Alto to clarify the deliverables and finalize our bid. We look forward to hearing from you. Please forward inquiries to: Lisa Jenkins Interim Program Manager, Animal Care and Control (408) 201-0661 Lisa. j enkins@cep. sccgov.org Y, "il^C,t Lisa Program Manager Animal Care and Control County of Santa Claru Cc : Christopher Anastole, Contract Administrator Khashayar "Cash" Alaee, Sr. Management Analyst City of Palo Alto (ID # 7228) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/6/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Downtown RPP Phase 2 Update Title: Acceptance of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 Status Update and Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Eligibility Area for the Program as Directed by the City Council (Continued From August 15, 2016) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: Accept this status report on the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program; and Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A), expanding the boundary of the Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 eligibility area originally established by Resolution 9577 to incorporate streets in the Crescent Park neighborhood identified for inclusion by the City Council in response to a neighborhood petition. In the course of this item, the Council may wish to discuss program parameters and potential adjustments for implementation at the end of the Phase 2 trial on March 31, 2017. Executive Summary Since early 2015, staff has been acting on the Council’s direction, implementing the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) pilot program developed in collaboration with community stakeholders. This work has included development and launch of a new online permit sales website and sales support, installation of signage in the permit area, negotiation and oversight of an enforcement contract, and community outreach about the program. Phase 1 of the Downtown RPP trial program began on September 15, 2015, and Phase 2 was implemented on April 1, 2016. As requested by Council in February 2016, staff is providing a program update four months into the Phase 2 trial period. Also, as requested by Council in May 2016, a draft resolution has been provided to expand the eligibility area to include streets that have petitioned for inclusion in an RPP district. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Data collection regarding the Phase 2 trial will continue this fall and desired program adjustments can be considered for adoption in the context of a resolution making the program permanent, anticipated in early 2017. Practically, the timing of any adjustments is dictated by the duration of Phase 2 permits, which expire at the end of March 2017. Background and Discussion The attached Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program amends Resolution 9577 to include the following streets in the Downtown RPP district: 500 block of Chaucer Street 1000 and 1100 blocks of Hamilton Avenue Residents of these three streets submitted a petition to be annexed to the Downtown RPP Program after the November 2015 deadline for consideration. The petition was reviewed with all other RPP petitions received as of March 31, 2016 (Attachment B). Following review and discussion, City Council directed staff to return with a resolution expanding the approved Eligibility Area for the Downtown RPP Program to include these three street segments for future inclusion in the program. The attached Downtown RPP Program Resolution also amends Resolution 9577 to provide for City Council to consider whether to make the program permanent and any associated modifications by March 31, 2017, rather than December 31, 2016, because March 31st is the date that permits issued in Phase 2 of the program will expire. Resident and Employee Permit Sales Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 permits were made available through an online permit sales website as of March 2016, and were required for parking on-street in the Downtown RPP Program district as of April 1, 2016. Permit holders were notified of the required new permits via mailed notices, email, social media, and the City’s website. Staff supported the sale of permits by responding to email and phone inquiries, hosting an employer workshop at City Hall, conducting on-site help sessions at the Avenidas Senior Center, and through customer service contract staff on-site at City Hall for one month before and one month after permits were required. All employees and residents living and working within the geographic area of the Downtown RPP Program district (see Attachment C) are eligible to purchase permits. The following types of permits are available to residents and employees during Phase 2: Resident Decal: one free of charge and up to three additional at $50/year Resident Visitor Hangtag: up to two per residence at $50/year Resident One-day: unlimited at $5 each Employee Decal: $466/year City of Palo Alto Page 3 Employee Reduced Decal: available to those who qualify based on income at $100/year Employee One-day: $5/each Employee Five-day: $15/each Employer Transferable Hangtag: $466/year Figure 1 shows the number of employee and resident permits sold as of the writing of this report—a total number of 6,185 permits, 4,817 of which were resident permits and 1,368 of which were employee permits. In Phase 2, employee permits are zone-specific, meaning that employees and employers purchase a permit for a specific parking zone. The permit limits their parking to that identified region. The total available employee permits were limited to 2,000 during Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP program, and were distributed among zones based on total available on-street parking in each zone, as seen in Table 1. Half of the available permits in each zone were prioritized for low-wage workers. Figure 1. Number of RPP Phase 2 Permits Sold (as of July 6, 2016) City of Palo Alto Page 4 Source: Planning Department, Transportation Division, July 2016. Table 1. Employee Permits by Zone Zone Permit Allocation 1 75 2 120 3 225 4 190 5 175 6 100 7 135 8 365 9 25 (245)* 10 55 (370)* *A portion of permits in this zone will be held in reserve and released as additional streets opt into the Downtown RPP district. Source: Planning Department, Transportation Division, February 2016. Data on Parking Occupancy and Distribution Staff has been collecting parking occupancy data within the Downtown neighborhoods and within the parking assessment district facilities since 2011. Following implementation of the City of Palo Alto Page 5 Downtown RPP Program, staff has conducted on- and off-street parking occupancy counts and RPP permit-specific distribution counts (parking distribution by employee and resident permits). Phase 1 of the Downtown RPP Program successfully reduced the overall number of vehicles parked in the Downtown RPP Program district by approximately 300 to 400 vehicles, a number determined by calculating the number of vehicles parked at midnight subtracted from the average number of vehicles parked at noon. While overall parking occupancies decreased, employees were still parking primarily on the streets nearest to the Downtown core and SOFA. Phase 2 introduced employee parking zones (Attachment D), which were designed to distribute employee parking throughout the Downtown RPP Program district more equitably. The total number of permits available to employees and employers was capped at 2,000, and those permits were assigned to the individual zones based on the total number of available on-street parking spaces in each zone. Attachment E shows parking occupancy data collected in the neighborhoods before and after Phase 2 implementation, collected on March 24, May 19, and June 30 respectively. The parking occupancy data collected in May is roughly one month after enforcement of the new Phase 2 program began, and the June data is approximately two and a half months into enforcement. Improvements in the streets immediately adjacent to the Downtown core and SOFA areas are apparent in the June data collection, indicating that the parking in the neighborhoods has settled into the Phase 2 program and vehicles are not clustering on the streets nearest to the Downtown core and SOFA with as much frequency. Most block faces are at or below 85% occupancy, meaning that there are one or two parking spaces available on most blocks during most times. Parking permit data was collected during the midday peak at each of the data collection sessions. In June 2016, the permit data indicates that of a total vehicle count of over 3,000 in the Downtown RPP Program district, approximately 13% of vehicles parked displayed a long- term employee parking permit. Parking distribution for vehicles displaying resident permits, employee permits, and no permits are contained in Attachment F. Data collection in the Downtown commercial core, including on-street and off-street occupancies, was conducted during the same time period. High occupancies were noted throughout, and additional information will be provided in early 2017 as part of the Downtown Parking Management Study, which is currently underway. Garage permit sales have continued to be high through Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP program, and most Downtown garages have waitlists for permits at present. Petitions from Eligible Streets As updated in December 2015, the City-wide RPP Ordinance enables the creation of eligibility areas adjacent to existing RPP districts. As such, an eligibility area was created through City of Palo Alto Page 6 Resolution 9577, whereby streets within the area are pre-approved by City Council to opt into the Downtown RPP Program district through an administrative process. This process requires residents to self-organize and submit a petition including signatures from at least 50% of households on the block requesting addition to the Downtown RPP Program district. The City will then mail a survey to all households on the block regarding the program, and at least 70% of households must reply with a positive response to the mail survey. If the required response is received, the block will be approved for inclusion into the Downtown RPP Program district, and signage installation will be scheduled and permit information will be shared with residents. To date, the following streets have participated in the opt-in process for the Downtown RPP district: Table 2. Status of RPP Eligibility Area Opt-In Requests (as of July 2016) Street Status 500 block of Hale Street Approved; pending signage installation 600 block of Hale Street Not approved; less than 70% approval on mail survey. 800 block of Palo Alto Avenue Approved; pending signage installation Source: Planning Department, Transportation Division, July 2016. Public Input Written and email comments received in advance of the August 15, 2016 Council meeting have been provided in Attachment G. A staff memo responding to some of these general comments has been provided in Attachment H. In addition, staff would offer the following observations: 85% occupancy has been used as a metric for reporting parking occupancy for several years now, and when a block face is at 85% occupancy, it usually means there are one or two spaces available. If 80% were used instead of 85%, it might change the color of some streets on the maps provided, but it would still mean that there would be one or two spaces available per block face. Commenters suggested that more data was required to draw conclusions about the success of the Phase 2 trial. As stated earlier, additional data will be collected in the fall and the final decision whether to adjust or extend the program does not have to be made now, since Phase 2 permits do not expire until March 31, 2017. Timeline Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 permits expire on March 31, 2017. Staff expects to return to City Council in early 2017 with program information to support making the program permanent, and will include any recommended modifications required to support a permanent program. Resource Impact City of Palo Alto Page 7 The operations of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 are fully-funded in the FY2017 Operating Budget. Staff will include a discussion of projected on- going revenues and expenditures under a permanent program in the Action Item to be scheduled for early 2017. Between now and then, there are limited staff resources available for data collection and analysis of potential program modifications because the same staff person responsible for the Downtown program is also working on initiating new RPP districts in Evergreen Park and Southgate, as well as other Council priorities. Policy Implications The implementation of Phase 2 of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program is consistent with the three-pronged approach staff has presented to optimize parking within the Downtown core. It is also consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals: 1. Goal T-8, Program T-49: Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto 2. Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts Environmental Review Adoption of a resolution regarding an Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this document may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed document will have a minor impact on existing facilities. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Resolution Amending Downtown RPP Districts Phase 2 (PDF) Attachment B: Staff Report 6788 New RPP District Implementation (PDF) Attachment C: Downtown RPP District Map (PDF) Attachment D: Downtown RPP Employee Parking Zones (PDF) Attachment E: Parking Occupancy Counts (PDF) Attachment F: Permit Parking Distributions (PDF) Attachment G: Public Comment Submitted for August 15, 2016 (PDF) Attachment H: 8-15-16 "At Places" Memo (DOC) NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution No. 9577 to Expand Eligibility Area of Phase 2 of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District Pilot Program R E C I T A L S A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city council action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents and other categories of parkers. B. A stakeholders’ group comprised of Downtown residents and business interests has been meeting to discuss the implementation of Residential Preferential Parking Districts (RPP Districts). C. On December 15, 2014 the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding Chapter 10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Municipal Code. This Chapter establishes the city-wide procedures for RPP Districts in the city. D. On December 2, 2014, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9473 implementing a Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking pilot program. The implementation anticipated a two phased pilot program. Permits issued for Phase 1 of this pilot program expired on March 31, 2016. E. On February 23, 2016, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9577 amending Resolution No. 9473 to implement Phase 2 of the pilot program. Permits issued for Phase 2 will expire on March 31, 2017. F. The Council desires to expand the eligibility area for Phase 2 of the Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking program pilot established by Resolution 9577. These modifications shall only apply to Phase 2 of the pilot. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES to AMEND Resolution No. 9577, as follows: SECTION 1. Duration and Trial Period. The following provisions shall apply to Phase 2 of the Trial Period for the Downtown RPP District: Permanent Regulations: The RPP District shall remain in force until the City Council takes action to extend, modify, or rescind. The City Council shall consider whether to make the RPP District and its parking program permanent, modify the District and/or their parking regulations, or terminate them no later than December 31, 2016on or before March 31, 2017.” 1 160722 jb 0131540 Rev. July 25, 2016 NOT YET APPROVED Eligibility Areas. The areas shown on Exhibit A are eligible for administrative annexation as provided in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.50.085. SECTION 2. CEQA. This resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this resolution may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. SECTION 3. Supersede. To the extent any of the provisions of this resolution are inconsistent with the Phase 2 regulations set forth in Resolution 9473, this resolution shall control. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately. Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ __________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _______________________ ___________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment 2 160722 jb 0131540 Rev. July 25, 2016 Zone Boundaries Permit Allocation 1 Lytton Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street (where RPP restrictions are in place) 300 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street Everett Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street 75 2 200 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street Hawthorne Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street 120 3 100 blocks of:Alma Street,High Street,Emerson Street,Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street Poe Street Ruthven Avenue Tasso Street 225 4 Palo Alto Avenue between Webster Street and Guinda Street 600 block of Hawthorne Avenue 600 and 700 blocks of Everett Avenue, Lytton Avenue, University Avenue 100-500 blocks of Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road, Fulton Street 190 5 600 and 700 blocks of Hamilton Avenue 200-700 blocks of Forest Avenue and Homer Avenue 700 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street 600-700 blocks of Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road, Fulton Street 175 6 800 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street, Webster Street, Middlefield Road Channing Avenue between Ramona Street and Guinda Street 100 7 900 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street, Webster Street, Middlefield Road Addison Avenue between High Street and Guinda Street 135 8 1000 and 1100 blocks of High Street,Emerson Street,Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street,Cowper Street,Webster Street, Byron Street,Middlefield Road, Fulton Street Lincoln Avenue and Kingsley Avenue between Alma Street/Embarcadero Road and Guinda Street Embarcadero Road from Alma Street to Kingsley Avenue 365 9 1200 block of Bryant Street 1200-1300 blocks of Waverley Street 1200-1400 blocks of Cowper Street, Webster Street, Byron Street 1300-1400 blocks of Tasso Street 1200-1500 blocks of Middlefield Road 1200-1300 blocks of Fulton Street Melville Avenue between Embarcadero Road and Guinda Street Kellogg Avenue between Cowper Street and Middlefield Road Embarcadero Road between Kingsley Avenue and Middlefield Road 25 (245)* 10 Guinda Street between Palo Alto Avenue to Melville Avenue Palo Alto Avenue between Guinda Street and Hale Street 800 blocks of Lytton Avenue and Homer Avenue 800 and 900 blocks of University Avenue, Hamilton Avenue 800-1100 blocks of Forest Avenue Boyce Avenue between Guinda Street and Hale Street 1000-1100 blocks of Fife Avenue 800-900 blocks of Channing Avenue and Addison Avenue 800-1000 blocks of Lincoln Avenue 800 block of Melville Avenue 500 block of Chaucer Street 1000 and 1100 blocks of Hamilton Avenue 55 (370)* Total Permits 2000 *A portion of permits in this zone will be held in reserve and released as additional streets opt into the Downtown RPP district. Exhibit A City of Palo Alto (ID # 6788) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/9/2016 Summary Title: New RPP District Implementation Title: Direction to Staff Regarding Implementation Priority for the following New Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts: a portion of Crescent Park, the Edgewood Plaza area, the Southgate and Evergreen Park Neighborhoods From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council determine implementation priority for new proposed RPP programs and direct staff to move forward with the outreach and stakeholder process for the priority program(s). Executive Summary Beginning in early 2014, the City has been actively addressing parking and transportation challenges throughout the City using a strategic, multi-faceted approach focused on parking management, parking supply, and transportation demand management programs. Parking management strategies have included the development of a city-wide Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) ordinance, which was adopted in December 2014, as well as establishment of a new RPP district in residential areas surrounding Downtown. The city-wide RPP ordinance includes parameters for neighborhoods to petition and request a new RPP district, or to request annexation to an existing RPP district. Petitions for new RPP districts are accepted until March 31st of each year and the City received four petitions this year from the Southgate neighborhood, the Evergreen Park neighborhood, from several streets within the Crescent Park neighborhood, and for a street adjacent to Edgewood Plaza. This staff report discusses the resident-organized petitions for new RPP districts, and requests Council prioritization. Pursuant to the city-wide RPP ordinance, the Planning and Transportation Commission is being asked for a recommendation on prioritization on April 27 and minutes of their meeting will be forwarded when available. Background and Discussion City of Palo Alto Page 1 Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, residents may self-organize and request the formation of an RPP district in their neighborhood. The process, as outlined in the Ordinance, is as follows: 1. Residents must request a petition from the Planning and Community Environment Department. The petition includes a narrative portion and a signature form to demonstrate resident support. 2. The Director of Planning and Community Environment will review all petitions received by March 31 of that year. 3. Following receipt of the petitions, staff will review and bring the complete petitions to the Planning and Transportation Commission for prioritization. The Planning and Transportation Commission will provide feedback and prioritization on April 27, 2016 (Attachment A when available). 4. After prioritization, Staff will initiate work on the priority RPP district(s), and the assumption has been that limited resources will likely preclude the simultaneous processing of all requests (hence the need for prioritization). Staff’s work will include gathering additional information, community outreach, and stakeholder engagement. This process includes parking occupancy counts and a stakeholder process to develop a program that meets the needs of all parties as best as possible. At the end of the stakeholder engagement process, the City Attorney will prepare a draft resolution containing the parameters of the proposed district(s). 5. Staff will bring the proposed RPP District to the Planning and Transportation Commission by the end of September of the same calendar year. The PTC will review the draft resolution and make a recommendation to City Council regarding the RPP district. 6. Following these steps, the City Council will hold a public hearing to review the proposed resolution, and to adopt, modify, or reject the proposal. As of March 31, 2016, staff has received petitions for the following neighborhoods: Crescent Park (Attachment B) Date submitted: January 2016 Boundary: 1000 and 1100 blocks of Hamilton Avenue, 500 block of Chaucer Street Background: A petition to add the 500 and 600 blocks of Hale Street, the 1000 and 1100 blocks of Hamilton Avenue, and the 500 block of Chaucer Street to the Downtown RPP district was received by staff in early January. The blocks of Hamilton Avenue and Chaucer Street are outside the approved Eligibility Area for the Downtown RPP district, and the neighborhood was advised that the petitions received would be evaluated as a request for a new RPP district. Resident-Requested Program Parameters: Residents have indicated interest in resident permits only, although the petitions were initially submitted to annex into the existing Downtown district which does offer employee permit parking. Streets could either annex into the existing Downtown RPP district, or a small, new district could be formed. Parking Occupancy Levels: None Submitted Potential Implications: The formation of a new, resident only RPP district on these few City of Palo Alto Page 2 streets would result in employee vehicles moving to other adjacent streets such as those within the existing Crescent Park NOP areas. Outreach would be necessary beyond the streets initially identified in the petitions. The Downtown RPP district boundary has been finalized, and would require Council direction and an updated resolution to modify. Edgewood Plaza (Attachment C) Date submitted: October 2015 Boundary: Greer Road/Edgewood Drive to Channing Avenue/West Bayshore Road to St. Francis Drive/Channing Avenue. Background: Petition notes parking intrusion from East Palo Alto and from Edgewood Plaza. Parking congestion is noted daily and on weekends, as well as overnight parking on the weekdays. Signatures were collected from 13 residents on Edgewood Drive. Resident-Requested Program Parameters: No specific program was requested. Petition notes daytime and overnight parking intrusion, and makes a reference to deterring non- resident parking. Parking Occupancy Levels: None Submitted Potential Implications: This is a very small area to consider implementing a permit program, and would likely need to be looked at as part of an existing program or a larger area for a focused program. Additional inquiries have been made in this area regarding overnight parking restrictions. Southgate (Attachment D) Date submitted: February 2016 Boundary: Southgate neighborhood, including Churchill Avenue between El Camino Real and Alma Street, Mariposa Avenue, Manzanita Avenue, Madrono Avenue, Escobita Avenue, Portola Avenue, and Miramonte Avenue. Background: Residents submitting the petition note parking overflow primarily on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and during school hours when Palo Alto High School is in session. The petition notes primary generators of the parking impact are Palo Alto High School students, employee parking from nearby medical offices, PAUSD offices, and Stanford employees and students. The designated bike boulevard on Castilleja has resulted in a high volume of cyclists in the neighborhood that are impacted by the narrow streets and saturated parking. Residents submitted a petition signed by 169 residents. Parking Occupancy Levels: Residents submitted occupancy counts to City staff in March 2016 (Attachment E), collating data collected over a time period of November 2015 through March 2016. The occupancy studies indicate high levels of parking on streets in the northern portion of Southgate, including several streets reportedly in excess of 90% occupancy at 10 a.m. South of Manzanita, streets are less occupied, ranging from 14 to 83% of total capacity at 10 a.m. The reported occupancies reduce to a maximum of 56% occupied at 4 p.m., with most streets less than 40% occupied. Resident-Requested Program Parameters: Specific program parameters were not noted City of Palo Alto Page 3 in the petition, and would be addressed and proposed based on the community outreach and stakeholder process. Residents note a daytime parking intrusion. Potential Implications: Establishment of a resident-only permit parking program in Southgate would not address the root causes of the parking overspill. An in-depth community outreach and stakeholder process would be necessary to address the causes of the parking issue and to establish other options for those who are parking in the neighborhood. Engineering and enforcement solutions for the neighborhood, including red curb, passing areas, and timed parking restrictions may be an option to pursue in lieu of or in addition to a permit program, and should be considered prior to or in tandem with the implementation of an RPP District Evergreen Park (Attachment F) Date submitted: March 2016 Boundary: El Camino Real, Cambridge Avenue, and Park Boulevard Background: The petition and attached letter requests annexation of the non- commercial core of Evergreen Park into the existing College Terrace RPP program. Residents note parking overflow on weekdays, and attribute the parking impacts to employees of neighboring businesses, employees from nearby office buildings, Caltrain commuters, and Stanford University affiliates including faculty, staff, students, and visitors. Residents have also noted safety concerns related to bike routes in the neighborhood. ouncilmembers Duois, Filseth, Holman, and Schmid have submitted a olleagues’ Memo recommending that ouncil direct Staff to return with either a “ollege Terrace- like” RPP with resident-only parking established by amending the College Terrace RPP, or a new RPP district under the city-wide RPP ordinance, but on an accelerated timeline with either zero non-resident permits or a small number (for example, ten percent) of the permits available to merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District. The colleagues’ memo also requests that staff investigate allowing merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits among their own employees. Resident-Requested Program Parameters: Evergreen Park residents have requested to be annexed into the existing College Terrace resident-only parking permit program. Parking Occupancy Levels: Residents submitted occupancy counts to City Staff dated October 2015. The counts indicate parking saturation in excess of 90% of capacity, and on several blocks more than 100% occupancy, particularly on College Avenue and Oxford Avenue and adjacent blocks, and along El Camino Real and the adjacent blocks. Potential Implications: While annexation into an existing program would be a simplified approach from the planning perspective, a stakeholder process and community outreach process is recommended to develop a program that provides for residents and employees and could include permits for on-street parking, as well as parking management strategies at California Avenue lots and garages to increase supply, or evaluation of public-private parking partnerships. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Given the nature of the petitions received and the limitations in terms of staff resources to accomplish more than one new RPP district in this fiscal year, Staff requests Council to review the petitions and PTC prioritization list, and provide direction regarding which RPP district to move forward into implementation. Policy Implications The implementation of Residential Preferential Parking districts is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts. Evaluation and implementation of each program would be conducted as follows: Crescent Park: Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, staff would conduct a community outreach and stakeholder process to design a program for the area. If the neighborhood wishes to be annexed to the adjacent Downtown RPP program rather than establish a new program, further City Council action would be necessary. Edgewood Plaza: Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, staff would conduct a community outreach and stakeholder process to design a program for the area. If the neighborhood wishes to be annexed to the Downtown RPP program or Crescent Park No Overnight Parking programs rather than establish a new program, further City Council action would be necessary. Southgate: Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, staff would conduct a community outreach and stakeholder process to design a program for the area, ideally starting with a community forum to solicit feedback and identify stakeholders to participate in the process. At the conclusion of the stakeholder process, which would include residents as well as the source(s) of parking intrustions, the City Attorney will draft a resolution for evaluation by City Council to adopt, modify, or reject the proposed RPP district. Evergreen Park: If directed by Council to annex Evergreen Park to the existing College Terrace RPP district outside of the process set forth in the City-wide RPP ordinance, staff would work with the ity !ttorney’s office to develop a draft resolution proposing a program boundary. Following adoption of the resolution by City Council, staff would begin field work for signage and order additional permits for the newly annexed streets. Staff would need to evaluate staff impacts of handling permit fufillment and enforcement internally as is currently done for the College Terrace program instead of using contractors (similar to the Downtown RPP district). Resource Impact The Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Capital Improvement Budget includes funding of $300,000 for the creation of future RPP programs. There is no approved budget at this time for the operations of any new RPP program. Operating impacts are expected to include equipment and staff time to manage the program, customer service, office supplies, parking enforcement, and bank card charges. City of Palo Alto Page 5 ** Assume services provided by COPA and PAPD staff as in College Terrace RPP Source: Planning Department, April 2016 Based on the associated costs with implementation of a new RPP district, including signage, enforcement, permit sales, customer service, and staff time, staff estimates that the requested Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Improvement Fund budget of $300,000 is sufficient for the start-up of one new RPP district in the next fiscal year. Pricing of parking permits will be based on the City ouncil’s direction on the cost recovery level to be applied to these programs. Timeline Staff anticipates beginning a community outreach and stakeholder process for the priority RPP program immediately upon direction by City Council. Environmental Review The City Council decision this evening is expected to provide conceptual direction for a new RPP district in Palo Alto. Specific parameters for the new RPP district would be subject to approval of a formal resolution at a later date. That resolution would address compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A: Planning and Transportation Prioritization At Places Document (DOCX) Attachment B: Crescent Park RPP Petition (PDF) Attachment C: Edgewood Drive Petition (PDF) Attachment D: Southgate RPP Petition (PDF) Attachment E: Resident-Submitted Southgate Parking Study_2015-2016 (PDF) Attachment F: Evergreen Park RPP Petition (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 7 ATTACHMENT A PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PRIORITIZATION This document will be presented as an At Places item on May 9, 2016 Staff will be drafting the document based on the April 27th P&TC Meeting Attachment B - Attachment C - Attachment D - Neighborhood Petition Form City of Palo Alto Residential Parking Permit Program Request FormThe purpose of this form is to enable neighborhoods to request the initiation of a ResidentialPreferential Parking Program in accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s adopted Residential ParkingPermit Program Policy and Procedures. This form must be filled out in its entirety and submitted with any request to: The City of Palo AltoTransportation Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Feel free to attach additional sheets containing pictures, occupancy maps, additional testimony or additional text if the space provided is insufficient. 1. Requesting Individual’s Contact Information Name: Christine Shambora (main contact) Jim McFall, Keith Ferrell, Nancy Shepherd Address: 1565 Castilleja Avenue, 94306 Phone Number: 650 868-7523 Email(optional):christineshambora@gmail.com 2. Please describe the nature of the overflow parking problem in your neighborhood. 1. What streets in your neighborhood do you feel are affected by overflow parking? Castilleja Ave, Mariposa Avenue, Manzanita Avenue, Madrono Avenue, Escobita Avenue, Portola Avenue and Miramonte Avenue and Churchill between El Camino and Alma. 2. How often does the overflow occur? Primarily on weekdays from 8am to 4pm; during school hours when Palo Alto High School is in session. Although not the focus of this application, there are also significant parking impacts in our neighborhood during Palo Alto High School and Stanford University football games whichunderscores the non-residential parking burden the Southgate neighborhood bears and the unusual nature of our situation. 3. Does the impact vary from month to month, or season to season? The greatest impact is when Palo Alto High School is in session, however we are beginning to experience Stanford employee and student parking, as well as employees from nearby medical offices, which occurs at all times during the year. Southgate RPP Page 1 of 42 SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 1 3. Can you identify a parking impact generator that is the cause of overflow parking in the neighborhood? Are there any facilities (churches, schools, shopping centers, etc.) near this location that generate a high concentration of vehicle and pedestrian traffic? Please list your understanding of the causes: -The primary impact is from Palo Alto High School students using Southgate neighborhood streets for school parking. -Secondary impact is employee parking from nearby medical offices, as well as from the PAUSD office, and Stanford employees and students. -A recent trend that has been observed is commuters parking in the neighborhood and walking or biking to other transportation links, e.g., CalTrain, SC Valley Transit (on El Camino). -These generators and related neighborhood parking problems are exacerbated by the unusually narrow public streets in Southgate. When cars are parked on both sides of the street it reduces travel to a single narrow lane. In such cases, the narrow, single lane cannot accommodate larger emergency vehicles or even delivery trucks that are now common to normal residential uses (e.g., UPS, FedEx, etc.) Further, normal neighborhood construction and service vehicles access, including garbage trucks, is difficult and in many cases impossible. We are losing our ability to make normal residential use of our neighborhood streets. 4. Please describe how a Residential Parking Permit Program will be able to eliminate or reduce overflow parking impacting the neighborhood: An RPP will eliminate the use of Southgate streets for overflow parking of Palo Alto High School students, employees of local medical offices, PAUSD District employees and Stanford employees and students, as well as the recent trend for commuter parking. 5. Is there neighborhood support for submittal of this Residential Parking Permit Program application? Have you contacted your HOA/Neighborhood Association? A neighborhood meeting was held on December 3, 2015, a weekday morning with a strong turnout of 38 neighbors with City Transportation staff in attendance. Notice of the meeting was provided through the neighborhood email list (Southgate Watch) and a meeting notice was posted on Next Door Southgate. Leaflets were also distributed to each residence. In January ten residents on various streets in the Southgate neighborhood carried petitions to solicit signatures for the application. That effort was successfully completed resulting in contact with most residents in Southgate. In a few cases signatures were not obtained due to homes being for sale, under construction or residents away for an extended period. The results: 95% of residents who were contacted signed the petition and support proceeding with the RPP process. (See attached map, Exhibit 1.) Southgate RPP Page 2 of 42 SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 2 Additional Information: BACKGROUND Southgate is a neighborhood along Churchill Avenue between Alma and El Camino.In the early 80’s the street linking Southgate to the Evergreen Neighborhood was closed in an effort to reduce cut-through traffic. This reduced the Southgateneighborhood entry roadways to three streets off Churchill and one off El Camino.The three Southgate entryway streets from Churchill (Madrono, Castilleja and Mariposa) are narrow 24 feet wide streets, making it difficult and dangerous for traffic, including the Castilleja public bike boulevard use, when significant numbers of cars are parked on the streets. BIKE BOULEVARD Castilleja Avenue has also been designated by the city as a public Bike Boulevard that has resulted in a very high volume of cyclists. Due to the saturated parking onCastilleja Avenue, visibility is impaired and that, along with the narrow street width,makes bike and auto movement very hazardous and has created an extreme safetyconcern, particularly for Paly student bikers and pedestrians. EMERGENCY RESPONSE In the event of an emergency, fire trucks and ambulances have reduced access to neighborhood residences when a large volume of cars are parked on both sides ofthe streets; currently a common occurrence on weekdays. CITY SERVICES Recently, street sweepers have had difficulty cleaning streets due to the large number of cars parked on the streets. In addition, garbage and recycling trucks have experienced difficulty getting through streets due to the reduced clear traffic lanewidth with the increased parking activity. COMMERCIAL SERVICES Delivery trucks, again due to the narrow streets, have experienced challenges inaccessing Southgate when high volume parking has occurred. A recent delivery problem, and potential safety hazard, occurred when a FedEx truck could not navigate down Castilleja Avenue, with cars parked opposite each other, and was forced to back up onto Churchill Avenue. A Southgate neighbor, who was behind theFedEx truck, was also forced to back up onto Churchill. There have also been debris box delivery and pickup problems because of the many cars which arrive on weekdays and park curbside. PROXIMITY TO PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL AND PAUSD DISTRICT OFFICES Due to ongoing construction at the High School and increasing enrollment (projectedto grow to 2400 students from 1950 students (currently) by 2020) the school has lostparking and will continue to be unable, under the current parking configuration, to meet the demand for student parking or student parking for the adult school . The neighborhood has reached out to the High School Administration repeatedly for helpin addressing theses overflow parking issues that impact our neighborhood withoutany response to work toward possible solutions. The PAUSD District Office parking generally appears to be at or near capacity mostdays of the week. If community wide meetings are held at their offices the need for parking often exceeds supply and Southgate becomes the de facto overflow parkinglot. Southgate RPP Page 3 of 42 SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 3 GROWING PARKING INTRUSION FROM STANFORD Southgate residents have begun to observe a number of people parking in the neighborhood and heading to Stanford. In many cases these people, after parking, remove a bicycle from the trunk of their car and then ride onto the Stanford Campus. El Camino Real is now parked solidly from Stanford Avenue to Palm Drive all day, Monday through Friday, thus creating a spillover of parking into the Southgate neighborhood. ATTACHED EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1- Southgate map with petition results EXHIBIT 2- Southgate and Comprehensive Plan Policies EXHIBIT 3- Ongoing Parking and Traffic Issues: Resident’s comments EXHIBIT 4- Vlasic letter EXHIBIT 5- Southgate Parking/Safety Impacts-Photos Southgate RPP Page 4 of 42 SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 4 Mariposa Southgate RPP Page 21 of 42 EXHIBIT 2 Southgate Residential Parking Permit Petition Consistent with and Supports Implementation of Existing and Draft Proposed Palo Alto Comprehensive PlanGoals and Policies Existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan goals and policies call for protecting, preserving and enhancing the residential character and qualities of the City’s Single Family Residential Neighborhoods. As this petition demonstrates, heavy daily parking from non-residential uses, including particularly Paly High students, employees and visitors and also employees of adjacent non-residential activities, has dramatically reduced and not “protected, preserved or enhanced” the residential character and qualities of the Southgate single family neighborhood. Granting this petition will go a long way towards returning our neighborhood to it’s former residential character and implementing the comprehensive plan objectives as set forth, particularly, in the draft plan. We focus on these plan visions and policies as they are more reflective of the current challenges facing the city and the more current view of the City decision makers as to how these should be addressed. (Emphasis added with italics.) LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT Proposed Vision: Palo Alto’s land use decisions shall balance our future growth needs with the preservation of our neighborhoods, address climate protection priorities and focus on sustainable development near neighborhood services, and enhance the quality of life in our community. Southgate comment: The current parking situation is not residential neighborhood in character. As detailed elsewhere in this petition, Southgate has become a Paly parking lot. Our very narrow streets cannot support our own neighborhood use and a public parking lot use. We have lost part of our property rights pertaining to safety, emergency access and our own use of our street frontages for street sweeping and garbage collection that are rights enjoyed in other city neighborhoods not impacted like Southgate. We pay taxes for things like street sweeping and safe emergency and other access to our property and we are not receiving value equal to our costs. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Proposed Vision: Maintain and promote a sustainable network of safe, accessible and efficient transportation and parking solutions for all users and modes, while protecting and enhancing the quality of life in Palo Alto neighborhoods including alternative and innovative transportation practices and supporting regional transit facilities and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Southgate comment: The same comment as above, but with emphasis on safety and accessibility. Southgate RPP Page 26 of 42 Transportation Vision Element Statement (excerpt). Palo Alto . . . Streets will be safe and attractive, and designed to enhance the quality and aesthetics of Palo Alto neighborhoods. Emphasis will be placed on alternatives to the automobile, including walking, bicycling, public transit, and car and van pooling. The adverse impacts of automobile traffic on the environment in general, and residential streets in particular, will be reduced. Solutions that reduce the growth in the number of automobiles on City streets, calm or slow traffic, and save energy will be supported. PROGRAM T-7: Encourage the Palo Alto Unified School District to use parking fees, regulations, and education to discourage students from driving to school. POLICY T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. POLICY T-39: To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over vehicle level-of-service at intersections. POLICY T-40: Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of school children in street modification projects that affect school travel routes. The safety of children traveling to and from school has always been a high priority. Because more parents now regularly drive their children to school, safety concerns from school traffic congestion have increased. POLICY T-53: Discourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods Southgate comment: It is clear that the current Southgate non-residential parking situation is fully inconsistent with the intent of these transportation objectives/policies. Safety for use of the City designated Castilleja bike boulevard is at high risk. Pedestrian safety is compromised throughout the neighborhood and residents have difficulty safely exiting their properties in their own vehicles, including bikes. There are many small children in the neighborhood and their safety is significantly compromised due to the limited sight distance with cars park continuously along curbs up to and crossing residential driveways. No matter what, the school district must be involved in the discussions to ensure that they appreciate the concerns and city objectives, as set forth above, and in the existing bike plan for the city. Moving ahead with this parking petition will be essential in helping the city work toward achieving the community land use and transportation objectives that have existed for some time in the comprehensive plan and that are currently being articulated more carefully as we look ahead to the protecting the future character of the community. Southgate RPP Page 27 of 42 EXHIBIT 3 ONGOING PARKING AND TRAFFIC ISSUES-SOUTHGATE NEIGHBOR’S COMMENTS Southgate neighbors share some of the current difficulties with the increasing congestion and traffic: GENERAL SAFETY “…Garbage service and emergency access is being impacted and more importantly general traffic flow is awful with safety to pedestrians, drivers and vehicles all at high risk. Cars have been scraped and rear view mirrors are now routinely hit. The streets are all way too narrow to accommodate the current scope of non Residential parking…” “…having so many non-residential cars in the neighborhood makes for heavier traffic and decreased safety for kids on bikes and scooters or just playing in their front yards. “I am concerned about access for first responders. I recently spoke with a Palo Alto Fire Captain who recalled an emergency medical call several years ago when, arriving in Southgate, his team could not get to the site of the emergency. They had to stop, due to congestion on the street, and walk a block to the site on Castilleja.” Note: drawings are drawn to scale. “Two instances in the past 90 days of cars parking too close to a fire hydrant. In once instance, the hydrant was blocked completely. These incidents occurred on the southwest corner of Manzanita and Escobita.” “I worry that public safety vehicles may need to come during the day on a moment's notice AND could easily find the streets connecting to Churchill unpassable or difficult to navigate.” “Students speeding in neighborhood as they try to find parking and opening their car doors without looking. Students also park on corners which blocks all visibility.” “Every single day, whether I am walking or driving during the morning and mid afternoon hours I either experience this myself or see cars having to back up to let others come into Mariposa or Castilleja. Many times this involves a car having to back up onto Southgate RPP Page 28 of 42 Churchill to let a car coming out of one of these two streets navigate on to Churchill. Cars are lined up along the curbs on the first part of each of these streets so there is no way for cars coming out of the street to pull over making it necessary for cars coming in to stop traffic on Churchill as they back out. On these two streets there are also cars that shoot down the street at higher than safe speeds trying to make it to the end of the street before another car turns onto the street so they don’t have to pull over. It’s a crazy mess for sure and a dangerous situation to say the least.” BICYCLE SAFETY “The car congestion on Castilleja raises similar concerns that it becomes a less-safe bike boulevard. It is hard to see bikes because so many cars are along the street, you can't see down the street (Castilleja) until you have almost pulled into it from Manzanita.” “I had a situation where I tried to turn on Castilleja to be confronted by a oncoming truck who had no where to go as there were cars on each side. So I reversed back on Churchill Avenue and into the path of a cyclist.” “I dread going through the intersection of Miramonte and Castilleja. Twice I have been startled by racing bicyclists heading towards Churchill and Paly. There is no way to see them easily as they are blocked by the parked cars on both sides of Castilleja. I have inched out and inched out and am almost in the center of the intersection before I can actually see them.” “In the mornings after 9am Castilleja and Mariposa are now filled bumper to bumper with cars and there is no where for a car to move out of the way for either a cyclist or an oncoming car from the opposite direction.” “I also encounter bikers using the Castilleja Bike Boulevard swerving around cars going up or down the street. It’s almost impossible for bikes and cars to use the street at the same time when each side of the street is filled with parked cars. “ Southgate RPP Page 29 of 42 RESTRICTED DRIVEWAY ACCESS “It is extremely difficult to back out of our driveway with cars parked on either side of driveway and directly opposite the driveway. Very frustrating as we make an effort to keep our cars off the street by parking in driveway/garage.” “Reduced maneuverability backing out of the driveway because cars park across from driveways on narrow streets.” “Cars parking so closely behind other cars that residents are virtually pinned into their parking spots. “ CAR ATTEMPTING TO BACK OUT OF A DRIVEWAY STREET CONGESTION “Streets are already narrow so when cars are parked on either side the streets do not permit two-way traffic flow which often leads to somewhat dangerous procedures where one party has to either reverse, find a driveway, etc. so that the other party can proceed.” “While trying to exit the neighborhood (from Castilleja & Madrono) onto Churchill, we have had to reverse back to the Miramonte intersection when encountering cars entering the neighborhood as there isn't enough room for 2 cars to pass each other and there is nowhere to pull over. Also have to stop if bicyclist is coming opposite direction as unsafe to pass while moving.” “I have seen the Street Sweepers skip our street due to the non-resident parking.” “We also have staff from Stanford and the Medical offices park on the 1600 Portola block and use the Paseo pathway to either go to Stanford University or the Bay Area fertility or Dentist offices on El Camino. “ Southgate RPP Page 30 of 42 _____________________________________________________________________ EXHIBIT 4 Tom & Linda Vlasic 1540 Mariposa Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 November 22, 2015 To: City of Palo Alto Transportation Staff, City Manager and City Council Membersc/o Christine Shambora From: Tom & Linda Vlasic Subject: Comments on Southgate Parking Issues and Problemsfor December 3, 2015 Neighborhood Meeting Unfortunately we will be out of town at the time of the subject December 3rd meeting. We do, however, want to share the following comments and information for consideration at the meeting and also ask that it be considered by city staff and officials in follow-up to the meeting. The attached photo exhibits underscore our concerns over vehicle, driver, pedestrian and bicycle safety in the neighborhood, particularly in the blocks immediately east of Churchill Avenue. Paly students, staff, general commuter and other non-residential parking is destroying the residential character and, more importantly safety, of our neighborhood. During weekdays the intensity of non-neighborhood parking along the very narrow streets is so great that all street users are at risk and Castellija is no longer a safe bicycle boulevard; many bikers use Mariposa instead. Garbage pick up is jeopardized and emergency vehicle access is impossible. Getting in and out of driveways is extremely hazardous, and parking in front of one’s own property is either not possible or places your car and you at risk of being hit by vehicles. UPS and other deliveries to residents is also seriously impacted. Parking on both sides of the street, now typical during most of the weekday, renders the narrow streets to only one travel lane. Simply put, it is a parking and access mess and certainly an accident waiting to happen. Last week I called the fire department administrative offices to express concern over emergency access and bicycle boulevard safety. I was promised a check and call back, and the return call never occurred. For too long, the school district and City have ignored the situation and the neighbors have tolerated it. We cannot now just wait until an accident of some kind occurs. Someone in the public sector must take responsibility for these narrow public streets that are being used more and more for non-residential purposes, purposes they were clearly not designed or designated for. We ask you to seriously consider the photos herewith, investigate the neighborhood and take actions to remedy the situation. This is a public problem and the City and School District must work together to solve it. The neighborhood is being asked to shoulder the burden for inadequate planning on the part of both the City and School District. We would be pleased to meet with city staff and officials to further outline our concerns. Sincerely, Tom and Linda Vlasic (650) 269-15553cc. Superintendent and Board of Trustees, Palo Alto School District Southgate RPP Page 32 of 42 Conditions Around the Intersection of Castilleja and Manzanita Normal Weekend Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 33 of 42 Conditions Around the Intersection of Castilleja and Manzanita Normal Weekday Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 34 of 42 Conditions Around the Intersection of Castilleja and Manzanita Normal Weekday Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 35 of 42 Conditions Along the 1500 Block of Mariposa Avenue Normal Weekend Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 36 of 42 Conditions Along the 1500 Block of Mariposa Avenue Normal Weekday Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 37 of 42 EXHIBIT 5 SOUTHGATE-PARKING/SAFETY ISSUES PHOTOS Parked Illegally October 22, 2015: Escobita Ave October 5, 2015: Manzanita Ave May 13, 2013: Castilleja Ave May 9, 2013: Escobita Ave Southgate RPP Page 38 of 42 Page 1 of 5 Parked in wrong direction: both a parking and moving violation as they drive on the wrong side of the road both when parking and exiting. Bike Safety (Nowhere for bikes or cars to go. This is before streets are completely full of cars) November 4, 2015: Castilleja Ave November 4, 2015: Castilleja Ave November 4, 2015: Castilleja Ave Inadequate room for bikes and cars to pass. Southgate RPP Page 39 of 42 Page 2 of 5 Public Services Interruptions May 9, 2013: Escobita Ave Feb 8, 2016: Escobita Ave Garbage trucks cannot access streets Street sweeper cannot clean curbs October 30, 2014: Escobita Ave Southgate RPP Page 40 of 42 Page 3 of 5 Parking Impacts Nov 3, 2015. Castilleja (north) 4:15pm Escobita Driveway Dec 3, 2015: Escobita (north) 11:30am Dec 3 2015: Escobita (north) 3:15pm Dec 4, 2015: Manzanita (east)12:40pm Dec 3, 2015: Manzanita (east) 4:10pm Southgate RPP Page 41 of 42 Page 4 of 5 Dec 4, 2015: Madrono (north) 12:40pm Dec 3, 2015: Madrono (north) 4:10pm Nov 17, 2015: Escobita (north) 12:15pm Nov 17, 2015: Escobita (north) 3:45pm Corner of Castilleja and Manzanita Paly parking lot: Oct 2 2015 8:40 am Numerous spaces available Southgate RPP Page 42 of 42 Page 5 of 5 Attachment E - Southgate Parking Occupancy Study 2015-2016 Methodology: Between the months of November 2015 and March 2016, volunteers performed counts of the cars parked in Southgate. Counts were done at three different times of day to provide a view as to the cause of the parking congestion in the neighborhood. Counts were done at 10am, 4pm and 7pm on different days of the week, in order to provide a random sample. Counts were then averaged and compared to the number of spaces available. In order to calculate the number of available spaces, city staff advised us to use a 20' space as the basis for calculating the number of spaces on each block. The following worksheets provide both summary and detailed information on these counts. The neighborhood occupancy maps show the percentage of spaces occupied at different times of the day. The summary sheets provide the information in table format. Observations The area north of Miramonte sees an increase of over 86 cars, on average, at 10 am compared to 4pm, and an increase of over 95 cars when compared to 7pm. The increase is due to non-residential parking occurring during the day. There are nearly three times as many cars parked north of Miramonte at 10am (129.6 cars) as there are at 4pm (43.3), a 199.4% increase. There are nearly four times as many cars parked north of Miramonte at 10am(129.6 cars) as there are at 7pm (34.4), a 281% increase. Of the blocks north of Miramonte (closest to Churchill), all but two have over 68% of their parking full at 10 am. 9 of those blocks have over 75% of their parking full at 10am. At 7pm, only one of the blocks north of Miramonte is over 60% occupied, 200 block of Manzanita. This is due to a large number of multi-dwelling units on that block. Summary of Southgate Parking Occupancy # of Spaces 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Available 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 12.0 2.0 3.0 13 92% 15% 23% 7.3 0.8 0.5 6 121% 13% 8% 200 Manzanita 6.8 5.5 6.3 10 68% 55% 63% 0-29 Churchill 12.8 4.8 1.3 14 91% 34% 9% 30-59 Churchill 7.3 3.3 3.5 6 121% 54% 58% 60--95 Churchill 4.5 2.0 2.0 5 90% 40% 40% 8.0 2.0 2 7 114% 29% 25% 23.3 5.0 3.3 28 83% 18% 12% 1500 Escobita 20.8 2.3 3.5 26 80% 9% 13% 1500 Mariposa 28.8 11.0 6.5 42 68% 26% 15% 1500 Portola 5.3 4.0 5.5 17 31% 24% 32% 1500 El Camino 10.7 5.3 1.3 9 119% 58% 14% 10.5 5.3 4.0 14 75% 38% 29% 7.0 5.5 3.8 21 33% 26% 18% Average number of cars @ Percent Occupied Block North of Miramonte Manzanita (Mad. to Esco) Manzanita (Esco to Cast.) 1500 - 1521 Castilleja 1527 - 1599 Castilleja 1500 - 1515 Madrono 1520 - 1599 Madrono Miramonte and South 1600 Castilleja 8.8 6.3 8.8 40 22% 16% 22% 1600 Escobita 13.8 8.8 5.5 24 57% 36% 23% 1600 Mariposa 7.5 5.8 4.8 44 17% 13% 11% 1600 Portola 8.5 8.3 8.0 18 47% 46% 44% 1600 Madrono 5.0 5.8 3.5 21 24% 27% 17% 1600 El Camino 6.0 2.3 0.5 10 60% 23% 5% 200 Sequoia 3.8 5.0 5.5 13 29% 38% 42% 300 Sequoia 1.5 3.5 3.0 11 14% 32% 27% 400 Sequoia 2.5 2.5 2.5 14 18% 18% 18% 100 Miramonte 3.3 2.8 3.3 10 33% 28% 33% 200 Miramonte 3.3 3.5 1.0 12 27% 29% 8% 300 Miramonte 4.3 5.0 5.3 9 47% 56% 58% 400 Miramonte 5.3 3.8 3.0 13 40% 29% 23% 500 Miramonte 4.8 4.3 3.0 13 37% 33% 23% Notes: 1) Counts were done on 4 different occassions at each time period. 2) Spaces available based on 20' spaces per advice of city staff. Daily Parking Counts Day Friday Friday Wednesday Thursday Friday Wednesday Thursday Tuesday Tuesday Monday Thurs Mon Date 11/20/2015 12/11/2015 2/17/2016 2/18/2016 12/11/2015 2/17/2016 2/18/2016 3/7/2016 3/1/2016 3/6/2016 2/18/2016 2/29/2016 Time 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM North of Miramonte Mariposa 29 27 28 31 10 13 10 11 7 7 6 6 Castilleja 37 28 31 29 11 7 6 4 4 4 6 6 Escobita 21 22 22 18 2 3 1 3 4 4 3 3 Madrono 18 12 20 20 7 11 12 13 3 3 5 4 Portola 6 8 2 5 3 2 7 4 5 5 6 6 Manzanita 25 23 28 28 5 9 11 8 10 10 9 10 Total 136 120 131 131 38 45 47 43 33 33 35 35 Miramonte and South Miramonte 14 18 26 25 13 25 21 18 15 15 15 17 Mariposa 10 6 6 8 5 7 7 4 5 5 4 5 Castilleja 10 7 6 12 7 9 6 3 9 9 8 9 Escobita 11 16 14 14 13 7 8 7 6 6 5 5 Madrono 6 3 6 5 9 4 4 6 3 3 4 4 Portola 6 6 10 12 7 9 10 7 9 9 7 7 Sequoia 2 12 9 8 9 10 13 12 11 11 10 12 Total 59 68 77 84 63 71 69 57 58 58 53 59 Exterior Block Churchill 20 22 28 28 8 12 14 6 7 7 6 7 El Camino Real 15 15 20 0 12 9 1 8 1 1 1 4 Total 35 37 48 28 20 21 15 14 8 8 7 11 Grand Total 230 225 256 243 121 137 131 114 99 99 95 105 Note: 2/18 10am count of El Camino Real not factored in to average. No Parking on Thursdays due to garbage pick up. Parking Comparison by Time of Day Avg # of Cars by Time Increase/(Decrease) in # of cars Percent increase/(decrease) in avg. # of cars % of spaces full 10 00 AM 4 00 PM 7 00 PM 10am vs 4pm 10am vs 7 pm 4pm vs 7 pm 10am vs 4pm 10am vs 7 pm 4pm vs 7 pm # of 20' spaces 10 00 AM 4 00 PM 7 00 PM # of counts 4 4 4 North of Miramonte Mariposa 28 8 11 0 6.5 17.8 22.3 4.5 161.36% 342.31% 69.23% 42 68 5% 26 2% 15 5% Castilleja 31 3 7 0 5 0 24.3 26.3 2.0 346.43% 525.00% 40.00% 35 89 3% 20 0% 14 3% Escobita 20 8 2 3 3 5 18.5 17.3 (1.3) 822.22% 492.86% -35.71% 26 79 8% 8.7% 13 5% Madrono 17 5 10 8 3 8 6.8 13.8 7.0 62.79% 366.67% 186.67% 35 50 0% 30.7% 10.7% Portola 5 3 4 0 5 5 1.3 (0.3) (1.5) 31.25% -4.55% -27.27% 17 30 9% 23 5% 32.4% Manzanita 26 0 8 3 9 8 17.8 16.3 (1.5) 215.15% 166.67% -15.38% 29 89.7% 28.4% 33 6% Total 129.5 43.3 34.0 Total 86.3 95.5 9.3 Total 199.42% 280.88% 27.21% 184 70.4% 23.5% 18.5% Miramonte and South Miramonte 20 8 19 3 15 5 1.5 5.3 3.8 7.79% 33.87% 24.19% 57 36.4% 33 8% 27 2% Mariposa 7 5 5 8 4 8 1.8 2.8 1.0 30.43% 57.89% 21.05% 39 19 2% 14.7% 12 2% Castilleja 8 8 6 3 8 8 2.5 0.0 (2.5) 40.00% 0.00% -28.57% 40 21 9% 15 6% 21 9% Escobita 13 8 8 8 5.5 5.0 8.3 3.3 57.14% 150.00% 59.09% 24 57 3% 36 5% 22 9% Madrono 5 0 5 8 3 5 (0.8) 1.5 2.3 -13.04% 42.86% 64.29% 21 23 8% 27.4% 16.7% Portola 8 5 8 3 8 0 0.3 0.5 0.3 3.03% 6.25% 3.13% 18 47 2% 45 8% 44.4% Sequoia 7 8 11 0 11 0 (3.3) (3.3) 0.0 -29.55% -29.55% 0.00% 43 18 0% 25 6% 25 6% Total 72.0 65.0 57.0 Total 7.0 15.0 8.0 Total 10.77% 26.32% 14.04% 242 29.8% 26.9% 23.6% Exterior Blocks Churchill 24 5 10 0 6.8 14.5 17.8 3.3 145.00% 262.96% 48.15% 25 98 0% 40 0% 27 0% El Camino Real 16.7 7 5 1 8 9.2 14.9 5.8 122.22% 852.38% 328.57% 19 87.7% 39 5% 9 2% Total 41.2 17.5 8.5 Total 23.7 32.7 9.0 Total 135.24% 384.31% 105.88% 44 93.6% 39.8% 19.3% Grand Total 242.7 125.8 99.5 Grand Total 116.9 143.2 26.3 Grand Total 92.98% 143.89% 26.38% 470 51.6% 26.8% 21.2% March 7, 2016 Page 2 Members’ conclusion in the Memo that the City Council should take the “quickest, most efficient way to achieve success” in alleviating the parking problems in the Evergreen Park non-commercial core. The best way to do this is to annex Evergreen Park’s residential streets into the College Terrace RPP district. Evergreen Park meets all the criteria for being designated a RPP district. The Municipal Code allows the City to designate a RPP district if non-resident vehicles substantially interfere with the use of street parking by residents; if that interference is regular; if the interference creates traffic, noise, parking shortages, or other disruptions; and if other parking strategies are not feasible or practical. Municipal Code § 10.50.030. As documented in the EPPP Committee’s parking occupancy surveys and neighbors’ photographs attached to the Neighborhood Petition Form, by mid-morning every weekday, Evergreen Park’s streets are packed bumper-to-bumper with cars, nearly all of which are from outside of the neighborhood. This high parking saturation leaves neighborhood residents unable to park near their homes, prevents them from putting out their trash and recycling bins, impedes street sweeping, and creates traffic and safety problems. No other parking options exist for neighborhood residents. Parking conditions have been like this for years, and neighbors have documented that the situation continues to worsen, especially as more and more office space is developed in the area. The fastest, simplest, most efficient, and most cost-effective way to remedy these adverse impacts of non-resident parking in the Evergreen Park non-commercial core is for the City to annex the Evergreen Park residential streets, as described in the Neighborhood Petition Form, into the College Terrace RPP district. The Municipal Code expressly provides that a street’s residents “may petition the [planning] director for annexation into a contiguous RPP district.” Municipal Code § 10.50.080. This provision allows small areas to be joined to existing RPP districts, thereby saving the City from creating whole new programs for areas adjacent to established RPP districts. Evergreen Park is a perfect example of where annexation to an existing district makes the most sense. Annexing Evergreen Park’s residential streets into the College Terrace RPP district is far more reasonable than going through the extensive procedures for designating a new RPP, as outlined in Municipal Code section 10.50.050. The Evergreen Park non-commercial core is small—just three blocks by five blocks—and it would be a waste of the City’s resources to devote dozens of hours of staff time over a year or more to study and develop a separate RPP program just for this small neighborhood, when another viable option exists. Parking occupancy studies have already established that there are severe parking shortages in the neighborhood. And the parking-related problems in Evergreen Park are nearly identical to those suffered by College Terrace March 7, 2016 Page 3 before its RPP went into effect. Indeed, the City recognized the likelihood that Evergreen Park would suffer similar parking issues as College Terrace in the 2000 Stanford University General Use Permit, which recommended that parking in Evergreen Park be studied. See Excerpt from Stanford University General Use Permit, at p. 19-20 (attached as Exhibit 2). Because the City has already developed and implemented the College Terrace RPP program—and knows that the program works—it should not reinvent the wheel for Evergreen Park. Instead, the City should expand the successful College Terrace RPP district to include Evergreen Park and provide these near neighbors with the same kind of parking relief. Annexing the Evergreen Park non-commercial core into the College Terrace RPP district is—as was recognized in the Colleagues’ Memo—“the simplest, least costly, and most expeditious solution” to Evergreen Park’s burgeoning parking problem. The parking situation in residential Evergreen Park is critical, and this is the best option to quickly alleviate the problem. However, regardless of the path the City takes forward, the EPPP Committee emphasizes that it is essential that any RPP instituted in residential Evergreen Park allows permits only for residents, lest the program risk conflicting with state law’s requirement that residents’ parking needs take precedence over businesses’ parking demands in RPPs. See Veh. Code § 22507. Residents-only is the system that has worked so well in adjacent College Terrace, and that is the system that will work for Evergreen Park. On behalf of the EPPP Committee, thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss further. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Laura D. Beaton 761293 2 EXHIBIT 1 City of Palo Alto COLLEAGUES MEMO DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2016 SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS DUBOIS, FILSETH HOLMAN, AND SCHMID REGARDING CREATION OF AN EVERGREEN PARK RESIDENTAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM Goal: Provide immediate parking relief to the non-commercial area of Evergreen Park. Background and Discussion: Serious parking problems have been acknowledged in Evergreen Park for 16 years. In the 2000 Stanford General Use Permit, Stanford committed $100,000 for parking impacts starting with College Terrace but also considering impacts on Evergreen Park and Southgate. At that time, it was acknowledged that Evergreen Park may need to be annexed into the Parking Permit program for the same reason that the College Terrace program was started – impacts from Stanford University and California Avenue. In July 2007 a Colleagues memo directed staff to use the $100,000 to initiate an assessment of a permit program in College Terrace. In December 2009, the College Terrace Permit Parking ordinance was approved and started in January 2010. The program has significantly reduced parking problems. The City has no system to measure commercial parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods so residential leaders have conducted a series of parking surveys over more than 2 years documenting the problem and have provided data to City council and staff. Survey data for 2015 shows that the parking saturation rate on Evergreen Park residential streets is consistently over 70% on weekdays. Major new construction projects such as 2865 Park Blvd, 2650 Birch Street, 2100 El Camino, 1501 California Ave, and 385 Sherman will be coming on line soon and potentially will add increased demand and exacerbate the already existing parking problem. In the summer of 2015 concerned residents gathered over 225 signatures (from 300 units surveyed) in Evergreen Park requesting an RPP for Evergreen Park identical to the College Terrace program, selling permits only to residents. Evergreen Park non-commercial residential area is small, just 5 blocks by 3 blocks. Evergreen Park is contiguous to College Terrace and has a community of interest with College Terrace because commuter parking comes from many of the same sources. Yet unlike College Terrace, Evergreen Park has not been granted relief from commuter parking, which now floods the neighborhood. January 31, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Annexing Evergreen Park to the existing College Terrace RPP is the simplest, least costly, and most expeditious solution since the College Terrace RPP has been in place for over 5 years and efficient procedures and policies have already been established that could easily expand to Evergreen Park. This Council has also taken steps to support and strengthen the position of the California Avenue merchants, and we do not want to jeopardize their ability to survive and thrive in that protective environment. Currently, a merchant cannot share permits among its employees, thus putting more strain on limited parking supply and adding cost to merchants who must otherwise purchase additional permits. Given the small area of consideration and the proximity to CalTrain and El Camino Real bus lines, this also seems an appropriate area to test the efficacy of Palo !lto’s TDM program, and assumptions of potential results before incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan. A number of projects have been approved in the area with TDM programs but coincident with those buildings being occupied the parking situation in Evergreen Park has been exacerbated. This proposal intends to find the quickest, most efficient way to achieve success by addressing ways to remove a large majority of commuter cars from the neighborhood. Recommendation: We recommend that Council direct Staff to return to Council after community outreach and not later than the end of May with a proposal for providing the most expeditious relief to Evergreen Park through a resident parking program which restores and enhances the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by drastically reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby businesses and institutional uses. Two potential actions could be: 1. Create a College Terrace-like RPP with resident only parking, either under the new RPP ordinance or by amending the College Terrace RPP to annex the non-commercial core of Evergreen Park, bounded by El Camino Real, Park Blvd and College Avenue. Concurrent with adoption of the RPPP, allow merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits valid within the commercial district among their own employees. Staff should recommend what type of parking can be modified most easily in the commercial district to enable permit sharing by these users – parking lots, garages, street parking or some combination. 2. Create an RPP initiated by Council under Section 10.50.040 on an accelerated timeline for the same non-commercial core area of Evergreen Park. The RPP should provide either zero non- resident permits or a small number (for example, ten percent) available to merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District. Employees of these businesses should be enabled to share such parking permits among their own employees, tracked by January 31, 2016 Page 3 of 3 employer. (This is as opposed to the proposed unlimited daily permits in the Downtown RPPP area). Non-resident permits in this area should decrease over time, potentially replaced by retail employee permits in the California Ave commercial area (South of College Ave). Concurrent with adoption of the RPPP, allow merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits valid within the commercial district among their own employees. Furthermore, the City should ensure that: 1. Signage Poles required for the implementation of the program be installed expeditiously. 2. Merchants and offices in the California Avenue Business District and along El Camino Real are notified of pending changes. 3. Ideally, if annexed into the College Terrace RPP complete the creation of the RPP in time to allow Evergreen Park residents to enroll during the next scheduled yearly College Terrace renewal period which occurs 8/1/16 TO 8/31/16. In any case, treat this issue with urgency to implement a solution for the neighborhood. Acknowledging the critical timeliness of this proposal, we request that the City Manager's Comments include short updates on this project. Staff Impact: The City Manager and Director of Planning have reviewed this Memorandum and have the following comments: EXHIBIT 2 Neighborhood Petition Form City of Palo Alto Residential Parking Permit Program Request Form The purpose of this form is to enable neighborhoods to request to be annexed to an existing Residential Preferential Parking area or the initiation of a Residential Preferential Parking Program in accordance with the City of Palo !lto’s adopted Residential Parking Permit Program Policy and Procedures. This form must be filled out in its entirety and submitted with any request to: The City of Palo Alto Transportation Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 Feel free to attach additional sheets containing pictures, occupancy maps, additional testimony or additional text if the space provided is insufficient. 1. Requesting Individual’s Contact Information Name: Paul L. Machado for the Evergreen Park Parking Permit Committee Address: 363 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone Number: 650-323-8554 Email: plmachado@gmail.com !s explained in our attorneys’ letter, submitted with this form, we request that the Evergreen Park Non- Commercial Core be annexed to the existing successful College Terrace Residential Parking Permit (“RPP”) district. The Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core is adjacent to the College Terrace RPP district: it is directly across El Camino Real. Palo Alto Municipal Code section 10.50.080 provides that areas may be annexed to contiguous RPP districts, and this is the most expeditious, efficient, and cost- effective way to reduce the parking problems in our neighborhood. 2. Please describe the nature of the overflow parking problem in your neighborhood. 1. What streets in your neighborhood do you feel are affected by overflow parking? 2. How often does the overflow occur? 3. Does the impact vary from month to month, or season to season? 1) The residential Evergreen Park neighborhood experiences overflow parking on the streets generally bounded by El Camino Real, Park Boulevard, and Cambridge Avenue (the “Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core”). The streets affected by overflow parking are: a) Park Boulevard from El Camino Real to Cambridge Avenue b) Birch Street from Park Boulevard to College Avenue c) The north half of Birch Street between College Avenue and Cambridge Avenue d) Ash Street from Park Avenue to College Avenue e) Park Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard, including the two parking spaces in front of 120 Park Avenue f) Leland Avenue from the barrier east of El Camino Real to Park Boulevard g) Stanford Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard h) Oxford Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard i) College Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard 2) The parking overflow occurs every weekday, which has been documented by Parking Saturation Surveys conducted periodically since 2014. The saturation rate in the Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core has continually increased since then, and our residential area has been more than 70% parked by midday on weekdays, as noted in the February 10, 2016, City of Palo Alto Colleagues Memo on this topic. The results of the Parking Saturation Surveys are included in the Evergreen Park Residential Parking Permit Proposal Presentation (Nov. 4, 2015), attached hereto as Exhibit A. Photographs of the neighborhood streets early and the morning and during the day are attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3) The parking saturation on weekdays is consistent year-round. 3. Can you identify a parking impact generator that is the cause of overflow parking in the neighborhood? Are there any facilities (churches, schools, shopping centers, etc.) near this location that generate a high concentration of vehicle and pedestrian traffic? Please list your understanding of the causes: Parking impacts in the Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core come from the following sources. Many of the drivers park in the neighborhood to avoid paying for parking elsewhere. 1) Employees of customer-serving businesses near the neighborhood, which do not have adequate parking for both employees and customers. The employers instruct employees to park in the residential neighborhood to leave business parking lot spaces open for customers. 2) Employees from office buildings near the neighborhood. The area surrounding the neighborhood is experiencing an increased number of office workers, including development of new office buildings with inadequate parking and use of spaces for offices that were previously not used for offices. 3) CalTrain commuters, who park in the neighborhood instead of paying to park in the CalTrain station lot. 4) Individuals going to airport, who leave their cars for extended periods instead of paying to park at the airport. 5) Stanford University faculty, staff, students, and visitors, who park in the neighborhood to avoid paying for Stanford’s on-campus parking. 4. Please describe how a Residential Parking Permit Program will be able to eliminate or reduce overflow parking impacting the neighborhood. Please include your suggestion for the boundary of the program: Including Evergreen Park in the College Terrace RPP district would limit non-resident parking to two hours. This would virtually eliminate the parking impact from CalTrain commuters, airport travelers, Stanford University, and nearby business and office employees. Removing these all-day—and sometimes multi-day—parkers from the neighborhood’s limited parking would allow for neighborhood residents to park in their own neighborhood, near their homes. This will increase our safety, security, and freedom of movement (especially for the disabled and seniors), and improve our quality of life. It would also enhance bike safety as we have multiple bike boulevards through the neighborhood. The boundaries of the Evergreen Park zone of the College Terrace RPPP district should be El Camino Real, Cambridge Avenue, and Park Boulevard. 5. Is there neighborhood support for submittal of this Residential Parking Permit Program application? Have you contacted your HOA/Neighborhood Association? Neighborhood representatives have been working to be annexed to the existing College Terrace RPP Program for many months. We have the support of the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association and strong support among neighborhood residents. In 2015, over 225 residents of Evergreen Park signed a petition requesting that a Residential Parking Permit Program be established. The signed petition is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Our proposal, as well as the petition, for the Evergreen Park RPP was submitted to the City Council on Feb 1, 2016. 761279.2 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C University Ave Lytton Ave Everett Ave Fu l t o n S t Gu i n d a S t Gu i n d a S t Se n e c a S t Ha l e S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d By r o n S t By r o n S t Wa v e r l e y S t Wa v e r l y S t Ta s s o S t Ta s s o St Fl o r e n c e By r o n S t We b s t e r S t Co w p e r S t Co w p e r S t Br y a n t S t Ra m o n a S t Em e r s o n S t Hi g h S t Fu l t o n S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d We b s t e r S t Br y a n t S t Br y a n t S t Ra m o n a S t Em e r s o n S t Hi g h S t Ki p l i n g Ki p l i n g Hawthorne Ave Ruthven Ave Poe St Hamilton Ave Forest Ave Forest Ave Homer Ave Channing Ave Addison Ave Lincoln Ave Kingsley Ave Melville AveMelville Ave Kellogg AveKellogg Ave Churchill Ave Coleridge Ave B o y c e A v e A d dis o n A v e Lin c oln A v e Fife A v e F ore st A v e C h a n nin g A v e P arkin s o n A v e H o p kin s A v e M elville A v e H arriet St P a l o A l t o A v e Alma St Alma St Embarcadero Rd El Camino Real Downtown RPP District N SOFA DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Downtown RPP District Approved Eligibility Area University Ave Lytton Ave Everett Ave Fu l t o n S t Gu i n d a S t Gu i n d a S t Se n e c a S t Ha l e S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d By r o n S t By r o n S t Wa v e r l e y S t Wa v e r l y S t Ta s s o S t Ta s s o St Fl o r e n c e By r o n S t We b s t e r S t Co w p e r S t Co w p e r S t Br y a n t S t Ra m o n a S t Em e r s o n S t Hi g h S t Fu l t o n S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d We b s t e r S t Br y a n t S t Br y a n t S t Ra m o n a S t Em e r s o n S t Hi g h S t Ki p l i n g Ki p l i n g Hawthorne Ave Ruthven Ave Poe St Hamilton Ave Forest Ave Forest Ave Homer Ave Channing Ave Addison Ave Lincoln Ave Kingsley Ave Melville AveMelville Ave Kellogg AveKellogg Ave Churchill Ave Coleridge Ave B o y c e A v e A d dis o n A v e Lin c oln A v e Fife A v e F ore st A v e C h a n nin g A v e P arkin s o n A v e H o p kin s A v e M elville A v e H arriet St P a l o A l t o A v e Alma St Alma St Embarcadero Rd El Camino Real Downtown RPP District N SOFA DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Downtown RPP District Approved Eligibility Area 9 10 8 7 6 5 41 2 3 Downtown RPP Parking Occupancy Collection Date: March 24, 2016 City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 8 AM ‐ 10 AM 85% 67% 76% 80% 30% 24 % Pa l o Alt o Av 25% 67% 85% 28% 83% 93% 94% 82 % 89 % 63 % 22 % 4% 29 % 64% 67 % 75 % 75 % 50 % 25 % 29 % Emerson St Emerson 71 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 12 0 % 10 0 % 29 % 63 % 64 % 75 % 70 % 53 % 44 % 14 % 86 % 84 % 90 % 33 % 63 % 92 % 10 7 % 95 % 83% 100% 15 % 25% 36% 63 % 60 % 83 % 44 % 10 0 % 50 % 57 % 83 %0%29 % 86 % 84 % 53 % 42 % 69% 0%0% 75% 50%70% Kipling 36% 73 % 10 0 % 50 % 0% 53% Kipling St 6% 82% 85% 33 % 44 % 67 % 17 % 25 % 52 % 38 % 22 %0%0% 0% 0% 60% 56% Ha w t h o r n e Av 25% Ev e r e t t Av 33% Ly t t o n Av 33 % 14 %0%14 % 33 % 67 % 10 0 % 88 % 64 % 0% 0% 20% 19% 0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t Av 50% Ly t t o n Av e 70% 62%38% Un i v e r s i t y Av 53% Ha m i l t o n Av 15% 36% 55% 21% 11%63% 38%0% 3/24/2016 0% 71% 0% 31% 40% 8% 29% 33% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0% 43 %0% 57 % 67 % 50 % 44 % 80 % 90 % 72 % 92 % 50 % 29 %0%0%0% 10 0 % 75 % 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%40% 13% 0% 5% Pa l o Alt o A 10 0 % 60 % 67% 0% 17% 0% Fulton 38% 0% 50% 45%0% Fulton St 0% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 50% Ad d i s o n 31% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 18 % 12% 27% 69% 100%0% 44 % 46% 14% 47% 108%0% 0% 0% 52% Ke l l o g g 38% 45 % 65 % 10 0 % 80 % 69 % 63 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 14 % 22 %0%14 % 43 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 21% 47% 60% 80%#REF!79% 64% 69% 69% 19% 31% 69% 22% 75% 0%29 % 0%25 % 22 % 61 % 50 % 78 % 35 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% 50%54%0% 0% 0% Me l v i l l e 0%100%21% 39 % 53 % 90 % 55 % 50 % 77 % 75 % 11 7 % 82 % 29 % 33% 6%100%62% Ha m i l t o n Av 58% 50% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0% 31%100%0% 17% 64% 20% 83% 77% 50% 42% 35% 76% 60%0% 0% 0% 0%33 % 29 % 38 % 67 % 91 %0%0%22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 8% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 29% 25% 36% 86% 83% 64% 46% 82% 64% 79% 41% 0% 0% 0% 25 % 67 %0% 33% 38% 115% 80% 115% 77% 62% 43% 33% 31% 12 0 % 93 % 63 % 67 % 75 % 33 % 50 % 24 %0% 18% 0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 12 % 41% 25% 56% 109% 40% 76% 50% 140% 60% 25% 19% 53% 0% 33% 29 % 53 % 56 % 88 % 77 % 25 % 33 % 33 % 14 % 50 % 85 % 0%6%Pa l o Al t o Av 0% Po e St 54 % 13 % 58 % 43% 45% 13% 56 % 55 % 89 % 78 % 22 % 20% 55% 50% 38% 100% 60% 90%81% 69% 44% 0% 58% Bryant St Bryant 41% Ha w t h o r n e Av 50% Ev e r e t t Av 90% Ly t t o n Av 73% Un i v e r s i t y Av 75% Ha m i l t o n Av 125% Fo r e s t Av 73% Ho m e r Av 87% Ch a n n i n g Av 71% 63% 0% Kin g s l e y 25% 22 % 50 % 60 % 75 % 20 % 33 % 29 % 64 % 75 % 33 % 43 % 60 % 60 % 33% 92% 14% 88% 80%79% 50% 0% Ramona St Ramona50% 81% 6% 100% 53% 93% 73% 92% 89 % 50 % Ad d i s o n 47% 80 % 44% 62% 92% 29% 88% 86% 86% 100% 6% 89% 31% Lin c o l n 73% 89 % 50 % 22 % 29 % 25 % 27 % 44 % 86 % 36%Legend 31 % 62 % 75 % 43 % 38 % 60 % 75 % 0%40 % 50 % 63 % 90 % 10 0 % 83 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 75 % 13 % 25 % 16 0 % 63 % 0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy 87% 77% 8% 60% 92% 100% 88% 78% 75% 60%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy83% 100% 25% 23% 79% 108% 55% 38 % 0%0%0%50 % 25 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 20 % 75 % 13 % 44 % Alma St Alma13% 24 % Pa l o Alt o Av 67 % 75 % 75 % 50 % 25 % 29 % 31 % 62 % 38 % 0% 25% 21% 11% 0% 63% 100% 64% 0% 8% 0%0%50 % 25 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 20 % 75 % 13 % 44 % City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12p ‐ 2p 92% 100% 94% 80% 80% 28 % Pa l o Alt o Av 50% 108% 77% 94% 50% 114% 88% 73 % 78 % 63 % 56 % 13 % 12 % 109% 67 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 50 % 75 % 0% Emerson St Emerson 86 % 14 3 % 88 % 12 0 % 10 0 % 57 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 90 % 95 % 81 % 14 3 % 86 % 95 % 10 0 % 30 0 % 11 3 % 10 8 % 87 % 95 % 111% 107% 30 % 13% 64% 53 % 73 % 50 % 78 % 14 3 % 38 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 86 % 10 0 % 15 7 % 89 % 95 % 42 % 54% 0%0% 92% 83%60% Kipling 43% 11 8 % 43 % 33 % 0% 80% Kipling St 88% 91% 115% 89 % 11 1 % 10 0 % 67 % 10 0 % 30 % 50 % 39 % 57 % 12 2 % 0% 12 % 40% 33% Ha w t h o r n e Av 25% Ev e r e t t Av 53% Ly t t o n Av 33 % 14 % 14 %0%33 % 44 % 10 0 % 75 % 57 % 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 8% Ev e r e t t Av 14% Ly t t o n Av e 100% 46%62% Un i v e r s i t y Av 60% Ha m i l t o n Av 23% 27% 36% 42% 89%75% 46%100% 3/24/2016 0% 243% 50% 46% 40% 17% 29% 25% 0% 0% 33 %0% 67 % 33 % 57 %0% 29 % 56 % 50 % 44 % 53 % 80 % 72 % 0%36 % 29 %0%0%0% 10 0 % 25 % 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%0% 13% 0% 5% Pa l o Alt o A 10 0 % 80 % 67% 0% 17% 0% Fulton 46% 110% 42% 45%0% Fulton St 58% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 36% Ad d i s o n 23% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 27 % 35% 27% 62% 85%0% 44 % 100% 57% 47% 77%0% 0% 0% 52% Ke l l o g g 38% 40 % 76 % 80 % 67 % 63 % 68 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 14 %0%11 % 14 % 43 % 88 % 10 0 % 0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 107% 47% 87% 80%#REF!93% 93% 94% 50% 13% 31% 69% 22% 75% 0%29 % 0%88 % 33 % 83 % 72 % 44 % 71 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 20% 60%92%0% 0% 0% Me l v i l l e 0%100%21% 78 % 76 % 40 % 73 % 86 % 85 % 88 % 75 % 47 % 29 % 47% 38%100%69% Ha m i l t o n Av 100% 50% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0% 15%200%0% 17% 71% 50% 100% 100% 80% 67% 71% 88% 53%0% 0% 0% 14 % 33 % 14 % 13 % 83 % 91 %0%0%22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 4% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 14% 50% 64% 93% 100% 91% 77% 35% 64% 71% 47% 0% 0% 0% 31 % 40 %0% 72% 100% 54% 80% 154% 77% 69% 43% 0% 100% 17 0 % 93 % 44 % 56 % 50 % 28 % 61 %6%0% 35% 17% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 12 % 35% 125% 78% 100% 53% 100% 50% 130% 53% 50% 13% 94% 11% 33% 12 % 63 % 83 % 10 0 % 10 8 % 38 % 38 % 39 % 33 % 55 % 21 4 % 0% 13 %Pa l o Al t o Av 0% Po e St 54 % 13 % 68 % 157% 100% 125% 78 % 55 % 13 3 % 89 % 44 % 20% 60% 50% 100% 109% 220% 100%94% 94% 44% 27% 17% Bryant St Bryant 59% Ha w t h o r n e Av 71% Ev e r e t t Av 120% Ly t t o n Av 182% Un i v e r s i t y Av 81% Ha m i l t o n Av 125% Fo r e s t Av 67% Ho m e r Av 93% Ch a n n i n g Av 93% 63% 37% Kin g s l e y 17% 89 % 50 % 10 0 % 15 0 % 70 % 10 0 % 86 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 33 % 57 % 60 % 50 % 44% 92% 79% 88% 80%57% 44% 100% Ramona St Ramona67% 106% 94% 100% 65% 87% 73% 92% 56 % 50 % Ad d i s o n 60% 60 % 100% 62% 100% 71% 88% 93% 107% 100% 69% 89% 8% Lin c o l n 60% 15 6 % 50 % 78 % 86 % 10 0 % 55 % 44 % 11 4 % 36%Legend 50 % 69 % 88 % 86 % 63 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 40 % 11 0 % 63 % 75 % 10 0 % 88 % 67 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 0%0% 16 0 % 50 % 0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy 100% 92% 92% 50% 77% 94% 88% 100% 108% 40%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy100% 120% 88% 92% 86% 108% 55% 50 % 0%0%0% 11 7 % 88 % 88 % 88 % 60 % 75 % 0% 15 6 % Alma St Alma43% 28 % Pa l o Alt o Av 67 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 50 % 75 % 0% 50 % 69 % 50 % 0% 50% 86% 89% 114% 19% 100% 64% 31% 0% 0%0% 11 7 % 88 % 88 % 88 % 60 % 75 % 0% 15 6 % City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 5p ‐ 7p 115% 100% 59% 93% 0% 24 % Pa l o Alt o Av 81% 58% 100% 100% 89% 100% 100% 91 % 89 %0%0% 8% 29 % 82% 16 7 % 75 % 88 % 12 5 % 75 % 43 % Emerson St Emerson 10 0 % 14 3 % 11 3 % 12 0 % 63 % 43 % 63 % 91 % 10 0 % 90 % 68 % 10 6 % 12 9 % 10 0 % 95 % 11 0 % 67 % 11 3 % 10 8 % 93 % 57 % 117% 86% 15 % 38% 64% 63 % 60 % 11 7 % 56 % 14 3 % 38 % 86 % 83 % 86 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 62% 0%0% 92% 117%40% Kipling 14% 10 9 % 43 % 33 % 0% 60% Kipling St 24% 100% 100% 11 % 67 % 67 % 67 % 10 0 % 57 % 13 % 22 % 43 %0% 0% 0% 20% 44% Ha w t h o r n e Av 17% Ev e r e t t Av 47% Ly t t o n Av 33 % 57 % 57 % 29 % 33 % 33 % 35 0 % 0%36 % 0% 0% 30% 19% 0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 0% Ev e r e t t Av 43% Ly t t o n Av e 30% 46%31% Un i v e r s i t y Av 60% Ha m i l t o n Av 8% 27% 27% 32% 50%81% 54%50% 3/24/2016 0% 114% 50% 31% 47% 33% 21% 25% 0% 0% 33 %0% 67 % 13 3 % 86 %9%0% 44 % 25 % 39 % 40 % 70 % 39 % 46 % 50 % 29 %0%0%0% 25 % 50 % 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%30% 20% 0% 25 % Pa l o Alt o A 10 0 % 60 % 33% 0% 17% 0% Fulton 17% 70% 50% 100%0% Fulton St 25% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 7% Ad d i s o n 0% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 9% 29% 27% 38% 77%0% 44 % 38% 29% 40% 8%0% 0% 0% 52% Ke l l o g g 38% 65 % 41 % 67 % 60 % 25 % 37 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 0%11 %0%14 % 14 % 88 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 29% 40% 60% 80%#REF!71% 21% 63% 63% 25% 81% 69% 22% 75% 0%0%0%13 % 17 % 67 % 61 % 89 % 94 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% 50%100%0% 0% 0% Me l v i l l e 0%100%21% 33 % 53 % 90 % 91 % 43 % 38 % 56 % 75 % 94 % 47 % 80% 88%54%92% Ha m i l t o n Av 117% 29% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0% 8%0%0% 17% 29% 40% 92% 100% 90% 117% 106% 35% 67%0% 0% 0% 0%17 %0%13 % 10 0 % 10 9 % 0%0%22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 12 % Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 36% 50% 55% 71% 108% 164% 100% 41% 71% 50% 76% 0% 0% 0% 25 % 67 %0% 67% 100% 138% 100% 162% 92% 62% 50% 27% 13% 17 0 % 93 % 19 % 44 % 50 % 39 % 56 %0%0% 12% 17% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 12 % 41% 100% 56% 100% 93% 112% 20% 90% 33% 42% 38% 24% 21% 67% 29 % 53 % 61 % 65 % 85 % 13 % 0%22 % 10 % 10 % #D I V / 0 ! 0% 19 %Pa l o Al t o Av 0% Po e St 62 % 47 % 0%114% 64% 125% 89 % 10 0 % 12 2 % 89 % 33 % 20% 45% 50% 50% 73% 120% 105%75% 56% 44% 27% 42% Bryant St Bryant 50% Ha w t h o r n e Av 43% Ev e r e t t Av 100% Ly t t o n Av 100% Un i v e r s i t y Av 94% Ha m i l t o n Av 50% Fo r e s t Av 67% Ho m e r Av 93% Ch a n n i n g Av 50% 63% 32% Kin g s l e y 0% 39 % 83 % 80 % 75 % 11 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 91 % 10 0 % 33 % 29 % 60 % 50 % 44% 92% 107% 106% 100%50% 39% 0% Ramona St Ramona67% 81% 94% 142% 82% 120% 93% 67% 11 % 10 % Ad d i s o n 40% 40 % 44% 46% 108% 86% 106% 93% 93% 117% 63% 61% 8% Lin c o l n 20% 10 0 % 50 % 33 % 10 0 % 11 3 % 10 0 % 67 % 12 9 % 21%Legend 44 % 69 % 63 % 43 % 38 % 10 0 % 11 3 % 40 % 12 0 % 63 % 63 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 25 % 50 % 11 0 % 38 % 0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy 73% 85% 115% 100% 85% 100% 81% 78% 25% 30%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy67% 70% 100% 108% 100% 117% 45% 38 % 0%0%0% 11 7 % 11 3 % 10 0 % 88 % 80 % 50 % 25 % 0% Alma St Alma26% 24 % Pa l o Alt o Av 16 7 % 75 % 88 % 12 5 % 75 % 43 % 44 % 69 % 38 % 0% 75% 29% 11% 86% 100% 100% 64% 0% 0% 0%0% 11 7 % 11 3 % 10 0 % 88 % 80 % 50 % 25 % 0% Downtown RPP Parking Occupancy Collection Date: May 19, 2016 City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 8 AM ‐ 10 AM 55% 38 % 78% 12 5 % 10 0 % 17 % 25 % 12 5 % 10 0 % 20 % 75 % 12 5 % 0% 12 5 % 0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy 53% 54% 0% 10% 38% 6% 38% 78% 50% 50%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy67% 50% 0% 15% 29% 67% 10 0 % 57 % 36%Legend 31 % 77 % 75 % 43 %0%20 % 25 % 20 % 90 %0%0% 11 0 % 63 %0%67 %0%25 % 12 5 % 15 0 % 20 % 13 3 % 10 0 % Ad d i s o n 47% 80 % 63% 69% 69% 14% 0% 36% 0% 100% 75% 11% 23% Lin c o l n 13% 33 % 17 % 22 % 71 %0%55 % 0% Ramona St Ramona 75% 50% 25% 0% 0% 20% 20% 33% 63% 37% Kin g s l e y 25% 56 % 83 %0% 50 % 20 % 83 % 12 9 % 82 %0% 10 0 % 43 % 20 0 % 90 % 50% 54% 71% 0% 100% 43% 61% 38% 63% 44% 33% 192% Bryant St Bryant 82% Ha w t h o r n e Av 71% Ev e r e t t Av 60% Ly t t o n Av 55% Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% Ha m i l t o n Av 150% Fo r e s t Av 60% Ho m e r Av 87% Ch a n n i n g Av 21% 38 %Pa l o Alt o Av 0% Po e St 38 % 33 % 79 % 114% 64% 63% 67 % 10 9 % 0%67 % 11 1 % 20% 15% 50% 38% 55% 0% 80% 0%8% 75 % 19 %0%57 % 25 % 85 % 14 4 % 0% 0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 4% 65% 100% 33% 55% 73% 53% 60% 60% 0% 0% 63% 0% 0% 150% 29 % 58 % 39 % 0% 6% 92% 31% 73% 46% 62% 23% 64% 33% 75% 80 % 12 0 % 38 % 67 % 17 5 % 56 % 67 % 53 %0% 50% 4% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 29% 100% 45% 79% 42% 18% 0% 35% 29% 100% 18% 0% 0% 0% 6% 20 % 0%33 % 29 % 38 % 50 % 73 % 0%0%22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 62% Ha m i l t o n Av 67% 43% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0% 31%900%0% 17% 64% 80% 42% 77% 90% 50% 35% 12% 33% 0% 0% 0% 21% 39 % 71 %0%0%71 % 38 % 13 % 83 % 12 %6% 33% 19%69% 19% 13% 69% 22% 75% 0%29 %0%25 % 22 % 33 % 56 % 78 % 12 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% 50%46%0% 0% 0% Me l v i l l e 0%57% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 21% 47% 93% 80%27%0% 7% 0% 0% 50% 14 % 22 %0%14 % 43 % 25 % 10 0 % 0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 46% 14% 47% 23%0% 0% 0% 52% Ke l l o g g 38% 0%0%0%13 % 50 %0%40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 50% Ad d i s o n 8% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 18 % 12% 27% 69% 62%0% 50 % 0%0%0% 200%60% 27% 0% 25 % Pa l o Alt o A 10 0 % 14 0 % 58% 0% 17% 0% Fulton 38% 0% 50% 100%0% Fulton St 100% 0% 0% 67 % 0% 11 7 % 18 3 % 0% 11 8 % 43 % 33 % 50 % 28 % 80 % 90 % 28 % 31 %0% 29 % 0%0%0% 25 0 % 13 % 0% 5/19/2016 2% 29% 217% 0% 7% 25% 29% 0% 0% 13% 0%Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t Av 36% Ly t t o n Av e 0% 8%31% Un i v e r s i t y Av 27% Ha m i l t o n Av 23% 36% 55% 0% 11%19% 23%0% 0%13 % 0%0% 0% 0% 60% 56% Ha w t h o r n e Av 25% Ev e r e t t Av 73% Ly t t o n Av 33 % 14 % 0%0%33 % 89 % 20 0 % 0%0% 0% 0% 69% 0%0% 42% 25%20% Kipling 14% 10 0 % 0% 11 7 % 0% 47% Kipling St 12% 45% 62% 33 % 56 % 67 % 33 % 25 % 22 % 35 % 138% 73% 5%33 % 83 % 78 % 10 0 % 63 % 57 % 83 % 29 % 29 % 71 % 42 %0% 26 % 0% 58 % 44 % 0% 86 % 74 % 60 % 0% 25 % 42 % 73 % 33 % 33% 71% 36 % 11 % 88 % 14 4 % 4% 29 % 64% 20 0 % 10 0 % 0% 10 0 % 75 % 29 % Emerson St Emerson 57 % 10 0 % 38 %0%13 % 15 7 % 0%82 %0% 69% 67% 76% 27% 70% 32 % Pa l o Alt o Av 63% 83% 38% 22% 50% 21% 94% 38 % 78% 75% 7% 56% 100% 44% 100% 64% 92% 0% 12 5 % 10 0 % 17 % 25 % 12 5 % 10 0 % 20 % 75 % 12 5 % 0% 31 % 77 % 20 0 % 10 0 % 0% 10 0 % 75 % 29 % Alma St Alma39% 32 % Pa l o Alt o Av City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12 PM ‐ 2 PM 91% 10 0 % 0%0%0%0%0%0% 10 0 % 20 % 50 %0% 67 % 75 %0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy 200% 154% 0% 0% 0% 12% 25% 78% 217% 80%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy183% 220% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 36%Legend 75 % 46 % 17 5 % 17 1 % 12 5 % 0%0%0%20 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 28 0 % 44 % 20 % Ad d i s o n 47% 40 % 138% 92% 169% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 156% 0% Lin c o l n 0% 28 9 % 10 0 % 15 6 % 0%25 %0% 0% Ramona St Ramona 50% 188% 0% 0% 12% 133% 120% 150% 63% 42% Kin g s l e y 25% 89 % 67 % 16 0 % 30 0 % 0%0%0% 18 %0% 67 % 43 % 80 % 0%33% 138% 0% 0% 0% 114% 78% 150% 163% 44% 40% 17% Bryant St Bryant 45% Ha w t h o r n e Av 100% Ev e r e t t Av 200% Ly t t o n Av 0% Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% Ha m i l t o n Av 0% Fo r e s t Av 107% Ho m e r Av 87% Ch a n n i n g Av 129% 0%Pa l o Alt o Av 0% Po e St 77 % 27 % 95 % 0% 36% 0% 0%0%0% 15 6 % 89 % 20% 70% 50% 125% 164% 0% 0% 15 3 % 18 5 % 50 % 48 % 11 % 38 %0%85 % 0% 12% 33% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 15 % 71% 150% 133% 73% 0% 0% 0% 200% 80% 67% 0% 35% 0% 0% 24 % 10 5 % 12 2 % 0% 111% 185% 0% 0% 0% 123% 108% 57% 33% 13% 14 0 % 16 0 % 63 % 67 % 10 0 % 44 % 10 0 % 12 %0% 50% 8% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 29% 75% 73% 143% 17% 0% 0% 24% 114% 71% 71% 0% 0% 0% 50 % 53 % 0%33 % 29 % 38 % 0%0%0%0%22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 123% Ha m i l t o n Av 117% 43% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0% 31%0%0% 17% 64% 100% 200% 169% 0% 0% 35% 141% 67% 0% 0% 0% 21% 39 %0%40 % 91 % 12 9 % 15 4 % 13 8 % 13 3 % 71 %0% 33% 63%154% 19% 38% 69% 22% 75% 0%29 %0%25 % 22 % 12 2 % 12 2 % 67 % 24 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% 50%15%0% 0% 0% Me l v i l l e 0%57% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 21% 47% 133% 0%27%114% 129% 175% 50% 50% 14 % 22 %0%14 % 43 % 12 5 % 20 0 % 0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 46% 14% 47% 123%0% 0% 0% 52% Ke l l o g g 38% 60 % 11 8 % 10 7 % 12 0 % 10 0 % 10 5 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 50% Ad d i s o n 46% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 18 % 12% 27% 69% 138%0% 50 % 0%0%0% 0%0% 27% 0% 0% Pa l o Alt o A 10 0 % 12 0 % 83% 0% 17% 0% Fulton 38% 200% 83% 55%0% Fulton St 100% 0% 0% 67 % 0% 10 0 % 33 % 0%0%57 % 67 % 50 % 67 % 80 % 90 % 12 2 % 0%0% 29 % 0%0%0% 15 0 % 25 % 0% 5/19/2016 0% 457% 100% 77% 67% 0% 29% 50% 60% 0% 0%Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t Av 29% Ly t t o n Av e 200% 77%77% Un i v e r s i t y Av 93% Ha m i l t o n Av 31% 36% 55% 84% 133%88% 62%200% 75 % 70 % 11 4 % 22 2 % 0% 0% 60% 56% Ha w t h o r n e Av 25% Ev e r e t t Av 53% Ly t t o n Av 33 % 14 % 0%0%33 % 0% 20 0 % 12 5 % 57 % 0% 0% 69% 0%0% 183% 0%80% Kipling 71% 0%86 % 67 % 0% 147% Kipling St 106% 164% 31% 11 1 % 20 0 % 16 7 % 0%0% 17 % 20 % 25% 109% 95 % 12 0 % 83 %0% 10 0 % 50 % 57 % 83 %0%0%0% 21 %0%0% 20 % 16 8 % 13 % 0% 86 % 0%0% 0%0% 15 0 % 93 % 10 5 % 0% 143% 12 7 % 11 1 % 12 5 % 44 % 8% 24 % 64% 67 % 20 0 % 20 0 % 0%0% 29 % Emerson St Emerson 0% 10 0 % 0%40 % 17 5 % 11 4 % 17 5 % 18 %0% 0% 67% 76% 0% 40% 40 % Pa l o Alt o Av 88% 167% 123% 0% 0% 0% 94% 10 0 % 0% 88% 14% 22% 0% 0% 100% 64% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0% 10 0 % 20 % 50 %0% 67 % 75 % 46 % 67 % 20 0 % 20 0 % 0%0% 29 % Alma St Alma61% 40 % Pa l o Alt o Av City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 5 PM ‐ 7 PM 45% 0% 56% 22 5 % 50 % 17 % 25 % 38 % 10 0 % 20 % 50 % 63 %0% 75 %0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy 60% 85% 0% 0% 46% 0% 56% 78% 50% 60%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy42% 110% 0% 8% 29% 58% 17 8 % 43 % 36%Legend 50 % 15 % 50 % 57 % 63 % 80 % 10 0 % 60 % 10 0 % 0%38 % 90 % 88 %0%0%83 % 25 % 11 3 % 11 3 % 10 % 12 2 % 30 % Ad d i s o n 47% 80 % 44% 38% 115% 29% 0% 71% 0% 100% 63% 6% 23% Lin c o l n 20% 44 % 67 % 78 % 57 % 10 0 % 55 % 0% Ramona St Ramona 75% 94% 38% 0% 0% 13% 20% 33% 63% 42% Kin g s l e y 25% 61 % 33 % 80 % 50 % 70 % 10 0 % 17 1 % 55 %0% 12 2 % 43 % 14 0 % 70 % 50% 100% 7% 0% 20% 64% 61% 38% 56% 44% 60% 183% Bryant St Bryant 64% Ha w t h o r n e Av 79% Ev e r e t t Av 90% Ly t t o n Av 73% Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% Ha m i l t o n Av 75% Fo r e s t Av 87% Ho m e r Av 87% Ch a n n i n g Av 14% 50 %Pa l o Alt o Av 0% Po e St 54 % 47 % 68 % 171% 18% 88% 78 % 12 7 % 0%44 % 89 % 20% 55% 75% 75% 82% 0% 85% 0%31 % 63 % 14 % 39 % 48 % 25 % 85 % 14 4 % 0% 283% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 0% 47% 75% 44% 45% 33% 82% 30% 30% 0% 0% 31% 0% 0% 0% 29 % 53 % 61 % 0% 61% 85% 23% 93% 38% 38% 15% 43% 33% 44% 70 % 53 % 50 % 67 % 27 5 % 61 % 17 % 12 %0% 50% 0% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 29% 75% 55% 71% 117% 64% 0% 35% 29% 57% 35% 0% 0% 0% 25 % 33 % 0%33 % 29 % 38 % 67 % 73 % 0%0%22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 108% Ha m i l t o n Av 42% 29% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0% 31%1000%0% 17% 64% 50% 25% 92% 90% 92% 35% 6% 47% 0% 0% 0% 21% 39 % 82 %0%0%36 % 15 % 31 % 17 %0%0% 33% 13%54% 19% 25% 69% 22% 75% 0%29 %0%25 % 22 % 50 % 50 % 67 % 41 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 0% 50%62%0% 0% 0% Me l v i l l e 0%100% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 21% 47% 53% 90%27%14% 14% 13% 0% 50% 14 % 22 %0%14 % 43 % 25 % 12 2 % 0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 46% 14% 47% 8%0% 0% 0% 52% Ke l l o g g 38% 0%0%0%27 % 25 %0%40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 50% Ad d i s o n 0% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 18 % 12% 27% 69% 31%0% 50 % 0%0%0% 225%70% 0% 0% 30 % Pa l o Alt o A 10 0 % 12 0 % 0% 0% 0% 0% Fulton 38% 0% 67% 91%0% Fulton St 92% 0% 0% 67 % 0%67 % 16 7 % 43 % 27 % 14 % 67 % 50 % 17 % 80 % 90 %6%23 %0% 29 % 0%0%0% 20 0 % 0% 0% 5/19/2016 13% 29% 200% 0% 13% 8% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0%Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t Av 21% Ly t t o n Av e 20% 0%15% Un i v e r s i t y Av 47% Ha m i l t o n Av 23% 36% 55% 0% 11%19% 38%8% 38 % 17 % 0%11 % 0% 0% 60% 56% Ha w t h o r n e Av 25% Ev e r e t t Av 47% Ly t t o n Av 33 % 14 % 0%29 % 33 % 12 2 % 50 0 % 0%0% 0% 0% 69% 0%0% 108% 58%10% Kipling 14% 11 8 % 0% 10 0 % 0% 60% Kipling St 53% 100% 69% 11 % 56 % 50 % 67 % 25 % 17 % 25 % 25% 64% 42 % 47 % 83 % 44 % 10 0 % 38 % 57 % 83 % 71 % 10 0 % 86 % 47 %0% 42 % 0% 47 % 88 % 57 % 86 % 74 % 60 % 0% 38 % 33 % 60 % 19 % 28% 57% 55 % 33 % 50 % 10 0 % 0% 29 % 64% 33 % 75 % 75 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 29 % Emerson St Emerson 71 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 60 % 38 % 12 9 % 0%55 %0% 115% 67% 76% 27% 90% 48 % Pa l o Alt o Av 63% 67% 100% 28% 72% 36% 94% 0% 56% 56% 50% 89% 129% 31% 100% 64% 77% 0% 22 5 % 50 % 17 % 25 % 38 % 10 0 % 20 % 50 % 63 %0% 50 % 15 % 33 % 75 % 75 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 29 % Alma St Alma4% 48 % Pa l o Alt o Av Downtown RPP Parking Occupancy Collection Date: June 30, 2016 City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 8 AM - 10 AM 27% 63 % 0% 0%0% 33 % 63 % 10 0 % 38 % 20 % 25 %0% 33 % 63 % 0% - 49% Parking Occupancy 80%54%31%20%69%82%81%33%75%30%50% - 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% - 100%+ Parking Occupancy75%70%25%38%100%125% 89 % 86 % 14%Legend 38 % 38 % 75 % 43 % 38 % 30 % 63 %0% 70 % 25 % 25 % 40 % 63 % 67 % 10 0 % 0% 10 0 % 38 % 63 % 60 % 44 % 10 % Ad d i s o n 73% 40 % 69%54%23%57%69%50%71%33%19%33%23% Lin c o l n 40% 56 % 50 % 11 % 43 % 38 %0% 0% Ramona St Ramona25%56%25%83%35%93%73%58% 0%37% Kin g s l e y 0% 28 % 33 % 60 % 38 %0%83 % 86 % 45 % 75 % 56 % 43 % 20 % 60 % 17%77%21%69%60%57%33% 38%0%44%7%0% Bryant St Bryant64% Ha w t h o r n e A v 43% Ev e r e t t A v 40% Ly t t o n A v 45% Un i v e r s i t y A v 63% Ha m i l t o n A v 25% Fo r e s t A v 80% Ho m e r A v 53% Ch a n n i n g A v 0% 25 %Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 31 % 13 % 11 % 0%64% 75% 56 %9%33 % 78 % 56 % 20%85%100%38%55%80%85% 59 % 77 % 63 % 33 % 39 % 24 % 35 % #D I V / 0 ! 67 % 6%67% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 8% 59%100%44%36%67%35%10%120%20%58%75%12%21%17% 29 % 42 % 72 % 0% 56%85%123%40%138%69%62%64%13%19% 90 % 33 % 10 0 % 89 % 75 % 39 % 44 % 29 %0% 50% 4% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 14%63%64%57%33%45%54%76%64%79%24%0%0%0% 25 % 60 % 0% 17 %0% 13 % 33 % 73 %0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 0% Ha m i l t o n A v 50%50% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%23%200%0%17% 0%30%75%77%50%75%59%59%40%0%0%0% 21% 39 % 41 % 12 0 % 13 6 % 79 % 62 % 56 % 83 % 76 % 18 % 0%44%77% 50% 25%69%22%75% 57 %0%11 %0% 17 % 61 % 44 % 56 % 12 % Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%40%69%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%86% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 29%53%53%80%27%71%43%88%75% 50% 15 7 % 0%11 % 14 %0%0%11 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 23%36%40%0%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 15 % 35 % 33 %0%19 % 47 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 64% Ad d i s o n 8% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 64 % 6%40%15%0%0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%60%40%0% 0% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 80 % 25%0% 8%0% Fulton 13%70%58%91%0% Fulton St 25% 0% 0% 33 % 33 % 33 % 0%14 % 0%57 % 22 % 38 % 50 % 87 % 12 0 % 61 % 54 % 36 % 29 % 0%0%0% 15 0 % 25 % 0% 6/30/2016 0%114%17%62%33%8%36%25%30%13%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 10% 38%46% Un i v e r s i t y A v 47% Ha m i l t o n A v 46%36%0%32% 44%63%23%0% 25 %4% 14 3 % 33 % 0% 12 % 0%33% Ha w t h o r n e A v 58% Ev e r e t t A v 47% Ly t t o n A v 50 % 14 % 29 % 29 % 11 % 11 % 0% 38 % 43 % 0%0% 54% 0%0% 33%58%30% Kipling 21% 45 % 57 % 33 % 0% 47% Kipling St 24%45%46% 11 % 33 % 33 % 33 %0% 30 % 25 % 25%73% 68 % 53 % 67 % 33 % 12 9 % 50 % 29 % 83 % 14 %0% 18 6 % 89 % 53 % 42 % 70 % 32 % 25 % 71 % 14 % 84 % 50 % 17 % 25 % 10 0 % 93 % 62 % 100%93% 36 % 89 % 25 % 78 % 4% 29 % 91% 0% 75 % 50 % 50 % 10 0 % 0% Emerson St Emerson 86 % 12 9 % 10 0 % 60 % 63 % 86 % 11 3 % 45 % 75 % 85%33%47% 80%30% 48 % Pa l o A l t o A v 69%75%46%33%100%93%65% 63 % 0% 31%7%0%29%75%100%64%0%0% 0%0% 33 % 63 % 10 0 % 38 % 20 % 25 %0% 33 % 38 % 38 % 0% 75 % 50 % 50 % 10 0 % 0% Alma St Alma4% 48 % Pa l o A l t o A v City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12 PM - 2 PM 18% 10 0 % 33% 0%0% 67 % 63 % 10 0 % 88 % 40 % 88 % 10 0 % 67 % 50 % 0% - 49% Parking Occupancy 80%77%100%80%100%94%81%133%100%0%50% - 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% - 100%+ Parking Occupancy92%100%63%92%100%100% 10 0 % 10 0 % 14%Legend 25 % 62 % 75 % 11 4 % 63 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 40 % 11 0 % 63 % 25 % 40 % 50 % 83 % 10 0 % 17 % 75 % 50 % 25 % 12 0 % 44 % 40 % Ad d i s o n 67% 40 % 106%92%92%57%106%93%100%92%31%67%0% Lin c o l n 40% 67 % 67 % 78 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 38% Ramona St Ramona42%75%75%100%82%93%93%100% 0%26% Kin g s l e y 25% 22 % 33 % 80 % 38 % 80 % 83 % 86 % 82 % 50 % 56 % 43 % 40 % 40 % 28%100%86%106%60%100%50% 75%0%44%0%25% Bryant St Bryant18% Ha w t h o r n e A v 50% Ev e r e t t A v 100% Ly t t o n A v 45% Un i v e r s i t y A v 63% Ha m i l t o n A v 75% Fo r e s t A v 87% Ho m e r A v 80% Ch a n n i n g A v 0% 25 %Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 31 %0% 79 % 100%82% 75% 33 % 10 0 % 56 % 89 % 67 % 20%0%75%75%100%60%100% 76 % 10 0 % 63 % 52 % 56 % 33 % 25 % #D I V / 0 ! 0% 18%0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 8% 59%125%89%100%100%106%30%110%47%67%69%35%5%17% 53 % 32 % 50 % 0% 78%100%131%60%162%69%54%50%47%31% 14 0 % 87 % 50 % 33 % 25 % 33 % 94 % 12 %0% 50% 4% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 21%100%36%71%67%91%92%29%57%43%35%0%0%0% 19 % 60 % 29 % 17 %0% 13 % 83 % 10 0 % 0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 85% Ha m i l t o n A v 83%50% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%0%0%0%17% 14%30%75%100%60%83%82%47%47%0%0%0% 21% 83 % 41 % 90 % 82 % 71 % 92 % 69 % 83 % 59 % 12 % 107%69%62% 6% 69%69%22%75% 0%14 % 11 % 25 % 22 % 67 % 67 % 78 % 82 % Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%30%77%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%100% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 57%60%93%80%27%100%29%88%75% 50% 29 % 11 % 11 %0%57 % 75 % 78 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 31%57%67%100%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 75 % 47 % 47 % 67 % 10 6 % 21 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 43% Ad d i s o n 8% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 18 % 6%40%69%92%0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%50%27%0% 5% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 20 % 33%0% 33%0% Fulton 25%60%50%100%0% Fulton St 58% 0% 0% 17 % 50 % 17 % 0%57 % 0%43 % 11 % 25 % 39 % 27 % 80 % 56 % 77 % 57 % 29 % 0%0%0% 12 5 % 0% 0% 6/30/2016 0%57%33%8%33%0%14%8%20%13%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 8% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 70% 54%54% Un i v e r s i t y A v 53% Ha m i l t o n A v 46%36%18%26% 33%63%23%50% 63 % 22 % 43 % 22 % 0% 0% 20%44% Ha w t h o r n e A v 67% Ev e r e t t A v 80% Ly t t o n A v 67 %0%29 % 43 % 11 % 56 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 57 % 0%0% 38% 0%0% 92%92%50% Kipling 29% 10 0 % 57 % 50 % 0% 60% Kipling St 71%100%100% 56 % 67 % 50 % 67 % 15 0 % 52 % 25 % 38%91% 42 % 60 % 10 0 % 56 % 12 9 % 25 % 57 % 83 % 71 % 86 % 10 0 % 95 % 89 % 63 % 70 % 47 % 10 0 % 43 % 86 % 84 % 50 % 0%75 % 10 0 % 93 % 90 % 117%100% 73 % 78 % 63 % 56 % 8% 53 % 82% 0% 75 % 50 % 10 0 % 75 % 86 % Emerson St Emerson 10 0 % 12 9 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 75 % 10 0 % 11 3 % 82 % 50 % 77%33%47% 80%90% 64 % Pa l o A l t o A v 81%75%100%78%100%100%88% 10 0 % 33% 69%57%89%71%81%100%64%62%25% 0%0% 67 % 63 % 10 0 % 88 % 40 % 88 % 10 0 % 67 % 25 % 62 % 0% 75 % 50 % 10 0 % 75 % 86 % Alma St Alma13% 64 % Pa l o A l t o A v City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 5 PM - 7 PM 36% 38 % 0% 10 0 % 0% 10 0 % 75 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 40 % 50 % 38 % 56 % 38 % 0% - 49% Parking Occupancy 80%54%115%110%100%94%106%56%100%40%50% - 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% - 100%+ Parking Occupancy58%90%63%100%100%108% 89 % 12 9 % 0%Legend 44 % 38 % 38 % 10 0 % 38 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 50 % 11 0 % 50 % 50 % 10 0 % 75 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 50 % 10 0 % 63 % 25 % 30 % 67 % 40 % Ad d i s o n 67% 10 0 % 69%77%108%107%106%71%107%108%13%17%8% Lin c o l n 27% 67 % 50 % 67 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 0% Ramona St Ramona58%88%69%142%94%107%87%25% 0%16% Kin g s l e y 50% 39 % 17 % 80 % 25 % 90 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 9 % 10 0 % 78 % 43 % 20 % 70 % 39%115%93%106%320%43%22% 81%0%44%13%33% Bryant St Bryant50% Ha w t h o r n e A v 29% Ev e r e t t A v 50% Ly t t o n A v 73% Un i v e r s i t y A v 88% Ha m i l t o n A v 25% Fo r e s t A v 80% Ho m e r A v 67% Ch a n n i n g A v 0% 19 %Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 46 % 33 % 26 % 71%64% 75% 78 % 10 0 % 78 % 10 0 % 44 % 20%65%50%50%73%120%100% 65 % 69 % 38 % 29 %6%10 % 15 % #D I V / 0 ! 0% 6%83% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 8% 35%125%67%73%100%112%10%100%13%42%44%29%32%0% 35 % 32 % 50 % 0% 72%69%123%87%154%62%62%71%20%6% 15 0 % 60 % 50 % 11 1 % 25 % 39 % 67 % 12 %0% 50% 0% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 29%50%45%64%100%73%85%41%7%64%29%0%0%0% 13 % 27 % 14 % 17 %0% 38 %0% 73 %0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 54% Ha m i l t o n A v 67%50% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%15%0%0%17% 21%10%58%92%50%50%47%53%53%0%0%0% 21% 50 % 35 % 11 0 % 10 0 % 71 % 46 % 63 % 58 % 82 % 6% 0%31%69% 56% 19%69%22%75% 0%0%0%0% 6%44 % 17 % 56 % 29 % Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%40%46%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%71% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 57%27%47%50%27%7%36%38%75% 50% 0%0%0%14 % 43 %0%33 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 31%43%47%69%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 30 % 53 % 27 % 53 % 38 % 26 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 50% Ad d i s o n 15% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 27 % 24%27%38%23%0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%70%27%0% 5% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 0% 17%0% 17%0% Fulton 8%70%58%36%0% Fulton St 67% 0% 0% 33 % 50 % 33 % 17 % 14 % 0%43 % 78 % 38 % 33 % 80 %0%39 % 54 % 50 % 29 % 0%0%0% 10 0 % 63 % 0% 6/30/2016 0%114%17%15%33%17%50%17%40%13%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 12% Ev e r e t t A v 14% Ly t t o n A v e 60% 77%46% Un i v e r s i t y A v 47% Ha m i l t o n A v 23%27%0%11% 17%50%38%58% 0%22 % 57 % 22 % 0% 0% 0%56% Ha w t h o r n e A v 50% Ev e r e t t A v 60% Ly t t o n A v 50 % 14 % 43 % 71 % 11 % 67 % 50 % 13 % 10 0 % 0%0% 38% 0%0% 75%92%70% Kipling 36% 64 % 57 % 50 % 0% 60% Kipling St 65%64%92% 22 % 44 % 17 % 83 % 12 5 % 30 % 35 % 38%73% 74 % 53 % 83 % 44 % 15 7 % 25 % 14 % 50 % 71 % 10 0 % 71 % 63 % 42 % 26 % 90 % 21 % 38 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 84 % 11 0 % 50 % 75 % 11 7 % 20 % 67 % 111%79% 73 % 78 %0%89 % 17 % 35 % 100% 10 0 % 88 % 75 % 10 0 % 12 5 % 0% Emerson St Emerson 12 9 % 15 7 % 11 3 % 80 % 75 % 11 4 % 13 8 % 10 9 % 10 0 % 100%33%29% 107%30% 36 % Pa l o A l t o A v 50%42%85%61%94%129%100% 38 % 0% 50%50%78%100%69%100%64%0%0% 10 0 % 0% 10 0 % 75 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 40 % 50 % 38 % 56 % 44 % 38 % 10 0 % 88 % 75 % 10 0 % 12 5 % 0% Alma St Alma9% 36 % Pa l o A l t o A v City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12 PM - 2 PM 0%0%29% 0%10% 24 % Pa l o A l t o A v 13%50%8%0%6%0%0% 18 % 22 % 50 % 22 % 0% 6% 45% 0% 25 %0%0%0%0% Emerson St Emerson 0%0%0%20 % 50 % 57 % 38 %0%0% 0% 11 %0% 0%0% 5%0% 0%13 % 50 % 40 % 29 % 0%29% 0% 0%27% 26 % 20 % 0%0%0% 13 % 29 % 67 %0%0%0% 5%16 %5% 23% 0%0% 25%0%30% Kipling 14% 18 % 29 % 17 % 0% 27% Kipling St 0%27%0% 0%11 % 17 %0%0% 4% 38 % 13 %0%22 % 0% 0% 0%44% Ha w t h o r n e A v 42% Ev e r e t t A v 13% Ly t t o n A v 33 %0%29 % 43 % 11 % 0% 0% 13 % 21 % 0%0% 10%0%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 10% 31%31% Un i v e r s i t y A v 47% Ha m i l t o n A v 15%27%9%16% 33%25%23%25% 6/30/2016 0%57%0%8%20%0%14%0% 0% 0% 0%50 % 0%0%0%0%29 % 11 % 25 % 22 %7%10 %0%8%36 % 29 % 0%0%0% 25 %0% 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%0%7%0% 5% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 0% 8%0% 0%0% Fulton 21%40%25%45%0% Fulton St 25% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 0% Ad d i s o n 0% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 18 % 6%27%31%0%0% 44 % 8%50%13%0%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 40 % 24 % 13 %7%13 %0%40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 14 % 11 % 11 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 43%33%20%0%27%0%14%13%31% 6% 25%69%22%75% 0%14 %0%0% 22 % 28 % 22 % 0% 6% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%30%0%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%0%21% 0%0%40 % 0%29 % 0%31 % 50 % 12 % 0% 40%0%15%23% Ha m i l t o n A v 42%14% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%0%0%0%17% 7%10%33%31%0%8%6%12%20%0%0%0% 0% 17 %0% 13 %0%0%0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 0% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 21%0%27%43%8%18%0%12%36%14%24%0%0%0% 13 % 27 %0% 22%15%8%0%0%23%46%0%13%13% 70 % 53 % 25 % 11 %0% 17 % 33 %6%0% 12%0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 4% 18%50%44%9%7%0%0%60%7%8%13%12%0%17% 6%11 % 28 % 12 % 15 % 38 % 29 % 39 % 19 % 20 % #D I V / 0 ! 0%0%Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 8%0% 21 % 0%0% 0% 0%0%0%67 % 56 % 20%0%50%13%9%0%0%13%0%44%0%17% Bryant St Bryant9% Ha w t h o r n e A v 0% Ev e r e t t A v 20% Ly t t o n A v 0% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0% Ha m i l t o n A v 0% Fo r e s t A v 13% Ho m e r A v 27% Ch a n n i n g A v 0%0%26% Kin g s l e y 25% 6% 17 % 20 % 13 %0%0%0%0%0%44 % 43 % 40 % 20 % 6%38%0%0%20%50%33%19% Ramona St Ramona8%19%0%0%0%7%20%33% 11 % 10 % Ad d i s o n 33% 0% 6%23%15%0%0%0%0%0%0%11%0% Lin c o l n 33% 33 % 33 % 11 %0%0%0%0%0% 7%Legend 13 %8% 38 % 43 %0%0%0%0% 10 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 25 % 13 % 20 % 50 % 0% - 25% Parking Occupancy 7%15%0%0%0%0%6%0%42%0%25% - 50% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 50%+ Parking Occupancy17%50%0%0%7%0% 0% 50 % 11% 0%0%0% 13 %0%0%0%0%0% 33 % Alma St Alma0% 24 % Pa l o A l t o A v 0% 25 %0%0%0%0% 13 %8% 50 % 11% 6%0%0%0%0%100%64%0%8% 0%0%0% 13 %0%0%0%0%0% 33 % Resident Permits City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12 PM - 2 PM 0%8%18% 0%0% 12 % Pa l o A l t o A v 69%8%31%0%0%0%0% 27 %0%13 % 11 % 4% 12 % 18% 0%0% 13 %0%0% 14 % Emerson St Emerson 0%0%0%20 % 13 % 43 % 38 %9%0% 0% 5%0% 0%0% 0%0% 0%0% 33 %7%38 % 0%36% 0% 13%36% 0%0% 0%0%0% 0%0%0%0%0%0% 5%0%0% 0% 0%0% 8%0%0% Kipling 0% 0%14 %0% 0% 7% Kipling St 18%18%0% 0%11 %0%0%0% 17 % 0%0%14 %0% 0% 0% 0%0% Ha w t h o r n e A v 0% Ev e r e t t A v 40% Ly t t o n A v 0%0%0%0%0% 0% 10 0 % 25 % 14 % 0%0% 0%0%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 0% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 40% 0%0% Un i v e r s i t y A v 7% Ha m i l t o n A v 8%0%0%0% 0%25%0%0% 6/30/2016 0%0%0%0%7%0%0%0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 6%0%10 % 17 % 38 %0% 29 % 0%0%0% 0%0% 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%30%0%0% 0% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 0% 0%0% 0%0% Fulton 0%0%17%27%0% Fulton St 17% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 14% Ad d i s o n 0% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 0% 0%0%0%62%0% 44 % 0%0%20%69%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 25 %6%7%33 % 50 %0%40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 0%0%0%0%14 % 25 % 22 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 0%0%60%10%27%14%0%31%19% 0% 25%69%22%75% 0%0%0%13 % 0%6%11 % 0% 0% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%0%0%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%0%21% 0%0%10 % 18 % 7%15 % 6%8%0%0% 13%44%23%15% Ha m i l t o n A v 8%0% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%0%0%0%17% 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%24%7%0%0%0% 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 0% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 0%13%9%0%0%0%0%12%7%0%0%0%0%0% 0%0%0% 33%15%8%0%0%38%0%7%7%0% 10 %7%13 % 0%0% 6%17 %0%0% 0%0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 0% 41%0%22%9%0%0%0%40%7%25%50%0%0%0% 12 %0%0%24 % 31 % 13 % 0%6%5%0% #D I V / 0 ! 0%0%Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 0%0% 32 % 0%0% 0% 0%0%0%11 %0% 20%0%0%0%18%0%0%25%0%44%0%0% Bryant St Bryant5% Ha w t h o r n e A v 7% Ev e r e t t A v 20% Ly t t o n A v 0% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0% Ha m i l t o n A v 0% Fo r e s t A v 20% Ho m e r A v 20% Ch a n n i n g A v 0%0%0% Kin g s l e y 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%0%9%0%0%0%0% 0%0%15%0%0%0%36%6%6% Ramona St Ramona0%25%0%0%0%40%7%58% 0%10 % Ad d i s o n 0% 0% 75%15%23%0%0%0%7%0%0%28%0% Lin c o l n 7% 0%0%11 %0%0%0%0%0% 0%Legend 0%0% 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 25 % 13 % 50 %0%0% - 25% Parking Occupancy 7%15%0%0%0%0%0%0%42%0%25% - 50% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 50%+ Parking Occupancy42%10%0%0%0%0% 0% 25 % 11% 0%0%0%0% 13 %0%0%0%0%0% Alma St Alma4% 12 % Pa l o A l t o A v 0%0% 13 %0%0% 14 % 0%0% 25 % 11% 44%0%11%0%0%100%64%0%17% 0%0%0%0% 13 %0%0%0%0%0% Employee Permits City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12 PM - 2 PM 77%25%0% 80%80% Alma St Alma9% 20 % Pa l o A l t o A v 0%17%54%78%94%100%88% 27 % 56 %0%22 % 4% 35 % 18% 0% 38 % 38 % 10 0 % 75 % 71 % Emerson St Emerson 10 0 % 12 9 % 10 0 % 60 % 13 %0%38 % 73 % 50 % 70 % 32 % 10 0 % 43 % 86 % 74 % 50 % ## # # # 63 % 17 % 47 % 24 % 117%36% 25 % 25%27% 16 % 40 % 10 0 % 56 % 12 9 % 13 % 29 % 17 % 71 % 86 % 10 0 % 84 % 74 % 58 % 15% 0%0% 42%92%20% Kipling 14% 82 % 14 % 33 % 0% 27% Kipling St 53%36%100% 56 % 44 % 33 % 67 % 15 0 % 30 % 25 %9%29 %0% 0% 0% 20%0% Ha w t h o r n e A v 17% Ev e r e t t A v 20% Ly t t o n A v 33 %0%0%0%0% 56 % 0% 63 % 21 % 0%0% 10%13%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 20% 23%23% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0% Ha m i l t o n A v 23%9%9%11% 0%13%0%25% 6/30/2016 0%0%33%0%7%0%0%8% 0% 0% 17 % 0%17 % 0%57 % 0%14 % 0%0% 11 % 20 % 60 % 33 % 31 % 21 % 29 % 0%0%0% 10 0 % 0% 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%20%20%0% 0% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 20 % 25%0% 33%0% Fulton 4%20%8%27%0% Fulton St 17% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 29% Ad d i s o n 8% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 0% 0%7%31%31%0% 44 % 23%7%33%31%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 10 % 18 % 27 % 20 % 44 % 21 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 14 %0%0%0%43 % 50 % 56 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 7%27%13%70%27%71%14%44%25% 0% 19%69%22%75% 0%0%11 % 13 % 0%17 % 33 % 78 % 76 % Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%0%77%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%86%21% 83 % 41 % 40 % 64 % 36 % 62 % 31 % 25 % 47 % 12 % 53%25%23%46% Ha m i l t o n A v 33%36% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%0%0%0%17% 7%20%25%38%60%75%76%12%20%0%0%0% 29 %0%0%0% 83 % 91 %0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 4% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 0%88%0%29%58%73%92%6%14%29%12%0%0%0% 6%33 %0% 22%54%115%60%162%8%8%43%27%19% 60 % 27 % 13 % 22 % 25 % 11 % 44 %6%0% 6%0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 4% 0%75%22%55%93%106%30%10%33%33%0%24%5%0% 35 % 21 % 22 % 41 % 54 % 13 % 24 % 11 % 10 %5% #V A L U E ! 0%25 %Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 23 %0% 21 % 100%82% 75% 33 % 10 0 % 56 % 11 % 11 % 20%0%25%63%64%60%100%38%#VALUE!44%0%8% Bryant St Bryant5% Ha w t h o r n e A v 43% Ev e r e t t A v 50% Ly t t o n A v 45% Un i v e r s i t y A v 63% Ha m i l t o n A v 75% Fo r e s t A v 53% Ho m e r A v 33% Ch a n n i n g A v #VALUE!#VALUE!0% Kin g s l e y 0% 17 % 17 % 60 % 25 % 80 % 83 % 86 % 73 % 50 % 11 %0%0% 20 % 22%31%86%106%40%14%11%13% Ramona St Ramona33%13%75%100%82%47%67%8% 33 % 20 % Ad d i s o n 33% 40 % 25%54%31%57%106%93%93%92%31%28%0% Lin c o l n 0% 33 % 33 % 56 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 89 % 10 0 % 7%Legend 13 % 54 % 38 % 71 % 63 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 40 % 10 0 % 63 % 25 % 40 % 50 % 83 % 10 0 % 17 % 75 %0%0% 50 %0%0% - 25% Parking Occupancy 67%38%100%70%100%94%75%133%17%0%25% - 50% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 50%+ Parking Occupancy25%30%63%92%93%100% 18% 25 % 11% 19%57%78%71%81%100%64%62%0% 0%0% 67 % 50 % 88 % 88 % 40 % 88 % 10 0 % 33 % No Permits City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/11/2016 8:02 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Karen Machado <karen.machado@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Request to Pull Downtown RPP Report from Consent Calendar Dear City Council, I am writing to support citizens who live in and adjacent to the Downtown RPP district, I ask that Item 11 Update of Status of RPP be pulled off of the August 15 Consent Calendar. Citizens have serious concerns about the Downtown RPP and it is time for staff to listen to them and make substantive changes rather than continuing to inaccurately state that the Downtown RPP is a successful model for use in the rest of the city. I ask the council to pull the consent calendar with the follow conditions: 1. to adopt the staff proposed Resolution (Attachment A), expanding the boundary of the Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 eligibility area originally established by Resolution 9577 2. to direct staff to schedule RPP for Council discussion within the next 30 days with emphasis on discussing 5 issues below and give staff direction to address other citizen concerns and report back to Council not later than Dec 15. Thank you for your attention to my request. Best regards, Karen Machado 363 Stanford Ave Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/11/2016 8:42 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Chi-Kwan Yen <chikwanyen@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Regarding:Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 update" (Item 11*) Dear city council members, As a resident in Crescent Park, I request that this item be pulled from the consent calendar for the 08/15/2016 to allow for further considerations and discussion. Chi-kwan Yen Guinda and Hamilton City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2016 4:55 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net> Sent:Friday, August 12, 2016 3:09 PM To:Council, City Cc:Norman Beamer Subject:Aug 15 City Council Meeting-- Downtown Residential Parking Program (Item 11 Consent Calendar) Hello City Council Members, I respectfully request that City Council take the following two actions regarding Item 11* on the 8/15/16 Consent Calendar: 1) Pull Item 11 for discussion at a future council meeting with the exception of the following item 2). 2) Approve Attachment A from Item 11 to add the two blocks in Crescent Park (500 Hale and 800 Palo Alto Ave.) to the Downtown RPP district. *Item 11 on the Consent Calendar: Acceptance of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 Status Update and Adoption of a Resolution 3 August 15, 2016 Amending the Eligibility Area for the Program as Directed by the City Council Thank you, Mary Dimit University Ave. and Guinda St. in Crescent Park City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2016 4:55 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Malcolm Roy Beasley <beasley@stanford.edu> Sent:Friday, August 12, 2016 9:19 AM To:Council, City Cc:Malcolm Roy Beasley Subject:Pull RPP report off the consent calendar I support the request to pull the report off the consent calendar. There are too many unresolved issues in RPP for which staff needs instruction from the Council. Mac Beasley DTN Resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2016 4:55 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Jan Merryweather <jan@hamilton.com> Sent:Friday, August 12, 2016 8:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Remove RPP from Consent Calendar (please) Dear Council Leaders, I am writing as a resident of Downtown North, and request that Item 11 Update of Status of RPP be pulled OFF of the August 15 Consent Calendar. Thank you for your consideration. Jan Merryweather (477 Everett Ave, Palo Alto 94301) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2016 4:55 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2016 5:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:RPP Dear Council Members: Please take the RPP off the consent calendar for the upcoming Council meeting on Monday, 8/15. This is an issue of great concern for many residents. It deserves to receive more attention and discussion and should not be assented to as it currently stands. Beth Rosenthal, Ph.D. Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2016 4:55 PM 5 Carnahan, David From:J. Robert Taylor <btaylor@taylorproperties.com> Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:RPP I request that the "Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 Status Update" (Item 11*) be pulled from their consent calendar at this Monday's (8/15/16) City Council meeting so it can be discussed more fully at a future council meeting. J. Robert Taylor 480 Marlowe St City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2016 4:55 PM 6 Carnahan, David From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2016 3:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Downtown RPPP on 8/1516 consent calendar Please pull the RPPP for downtown, item 11, off the consent calendar. Although staff repeatedly says this is a successful program that can be used for the rest of the City, a closer inspection clearly indicates otherwise. Staff has indicated using an 85% level of parking in neighborhoods is acceptable therefore turning neighborhoods into commercial parking lots. Is this what council intended? The boundary for the RPPP is huge. It is clear staff intends to park as many cars as needed in neighborhoods, in order to accommodate all the vehicles generated from their serially approved under parked projects. Is this the council's intention? TDMs to date are mere fantasy. Council should ask staff for a current list of all the city's TDMs and how staff is monitoring the program's effectiveness citywide. The Council may find no such records exist or they will be woefully inadequate. Council should also inquire how staff enforces the agreed upon provisions of TDMs. It must be recalled that numerous projects have been approved by staff because of the supposed effectiveness of TDMs. There are many questions about the downtown RPPPP. Clearly the downtown RPPP should be pulled form the consent calendar. Thank You Paul Machado City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2016 4:55 PM 8 Carnahan, David From:Linda Anderson <andersonlinda911@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2016 9:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:RPP-Consent Calendar Please pull RPP from the consent calendar to allow the Council to discuss residents' concerns. Thank you, Linda Anderson 401 Webster St. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/15/2016 8:11 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Deanna Dickman <deannadickman@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 14, 2016 7:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:RPP Please pull the Parking Permit program from the consent calendar. Improvements to the program need to be made and the Council needs to hear resident concerns. Thank you. Deanna Dickman 940 Bryant Street Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/15/2016 8:14 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:45 AM To:Janine Bishar; Irv Brenner; Emanuela Todaro; Dante Malagrino; Debbie Wolter; Deri McCrea; Vincent Leung; Vita Gorbunova; Marion Odell; Ana Carvalho; Sara Jablon Moked; Sara Woodham; Linda Anderson; Joe Baldwin; Joe Hirsch; Furman, Sheri; Cheryl Lilienstein; Diana Alvarez Kaba; Tim Knuth; Kathy Gmail; Lauren Burton; Doug Greene; Bruce Heister; Nancy Adler; Richard Alexander; Maureen Brennan; Paul Karol; Murray Newlands; Yvonne Gu; Theresa Davis; Mark Nanevicz; Mark Weiss; Ben Lerner; John Erving; Kristine Erving; Sally-Ann Rudd; Ronjon Nag; D. Michael Griffin; Malcolm Beasley; Sara Woodham; Ross Bright; Joan Donovan; David Cronwall; Jan Merryweather; Ted Davids; Suzanne Keehn Cc:Council, City Subject:Fw: Request to pull RPP Report off the consent calendar Attachments:Attachment A COPA Parked Vehicle Map May 19, 2016.pdf; Attachment B Original Parking Zones with Capacity and Non-Resident Permit Limits.pdf; Attachment C Residents Updated Map for Zones 8 and 9.pdf; Attachment D Non-Resident Permit Parking Loads on Zones.pdf Neighbors in DTN and DTS need your help. Our permit parking program must be improved. Below is an important, detailed request sent to City Council for their action. The Council does not have to take action unless residents speak up. You can help! with very little effort! #1 Send an email to city council city.council@cityofpaloalto.org and ask Council to pull permit parking off of the consent calendar. This allow the Council to discuss residents' concerns. Here are the three major reasons that RPP needs improvement. Resolution to improve RPP is urgent and must not be delayed Quality standard of 80% is long overdue Mal-distribution of parked vehicles has not been recognized or resolved. Too many streets are saturated with parked vehicles during the workday. #2 If possible, please attend the Council meeting on Monday, Aug 15. We need "bodies" in Council Chambers to show support. You will not have to say anything, just stand up when requested. Arrive at 620pm and you should be able to go home by 640 or 700pm. Thanks! Email me if you have questions. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/15/2016 8:15 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:David H. Weibel <Weibel@smwlaw.com> Sent:Friday, August 12, 2016 2:41 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; City Attorney; Gitelman, Hillary; Catherine C. Engberg; Laura D. Beaton Subject:Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 - 8/15/16 City Council Meeting Attachments:Ltr to Palo Alto City Council with exhibits - 8-12-16.PDF Council Members: Please see attached a letter to the Council with exhibits from Laura Beaton of this office. Please let me know if you have any difficulty accessing the attached file. Thank you, David Weibel Legal Secretary Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4421 v: 415/552-7272 x. 234 f: 415/552-5816 www.smwlaw.com Please consider the environment before printing this e‐mail or attachments. 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com CATHERINE C. ENGBERG Attorney engberg@smwlaw.com August 12, 2016 Via Electronic Mail City Council of the City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 Status Update – August 15, 2016 City Council Meeting, Consent Calendar Dear Council Members: This firm represents Neilson Buchanan regarding the City of Palo Alto’s implementation of Phase 2 of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District pilot program. We have provided comments throughout development and implementation of the RPP Program, and we provide comments here on the RPP Phase 2 Status Update that the Council is scheduled to consider at its August 15 meeting. Specifically, we outline here the continued shortcomings of the existing Program, which are highlighted by the Phase 2 Status Update, and we encourage the City Council to direct staff to make improvements to the Downtown RPP Program to ensure it complies with the State’s Vehicle Code. As we explained in our February 1, 2016 letter to the City Council, attached as Exhibit A, the Vehicle Code allows cities to adopt preferential parking programs to allow residents and merchants and their guests permitted parking on adjacent streets. Veh. Code § 22507(a); see also February 19, 2016 letter to City Council, attached as Exhibit B. The Code allows a city to issue parking permits to members of other groups only as long as use of those permits “will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area.” Id. § 22507(b) (emphasis added). This narrow grant of local control allows a city to protect its residents’ and merchants’ ability to park near their homes and establishments. City Council of the City of Palo Alto August 12, 2016 Page 2 To comply with the Vehicle Code, the City must ensure that the Downtown RPP does not adversely impact residents’ and merchants’ abilities to park reasonably near their homes and businesses. In order to do this, the City must adequately monitor implementation of the Downtown RPP and adapt it management as required to avoid adverse impacts to residential neighborhood parking conditions. Accordingly, we offer the following recommendations to the City to ensure the Downtown RPP Program operates in accordance with state law. 1. The City must measure impacts to neighborhoods by a more conservative standard. We disagree that it is appropriate to gauge acceptable parking saturation of residential neighborhoods based on 85% occupancy, as the City does here. Staff Report at 5. The 85% occupancy level is generally used as the benchmark for whether an area of parking is “saturated” or at “practical capacity”—that is, when parking is not easily found, resulting in driver frustration and excess traffic as drivers “cruise” for parking. At 85% “practical capacity,” parking is essentially full. The City should not use the highest cutoff for when lack of parking makes conditions measurably worse as the benchmark for appropriate levels of parking in residential neighborhoods. Instead, the City should adopt a more conservative 80% occupancy level mid-day as the measure of whether parking conditions in the Downtown residential neighborhoods are acceptable. When parking occupancy on residential streets get as high as 85% and parking cannot easily be found by the neighborhood’s residents, parking conditions are certainly “adversely affected,” in violation of Vehicle Code section 22507(b). 2. The City needs more data to support its conclusion that parking conditions closest to Downtown have improved. As the Staff Report notes, Phase 2 introduced employee parking zones, which are designed to distribute non-resident parking more equitably throughout the residential neighborhoods surrounding Downtown. Staff Report at 4. The Staff Report claims that “[i]mprovements in the streets immediately adjacent to the Downtown core and SOFA areas are apparent, indicating that . . . vehicles are not clustering on the streets nearest to the Downtown core and SOFA with as much frequency.” Staff Report at 5. The data provided in the Staff Report bely this claim. Attachment E to the Staff Report provides results of Downtown parking surveys conducted before and after Phase 2 was implemented. First, as can be seen in the survey for 12 – 2 p.m. on March 24, 2016, before Phase 2 was implemented, the residential blocks closest to the City Council of the City of Palo Alto August 12, 2016 Page 3 Downtown commercial core almost all have a parking saturation of over 85% (marked in red), while streets farther away are much less saturated (marked in yellow and green). Next, the Staff Report provides data from when Phase 2 was in effect. For example, for the same time period (12 – 2 p.m.) on May 19, 2016, with Phase 2 in effect, parking conditions in the neighborhoods around Downtown have actually gotten worse. While the Downtown commercial core and SOFA were only lightly parked1 (mostly green), the residential neighborhoods on all sides of the Downtown commercial core are more saturated with parking than they were in the March 24 survey, before the City implemented Phase 2. The survey data indicate that the impact of allowing employee parking in the RPP is that employees are no longer parking in Downtown—with its enforced two-hour street-parking limit that requires employees to move their cars multiple times per day—and instead they are purchasing permits and parking in the residential neighborhoods, to those neighborhoods’ detriment. The survey data from 12 – 2 p.m. on June 30, 2016 shows slightly better parking conditions in the neighborhoods—and significantly more parking saturation in the Downtown commercial core—than the May survey. However, June 30 was the Thursday before a long holiday weekend (Fourth of July), when many people were likely taking off work and traveling, and is unlikely to serve as an accurate representation of parking conditions in and around Downtown generally. Further, it is our understanding that extensive sewer repair work is being conducted in RPP Zones 5 – 8, resulting in temporary parking prohibitions on some streets, which may further distort the accuracy of these recent parking surveys. In light of these inconsistencies in the survey data and factors undermining the likelihood that the surveys are representative of actual conditions, the City should conduct further surveys before making any conclusions about any “improvements” resulting from Phase 2. Notably, the Staff Report provides no explanation of why conditions might be so different on the May and June dates. Nor does the Staff Report attempt to explain the degraded conditions observed on May 19. With such disparity, a single day’s data cannot alone serve to establish the effectiveness of Phase 2. The City Council should direct staff to conduct further parking occupancy surveys, including on 1 The Status Update’s comment that “[h]igh occupancies [of parking] were noted throughout” the Downtown core during the surveys conflicts with the data from May 19, which shows Downtown’s streets virtually devoid of parked cars. See Staff Report, Attachment E. City Council of the City of Palo Alto August 12, 2016 Page 4 different days of the week (not just Thursdays), and when there are no parking disturbances like sewer construction, to determine whether the RPP is adversely affecting parking conditions in Downtown residential neighborhoods. In any case, both the May and June data show that many of the residential streets nearest the Downtown commercial core have shown little improvement since the City implemented Phase 2. The blocks closest to the commercial area—like Kipling, Waverley, Bryant, Ramona, and High between Everett and Lytton—remain saturated with parking on both dates, despite the RPP’s promise to better distribute parking throughout the neighborhoods. 3. The RPP’s boundaries cannot continue to expand beyond areas “adjacent” to the Downtown commercial core. The City proposes to expand the Downtown RPP Program eligibility area to incorporate streets in Crescent Park, instead of considering a residents-only RPP for that area, which is far afield of Downtown. As we explained in our February 1, 2016 letter (pages 3-4), the size of the Downtown RPP is far beyond what the Vehicle Code contemplates. The employee permits allowed under the RPP allow employees to park as far as one mile away from the Downtown commercial core, which is not “adjacent” to Downtown, where the employees work. See Veh. Code § 22507(a) (allowing permit parking for those living or working adjacent to streets under RPP). Specifically, the Vehicle Code’s adjacency requirement allows those who live or work “in the impacted area to park anywhere within the area.” Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 804, 811 (emphases added). But, as the City’s own surveys show, both before and after Phase 2 was implemented, many of the areas included in the Downtown RPP—especially zones 8 and 9—are apparently not impacted by Downtown’s parking problems, having very low parking occupancy throughout the day. Those neighborhoods have not been impacted by parking difficulties in the first place, and the Vehicle Code’s RPP provision does not intend that such neighborhoods be used as a relief valve for parking in impacted areas by directing employees to park there. 4. The City must implement a comprehensive program to manage parking. The Staff Report provides no discussion of any other measures the City is taking to mitigate parking impacts to the neighborhoods and manage parking demand. For example, as Mr. Buchanan has noted to the City, valet parking at Downtown parking garages has been discontinued or never began. The Downtown RPP employee-permit program cannot be the dominant source of parking for Downtown workers, at the expense of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The City Council should request that staff City Council of the City of Palo Alto August 12, 2016 Page 5 augment the Downtown RPP Status Update to explain other measures that the City is taking to alleviate parking impacts on Downtown neighborhoods. And in particular, the City must ensure that the Transportation Management Association is adequately funded, so it can continue to encourage transportation options that will avoid exacerbating parking problems. Further, we reiterate here our point in our February 1 letter that the RPP Program would be more in-line with the Vehicle Code’s requirements if it allowed a business’s employees access to RPP permits only after the business shows that it has taken other measures to reduce its employees’ parking demand. See Exhibit A at 10. 5. The City must adhere to the annual permit reduction requirements. We request that the City Council ask staff to provide an update on whether the City remain on-track to reduce the number of employee permits issued each year by 200. Specifically, what efforts has the City made to accommodate or reduce parking demand around Downtown, which will pave the way for a reduction in use of the residential neighborhoods as employee parking lots? 6. Implementation of Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP demonstrates that the RPP is not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. As noted in the Staff Report, the City’s Comprehensive Plan requires that the City “[p]rotect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts.” Staff Report at 6 (quoting Comprehensive Plan Policy T-47). The Comprehensive Plan further instructs that the City should “[d]iscourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods.” Comprehensive Plan Program T-53. As it stands, the Downtown RPP is not doing what the Comprehensive Plan requires. Instead of protecting residential areas from businesses’ parking impacts, as the Comprehensive Plan and Vehicle Code require, the Downtown RPP is exporting Downtown’s parking woes to residential neighborhoods. * * * City Council of the City of Palo Alto August 12, 2016 Page 6 Finally, the City continues to lack support for its conclusion that the Downtown RPP Program qualifies for a categorical exemption under CEQA. As we explained in our February 1, 2016 letter, the exemptions the City claims, see Staff Report at 6, do not apply in a situation like the one here, where the City is increasing non- resident parking in the residential neighborhoods, via an inherently unusual program. See Exhibit A. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Catherine C. Engberg Laura D. Beaton Encls. cc: City Clerk (city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org) Molly S. Stump, City Attorney (city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org) Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director (hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org) 809870.2 EXHIBIT A 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com CATHERINE C. ENGBERG Attorney engberg@smwlaw.com February 1, 2016 Via Electronic Mail City Council of the City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Ordinance and Resolution for Citywide and Downtown RPP February 1, 2016 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12 Dear Council Members: This firm represents Neilson Buchanan and the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association regarding the City of Palo Alto’s proposal for implementing Phase 2 of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District pilot program. Our clients’ concerns regarding Phase 2 are representative of those of a larger coalition of residents. Our clients and other residents are generally supportive of the City’s efforts to create a workable preferential parking program for the neighborhoods surrounding Downtown. However, the City should ensure that Phase 2 complies with state law and protects residents of the neighborhoods from suffering adverse parking conditions created by the business permitting program. Notably, the proposed Phase 2 would bring Downtown business parking into neighborhoods that have never experienced non- residential parking demands. Mr. Buchanan and the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association urge the City Council to restructure Phase 2, as outlined below, to ensure the Downtown RPP protects residents from adverse parking conditions, as required by California Vehicle Code section 22507. I. Executive Summary We recommend the following changes to Phase 2 to protect residents in Downtown neighborhoods, while ensuring the City’s compliance with Vehicle Code section 22507 and the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.: Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 2 (1) Limit employee-permit parking to neighborhoods closer to the Downtown commercial core. East of Guinda Street and south of Lincoln Avenue should be resident parking only because they are not “adjacent to” the Downtown commercial core. See Veh. Code § 22507(a). (2) Explicitly provide that the number of available employee permits will be reduced by 200 permits, or at least 10%, annually. (3) Define monitoring and adaptive management requirements for Phase 2 to ensure there is no “adverse” impact—especially mal-distribution and saturation—on parking conditions for residents and merchants. See Veh. Code § 22507(b). (4) Eliminate or place strict eligibility controls on daily permits and scratcher permits available to businesses. (5) Require that at least half of the employee-parking permits be distributed to merchant employees. (6) Require businesses to take affirmative measures, including funding, to reduce (i.e., mitigate) their parking demand. By adopting these changes to Phase 2, the City Council will ensure that the Downtown RPP complies with state law and will take a major step toward a parking solution that works for all of Palo Alto. II. The Vehicle Code Provides a Narrow Grant of Authority to Implement the RPP Program. City streets are regulated by the State of California, but the Legislature has carved out an exception to allow local control over parking. At issue here, the Vehicle Code provides that: • Cities may adopt preferential parking programs that designate “certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges are given to residents and merchants adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their guests[.]” Veh. Code § 22507(a) (emphasis added). Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 3 • Parking permits may also be issued to “members of . . . designated groups,” like school personnel, but only so long as use of those permits “will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area.” Id. § 22507(b) (emphasis added). The clear intent of this narrow grant of local control is to protect residents’ and merchants’ ability to park near their homes and establishments. The City’s proposal, however, fails to require “adjacency” under subsection (a) and further fails to protect residents from “adverse effects” under subsection (b). III. The RPP Program Would Authorize Non-Merchant Employees to Park in Far Flung Areas That Are Not Adjacent to the Downtown Commercial Core, in Violation of the Vehicle Code. The RPP Program would issue up to 2,000 parking permits plus unlimited daily permits to non-merchant employees of businesses in the area—more permits, even, than for which there was demand during Phase 1 of the program.1 These employee permits would allow parking in one of approximately 10 zones of the residential neighborhoods surrounding Downtown, up to one mile from the Downtown commercial core.2 A one-mile zone is not “adjacent” to the downtown. Rather, the Vehicle Code requires at least “general adjacency.” Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 804, 811 (adjacency requirement permits those “in the impacted area to park anywhere within the area”) (emphasis added). The Code does not authorize the City to distribute the burdens of non-merchant employee parking beyond the immediate Downtown area. Yet the City’s program would issue permits to those who have no residence or business within the zone—or even nearby. As a result, the program will almost certainly increase parking problems for residents in the outer boundaries of the zone. 1 According to a December 14, 2015 City Council Staff Report, the City issued 1,495 employee permits during Phase 1. 2 The number of employee permits issued during Phase 1 also spurred “petitions” to expand the RPP District to include other streets. However, the City failed to make clear to petitioning residents that they had the option to adopt a residents-only RPP like the College Terrace program. Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 4 The City fails to support its conclusion that the Downtown RPP program qualifies for a categorical exemption under CEQA. CEQA exempts certain changes to existing facilities only if the change “involv[es] negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing” before the project. CEQA Guidelines § 15301. This exemption simply does not apply to the situation here, where the City proposes to increase non-resident, Downtown employee parking in the neighborhoods east of Guinda Street and south of Lincoln Avenue. It is now well-recognized that providing parking—particularly excess parking—causes a host of environmental impacts, such as increased traffic and the attendant environmental impacts like air pollution, noise, and traffic hazards. See, e.g., Senate Bill 743 § 1(b)(1) (recognizing that providing parking causes environmental impacts). And even if the exemption did apply to this program, the unusual circumstances of the proposed RPP program would necessitate CEQA review. See CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c). The proposed RPP is by its nature unusual because it preferences parking by businesses—thereby increasing use of parking in some neighborhoods—as opposed to reducing use of parking in residential neighborhoods, as most RPPs do. Because the project itself is unusual and could have significant environmental impacts, it is excepted from CEQA’s exemptions that may have otherwise applied. See Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105. IV. There is No Evidence That the Proposed Program Would Avoid “Adverse Impacts” on Parking for Residents and Merchants. The RPP program is further flawed because there is no evidence that its employee-parking policies will not “adversely affect” parking conditions for residents and merchants. Vehicle Code section 22507(b) allows local governments to authorize preferential parking permits to “designated groups” only if doing so would not adversely affect parking for residents or merchants in the area. Assuming arguendo that downtown businesses qualify as “designated groups”—and whether employees of large, office-based companies falls into the eligible exceptions contemplated by the statute is questionable— the City’s plan to issue 2,000 employee parking permits plus unlimited daily permits (which businesses could provide to anyone to park in the residential neighborhoods) fails to comply with the Vehicle Code’s conditional grant of authority. Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 5 A. “Theoretical Impact” of the Program Lacks Evidentiary Basis In support of the proposal, the City claims that the “theoretical impact” from Downtown employees parking in any particular parking zone “would be around 15% to 24% of the total number of spots available on the street.” Feb. 1, 2016 Staff Report at 4. City staff reached this conclusion because “during Phase 1, it was determined that on any given day, the number of employees parking within the district was only 50% to 60% of the total number of [employee] permits sold,” and the employee permits available in each zone will constitute 30% to 40% of available on-street parking space. Id. However, the Staff Report lacks sufficient data to back up these conclusions. First, the parking occupancy and permit distribution data upon which the City relies was collected on only two dates, October 22 and November 5, 2015—both Thursdays. This is an insufficient basis for concluding that 2,000 employee permits plus unlimited daily permits would not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area. The City cannot extrapolate from two Thursdays’ worth of data early in the preferential parking program’s existence to predict employee parking patterns in the Downtown RPP District. Indeed, as Mr. Buchanan has previously noted, the laws of stochastic demand guarantee that on any given day, parking demand in a zone will vary widely. An appropriate basis for determining adverse impact would include occupancy and permit distribution data from, at a minimum, each of the five weekdays at different times of day. As it stands, the data on which the City relies fails to account for any difference in employee parking across different days of the week. B. Failure to Consider Worst-Case Conditions In analyzing adverse impacts, the City must consider what parking occupancy and distribution would look like on heavy-use days. For example, the City should characterize the impact to residential parking on days when a high percentage of permitted employees park in the RPP District, including days when all 2,000 permits are in use. Maximum permit use is possible and grows more likely as more commercial developments crop up in Downtown.3 Throughout Phase 1, the City failed to provide 3 The Feb. 1, 2016 Staff Report also implies that because fewer than 2,000 employee parking permits were sold during Phase 1, the percentage of permits in use at any given time will be even lower than staff’s estimates. However, the Staff Report provides no support for this illogical conclusion that issuing more permits will not result in an increase in daily use of permits. Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 6 data and projections on future parking demand. Phase 2 suffers the same shortcoming, as it provides no requirements for collecting data and estimating future demand. C. Failure to Analyze Zone-By-Zone Data The City’s analysis in the Staff Report for the February 1, 2016 meeting is also lacking because it assumes that the employee-permit occupancy will be the same across all parking zones and that the effects will be the same across all zones, without any data to support these assumptions. Even if the same number of employee permits are issued for each zone, it does not carry that use patterns will be the same. For example, employees holding permits for zones close to their workplaces may use their permits more frequently than employees holding permits for zones farther from their workplaces. Also, there may be other factors affecting parking conditions in different zones, including proximity of businesses drawing short-term non-permit parkers and the need to accommodate schools. For these reasons, the City should evaluate whether employee permits would adversely affect parking for conditions on a zone-by-zone basis, and it should do so based on real data, not speculation. D. Failure to Analyze Cumulative Impacts Yet another major omission from the data on which the City relies is any information about the expected use of parking resources by other permitted parkers, which is an essential factor for determining what impact on parking conditions employee- permit parking would have. The City does not quantify expected parking use by holders of residential permits, residential guest permits (limit of two per household), residential daily permits (limit of 50 per household), or use for non-permit two-hour parking. Most egregiously, the City fails to make any mention of the impact of providing unlimited daily permits to Downtown businesses for use by employees, guests, clients, or anyone else a business sees fit to allow to park in any zone in the Downtown RPP District. The City must analyze and disclose these impacts before instituting a preferential permit program that stands to adversely affect parking conditions for area residents and merchants. See Veh. Code § 22507(b). V. Minimum Recommendations for Phase 2 In light of the foregoing legal deficiencies, we recommend the following changes to Phase 2. With these changes in place, Phase 2 will comply with state law and ensure that adequate parking is maintained for the residents of neighborhoods surrounding Downtown. While these are the minimum revisions to Phase 2 necessary to Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 7 ensure its compliance with state law, our clients may identify further improvements to the Downtown RPP District program, especially after Phase 2 takes effect and its impacts are observed. A. Limit Employee Parking to Neighborhoods Adjacent to Downtown For the neighborhoods east of Guinda Street and south of Lincoln Avenue, which are not adjacent to Downtown, the City should adopt a residents-only RPP district, similar to the one currently existing in College Terrace. The College Terrace program restricts parking permits to residents of the neighborhood. See Palo Alto Municipal Code § 10.46.060. B. Require At Least 10% Reduction in Employee Permits Annually The City Council’s resolution to implement Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP District pilot program should explicitly provide for the reduction of the number of employee permits available over time. City staff’s recommendation to the City Council in the December 14, 2015 Staff Report was to cap employee permits at 2,000 for the first year, and reduce the number of available permits by 200 each year until no employee permits are available. Dec. 14, 2015 Staff Report at 7-8. However, a plan for reducing the number of employee permits available is curiously absent from the current proposal, as outlined in the Staff Report for the February 1, 2016 City Council meeting. A concrete plan for reducing the employee permits offered each year should be included in the Resolution authorizing Phase 2. C. Provide For Ongoing Monitoring and Adaptive Management In light of the paucity of data supporting the City’s proposal to issue 2,000 employee-parking permits plus unlimited daily permits as part of Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP District pilot program, the City should develop a monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management program, supported by the City Auditor, to inform administration of the employee-parking program. This will allow the City to ensure that the employee-permit parking is not “adversely” impacting resident and merchant parking. And if the City finds that employee parking is adversely affecting parking conditions, the adaptive management program should require the City to take corrective action, such as limiting daily permits issued to Downtown businesses. The proposed Resolution implementing Phase 2 hints at the need for a monitoring and adaptive management program, but fails to define it. The proposed Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 8 Resolution would require that the City “issue Employee permits on an iterative basis to ensure that the issuance of Employee Permits does not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the District in accordance with Section 22507(b) of the Vehicle Code.” Feb. 1, 2016 Staff Report, Attachment B at 4 (emphasis added). However, the proposed Resolution fails to provide any explanation of what this would entail. The RPP Administrative Guidelines, intended to provide additional detail on RPP program implementation, supply little additional help. The Administrative Guidelines provide that “[d]uring the course of District initiation, the City will conduct parking occupancy studies.” Feb. 1, 2016 Staff Report, Attachment C § L. But like the proposed Resolution, the Guidelines provide scant direction on the nature of these studies, the studies’ frequency, or the actions that should be taken in response to the studies’ conclusions. In the CEQA context, courts uniformly reject such studies as deferred mitigation. See, e.g., Communities for a Better Env’t v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92. Also, the Guidelines can be changed by City staff, without public input, and are thus completely unenforceable, in further violation of CEQA. See Lotus v. Dep’t of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 656-57. The City Council should revise the proposed Resolution implementing Phase 2 to include, at a minimum, monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management standards, including: • identification of data points to be gathered (e.g., number of each type of permit issued, occupancy rate, permit distribution, etc.); • guidelines for occupancy and permit distribution surveys, including the requirement that all permit types be counted; • minimum frequency requirements for occupancy and permit distribution surveys; • easy-to-understand graphical maps depicting parking patterns of all vehicles in the neighborhoods; • a three-year plan to adopt technology to optimize parking efficiency and lower enforcement and administrative costs; • requirement for reporting survey data to the public; and Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 9 • specific standards for triggering a change in the number of employee permits issued to avoid adverse impact on residents (e.g., exceeding a certain maximum occupancy rate for all types of employee permits). The iterative process for issuing permits, which was mentioned only fleetingly in the proposed Resolution, is the crux of a program that will ensure that issuing the employee permits will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants, as Vehicle Code section 22507 requires. Accordingly, robust standards for monitoring and adaptive management should be adopted by the City Council now. Further, Phase 2 will be successful only if the Council and City Staff commit to provide necessary staff time and resources to gather the data necessary to ensure the program does not harm Downtown neighborhood residents. The resolution should explicitly require this. In the interest of facilitating collection of accurate data on Downtown parking patterns, Downtown residents have devised a low-cost system for documenting parking occupancy and permit distribution. The developers of this system would be willing to help the City collect data on Phase 2 parking during February and March 2016. D. Limit the Number of Daily Permits Available to Businesses, And Limit Availability to Only Employees Who Work in Downtown To achieve the City’s goals of reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips into Downtown and to avoid adverse impacts on parking conditions for residents and merchants, the Downtown RPP District employee-permit program should limit the number of daily permits available to businesses. While residents in the District are limited to purchasing 50 daily permits annually, inexplicably, businesses are allowed to purchase an unlimited number of daily permits, each for a small fee. If the limited number of available employee permits sells out, this gaping loophole in the program would allow a business with the necessary means to buy daily permits to provide parking for its entire workforce—even for employees who do not actually work in Downtown— completely undermining the purpose of the RPP. That a business would do this to circumvent the program’s limit on employee parking in the District is not unfounded speculation—indeed, at the January 6, 2016, RPP Program meeting, stakeholders reported that Palantir is doing exactly this. See also CNBC, The CIA-backed start-up that’s taking over Palo Alto (Jan. 12, 2016), http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/12/the-cia- backed-start-up-thats-taking-over-palo-alto.html (reporting that Palantir employees “who drive in [to Palantir’s offices in downtown Palo Alto] get complimentary parking permits”). Palo Alto City Council February 1, 2016 Page 10 This lack of control and City oversight regarding use of the daily permits promises to undermine any chance the City has of ensuring parking conditions for residents and merchants are not adversely affected, as state law requires. E. Require Businesses to Take Measures to Reduce Parking Demand For the neighborhoods closer to Downtown, the RPP District program would better serve residents and the intent of Vehicle Code section 22507 if it allowed a business to access parking permits only after the business established that it had taken other measures to reduce its employees’ demand for parking. The City proposes to issue permits to employees of any business, regardless of that business’s ability to alleviate its own parking impact. A Downtown business may be able to reduce its employees’ parking demand by providing them with incentives to use commuter shuttles, mass transit, carpooling, car sharing, bicycles, or telecommuting. The City should require Downtown businesses to pursue and fund such measures before the City allows their employees access to parking permits. F. Preference Merchant Employees’ Applications for Permits. Additionally, the Downtown RPP District employee-permit program should be revised to preference merchant employees over employees of other, non-merchant businesses. The current draft conflicts with Vehicle Code section 22507(b), which requires that allowing permits for other groups must not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants. Merchants’ ability to park in the District could be adversely impacted if employees of other businesses acquire available permits, but merchants’ employees do not and find themselves unable to park near where they work. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Catherine C. Engberg Laura D. Beaton cc: City Clerk (city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org) Molly S. Stump, City Attorney (city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org) Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director (hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org) EXHIBIT B 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com CATHERINE C. ENGBERG Attorney engberg@smwlaw.com February 19, 2016 Via Electronic Mail City Council of the City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Updated Resolution for Citywide and Downtown RPP February 23, 2016 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 2 Dear Council Members: This firm represents Neilson Buchanan and the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association regarding the City of Palo Alto’s proposal for implementing Phase 2 of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District pilot program. Our clients commend the City Council’s decision at its February 1 meeting to instruct City Staff to revise the proposed RPP resolution to better protect Downtown neighborhood residents from businesses’ parking impacts. However, the revised RPP resolution does not fully satisfy the Council’s directives. We also urge the City Council to adopt additional refinements as described in our letter dated February 1, 2016 to ensure that the Downtown RPP program complies with state law and does not adversely affect parking conditions for Downtown neighborhood residents. See Veh. Code § 22507(b). By adopting the changes we outline below to Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP pilot program, the City Council will ensure that the Downtown RPP program complies with state law and take a major step toward a parking solution that works for all of Palo Alto. I. The proposed resolution should provide for the annual reduction of available employee permits by at least 200 permits. The City Council made the right call when it instructed City Staff to revise the proposed Downtown RPP resolution to provide that available annual employee permits would be reduced by 200 per year for ten years. However, the proposed revision Palo Alto City Council February 19, 2016 Page 2 to the resolution fails to require reduction of at least 200 permits annually. Instead, the proposed resolution requires that the City “decreas[e] annual employee permits by approximately 200 permits per year, based on parking occupancy analysis and mode split analysis.” Feb. 23, 2016 Staff Report, Attachment A at 4 (emphasis added). This language is too vague. The purpose of the annual reduction of employee permits is to guarantee that no employee permits will be available for parking in the Downtown RPP within 10 years. The annual reduction is especially important to Downtown neighborhood residents because, as we noted in our February 1 letter to the City Council, the City lacks evidence that its decision to issue 2,000 employee permits would not adversely affect parking conditions in the Downtown neighborhoods. A firm commitment to reduce available employee permits by 200 annually provides the necessary backstop to ensure that adverse impacts will be reduced over time. Accordingly, the proposed resolution should be changed to make explicit that the City will decrease annual employee permits by at least 200 permits per year. II. The City should ensure that daily and five-day “scratcher” employee permits do not contribute to adverse effects on parking conditions. The City Council also directed City Staff to “[r]eturn to the Council with a program to meter non-resident hang tags, daily scratchers, and five day scratchers distributed by zones in both streets and parking garages.” In response, City Staff proposed the following revisions to the Downtown RPP resolution: (1) daily and five-day “scratcher” permits will be available to individual employees only, not to businesses; (2) employees will be limited to purchasing four daily scratcher permits or one five-day scratcher permit per month; and (3) the scratcher permits will be zone-specific and sold randomly. While these changes are a step in the right direction—the ban on businesses purchasing daily permits is especially necessary—they do not satisfy the City Council’s directive, and they will not protect against adverse effects on parking conditions for Downtown neighborhood residents. First, the daily and five-day scratcher permits should count toward the 2,000 annual employee permit cap. As we explained in our February 1 letter, the City lacks evidence to establish that issuing 2,000 employee parking permits would not adversely affect parking conditions for residents. The City likewise lacks evidence that issuing an unknown number of daily and five-day permits would not adversely affect residents’ parking conditions. Facing these unknowns and having no idea of how many scratcher employee permits would actually be issued, at the very least, the City should Palo Alto City Council February 19, 2016 Page 3 cap all employee parking permits at the equivalent of 2,000 annual permits. This will ensure that, on average, no more than 2,000 employee permits will be in use daily. Further, the revised resolution fails to comply with the City Council’s directive that daily permits be distributed across zones and parking garages. Currently, the revised proposed resolution provides that “[d]aily and five-day employee scratchers will be zone-specific and will be sold randomly.” Feb. 23, 2016 Staff Report, Attachment A at 5. To satisfy the City Council’s instructions, this provision must be changed to expressly provide that daily and five-day employee scratchers be distributed across the Downtown RPP zones and Downtown parking garages III. The proposed Downtown RPP program fails to ensure that parking conditions for neighborhood residents will not be adversely affected. Vehicle Code section 22507(b) allows local governments to “also authorize preferential parking permits for members of . . . designated groups,” but only if doing so “will not adversely affect parking for residents or merchants in the area.” As we explained in our February 1 letter, the City has not established that issuing 2,000 employee parking permits—let alone issuing daily and five-day employee permits on top of that—will not adversely affect neighborhood parking conditions for residents. At the February 1 City Council meeting, there was discussion regarding whether distributing permits to Downtown business employees would or would not adversely affect parking conditions for surrounding residents. Specifically, staff concluded that parking conditions with the Downtown RPP program, including employee permits, will be better for residents than what would exist with no program at all, and thus, residential parking conditions will not be adversely affected. This is not how Vehicle Code section 22507 works. Section 22507 can be best understood as a three-step process. First, a city may establish parking restrictions, such as restrictions on the types of vehicles that may park in an area or time limits on parking. Veh. Code § 22507(a). Second, after establishing such parking restrictions, a city may designate preferential parking districts where residents and merchants may acquire permits to park near their home or business, notwithstanding the parking restrictions. Id. Third and finally, a city may “also authorize parking permits [in preferential parking districts] for members of organizations, professions, or other designated groups, including, but not limited to, school personnel,” but only after the city finds that “use of the permits will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area.” Veh. Code § 22507(b) (emphasis Palo Alto City Council February 19, 2016 Page 4 added). The use of the word “also” makes plain that providing permits to other groups is something done only after the RPP is established for residents and merchants. Accordingly, the baseline against which adverse effects on parking conditions must be measured is parking conditions in the RPP district before any permits are issued to any groups other than the neighborhood’s residents and merchants. The Legislature’s intent in authorizing cities to, in some cases, issue RPP permits to other groups was circumscribed. The Legislature added subsection (b) to section 22507 because it believed that local authorities should be able to accommodate the special needs of certain non-resident groups who need to park in RPP districts. Specifically, the amendment contemplated the parking needs of schoolteachers: The Legislature finds and declares that local jurisdictions should be given the authority to allow all school personnel to park on public streets adjacent to public schools in order to help alleviate the overcrowding of on-campus parking facilities due to the increase in personnel and the resulting demand for classroom space attributable to the state's class size reduction program. Sen. Bill No. 626 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) § 1, attached as Exhibit 1. The Legislature never intended for this narrow exception to the limit on permits to residents and merchants to open the door for cities to give up the right to park in RPPs to any group, in any circumstance. For these reasons, the City of Palo Alto cannot rely on any net improvement in parking conditions around Downtown to conclude that there is no adverse effect on existing substandard conditions from permitted employee parking. For a true apples-to-apples comparison, the City must compare conditions in the Downtown RPP district with only resident and merchant permits to conditions with 2,000 employee permits plus daily and five-day employee scratchers. Additionally, the City should include in the proposed resolution specific provisions for a monitoring and reporting program, like the one outlined in our February 1 letter to the City Council, pages 7 - 9. This program should include a timeline for reports on the Downtown RPP pilot program’s efficacy and impacts. Specifically, City Staff’s first report to the Council on the pilot program’s impact on parking conditions in the Downtown neighborhoods should be due 60 days after the proposed resolution is passed and the second report due at 120 days. If the monitoring shows any adverse effect on what residents’ parking conditions would be without the employee permits, the pilot program must be modified to eliminate the adverse effect. Monitoring and adaptive Palo Alto City Council February 19, 2016 Page 5 management is necessary because if there are adverse effects on residents’ parking, the program providing employee parking in residential neighborhoods should be changed accordingly—not allowed to carry on despite its negative impact on residents.1 IV. No employee permits should be sold for Zones 9 and 10, which are not adjacent to Downtown. Finally, the City Council directed City Staff to revise the resolution to provide that, “initially,” no employee permits would be sold outside of the Phase 1 boundaries. The revised RPP resolution does not do this. Instead, the staff report states that, in response to the City Council’s direction, “no daily permits will be made available for zones 9 and 10” and annual “reductions [of 200 available employee permits] will occur in the outer zones first.” Feb. 23, 2016 Staff Report at 8 (emphasis added). The Council wisely restricted employee parking permits from the neighborhoods south of Lincoln Avenue and east of Guinda Street. As we explained in our February 1 letter, the streets in these neighborhoods, including Crescent Park, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered “adjacent” to Downtown business locations. While the limited case law on section 22507 has held that the word “adjacent” should be interpreted to mean “general adjacency,” (see Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 804, 811), the word cannot be rendered meaningless. In Hermosa Beach, the court recognized the limits of adjacency, noting that “general adjacency” meant allowing “residents in the impacted area to park anywhere within that area.” Id. (emphases added). In fact, the case prohibits the City from extending its permit program to a non-adjacent neighborhood—such as Crescent Park— that is not currently impacted by downtown employee parking at all. Id. at 807. Likewise, many California cities have adhered to section 22507’s limited definition of “adjacency” by establishing reasonable restrictions on where a permit holder may park within the parking district, such as within 500 feet (Pasadena, see Exhibit 2, attached) or two blocks (Santa Monica, see Exhibit 3, attached) of permittee’s residence or business. Though the details of these ordinances have been tailored for each city’s specific needs, the efforts to comply with section 22507’s adjacency requirement by limiting where a permittee can park are clear. 1 The RPP Administrative Guidelines similarly fail to provide for adequate monitoring and adaptive management, as explained in our February 1 letter. Palo Alto City Council February 19, 2016 Page 6 The adjacency requirement likewise applies to permits issued to “other designated groups” under subsection 22507(b). Senate Bill 626, which amended section 22507 to add subsection (b), explained that the purpose of allowing cities to expand RPP permit eligibility to groups other than residents and merchants was so cities could “allow all school personnel to park on public streets adjacent to public schools.” Sen. Bill 626 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) § 1, attached as Exhibit 1. The intent was never to allow cities to repurpose residential neighborhood streets as a pay-to-park lot for a commercial business core. The revised resolution does not implement the Council’s directive to keep all employee parking out of Zones 9 and 10. First, the proposed resolution does not set any limit on the zones for which employee permits—daily or annual—will be sold. See Feb. 23 Staff Report, Attachment A at 5. And the commitment in the Staff Report states only that “[d]aily permits will not be available for Zones 9 and 10.” Feb. 23 Staff Report at 3. It says nothing of such limits on annual employee permits. “Sell no employee decals outside of the Phase 1 boundaries” means no employee decals—not just no daily employee permits. The City should revise the proposed resolution to provide that no annual or daily employee permits will be sold in Zones 9 and 10 during Phase 2. This will comply with the City Council’s instructions and also ensure that the Downtown RPP program will not violate the Vehicle Code, which does not authorize the City to distribute the burdens of employee parking beyond the immediate Downtown area, to neighborhoods like Crescent Park, which are not even arguably adjacent to the Downtown core. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Catherine C. Engberg Laura D. Beaton cc: City Clerk (city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org) Molly S. Stump, City Attorney (city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org) Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director (hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org) 757961.1 EXHIBIT 1 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS—PREFERENTIAL PARKING..., 1997 Cal. Legis. Serv.... © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.1 1997 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 343 (S.B. 626) (WEST) CALIFORNIA 1997 LEGISLATIVE SERVICE 1997 Portion of 1997-98 Regular Session Additions are indicated by <<+ Text +>>; deletions by <<- * * * ->>. Changes in tables are made but not highlighted. CHAPTER 343 S.B. No. 626 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS—PREFERENTIAL PARKING PERMITS—QUALIFICATIONS AN ACT to amend Section 22507 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. [Approved by Governor August 25, 1997.] [Filed with Secretary of State August 25, 1997.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 626, Karnette. Vehicles: parking: local authorities. Existing law authorizes local authorities to prohibit or restrict the stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles on certain streets or highways, or portions thereof, during all or certain hours of the day. A local authority may also designate certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges are given to residents and merchants adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their guests, under which the residents and merchants may be issued a permit or permits to exempt them from the specified prohibition or restriction. This bill would authorize local authorities to authorize preferential parking permits for members of organizations, professions, or other designated groups to park on specified streets if the local authority determines that the use of the permits will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that local jurisdictions should be given the authority to allow all school personnel to park on public streets adjacent to public schools in order to help alleviate the overcrowding of on-campus parking facilities due to the increase in personnel and the resulting demand for classroom space attributable to the state's class size reduction program. SEC. 2. Section 22507 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: << CA VEHICLE § 22507 >> 22507. <<+(a)+>> Local authorities may, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit or restrict the stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles, including, but not limited to, vehicles <<+that+>> are six feet or more in height (including any load thereon) within 100 feet of any intersection, on certain streets or highways, or portions thereof, during all or certain hours of the day. The ordinance or resolution may include a designation of certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges are given to residents and merchants adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their guests, under which the residents and merchants may be issued a permit or permits <<+that+>> exempt them from the prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or resolution. With the exception of alleys, <<-* * *->><<+the+>> ordinance or resolution shall <<+not+>> apply until signs or markings giving adequate notice thereof have been placed. A local ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this section may contain provisions <<+ that+>> are reasonable and necessary to ensure the effectiveness of a preferential parking program. STREETS AND HIGHWAYS—PREFERENTIAL PARKING..., 1997 Cal. Legis. Serv.... © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2 <<+(b) An ordinance or resolution adopted under this section may also authorize preferential parking permits for members of organizations, professions, or other designated groups to park on specified streets if the local authority determines that the use of the permits will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area.+>> CA LEGIS 343 (1997) End of Document © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. EXHIBIT 2 2/18/2016 Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances https://www.municode.com/library/ca/pasadena/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT10VETR_CH10.42DAPA_10.42.060PALI 1/1 A. B. 1. 2. 3. C. 10.42.060 - Parking limitations. No vehicle shall be parked, pursuant to a permit issued under this chapter, on any street except within a 500-foot radius of a permittee's place of residence designated on the permit. No permit shall be valid under the following circumstances: On any street where parking is prohibited either by red curb or posted parking prohibitions during the hours such parking prohibitions are in effect; In any green, yellow, blue or white painted curb zone; or On any street in front of or abutting any property except property improved exclusively for residential use. "Residential use" means either single-family or multiple family dwellings, but shall not include business, industrial or commercial properties. No more than 2 nighttime and 2 daytime on-street parking permits shall be issued to one residence at any time except for hardship as determined by the director of public works and transportation in his discretion. (Ord. 6587 § 1 (part), 1994; Ord. 6125 § 1, 1985) EXHIBIT 3 2/18/2016 Two Block Rule - Planning & Community Development - City of Santa Monica https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Permits/Two-Block-Rule/1/1 Home About Us Permits Zoning Transportation Plans & Projects Code Compliance Boards & Commissions City of Santa Monica © 2016 Planning and Community Development Department Website produced by the City of Santa Monica Web Development Division Facebook Twitter City Home Contact Us 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 planning@smgov.net Hours of Operation City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Search the PCD Site ABOUT US PERMITS ZONING TRANSPORTATION PLANS & PROJECTS CODE COMPLIANCE BOARDS & COMMISSIONS Permits A-Z List of Permits Apply for Permits ePermits Records Request Applications & Forms Plan Check What is Plan Check? Documents & Submittal Requirements Pre-submittal Review ePlans Timeline & Status Inspections Inspection Process Building Inspection Checklists Schedule an Inspection Codes, Standards, Requirements Santa Monica Municipal Code County and State Requirements California Building Codes Building Design Limitations Additional Resources A-Z List of Permits Applications & Forms Department Publications Terms, Definitions, & Links Two-Block Rule Your residential and visitor preferential parking permits are designed to allow you and your guests to park near your home. Occasionally there may be no parking spaces on your block. For this reason, the City allows you and your visitors to park within two blocks of your address. The Traffic Services Division of the Police Department defines this area by the number of blocks away from the “hundred” block on which you live. Every time you cross an intersection, turn a corner or change hundred blocks, you have moved to another block. In the example below, consider your block of residence to be “X”: the first block adjacent to yours is the “one” block and the second is the “two” block. You can only park on your own block and blocks numbered “1” and “2.” Please be aware that you can only use your permit to park on a street designated for preferential parking that is also within your numbered zone (and within two blocks of your residence). Your zone is indicated by the large number preceding the R or V on your preferential parking permit. North of the 10 Freeway, the major boundaries between zones are Wilshire Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard. South of the 10 Freeway, the major boundaries are Lincoln Boulevard and Cloverfield Boulevard/23rd Street. Map of preferential parking zones and permitted streets The Police Department has found that most offenses take place around Santa Monica College. Therefore, preferential parking permit holders should take special care to follow the two-block rule around this area. Use your best judgment; if you think you’ve parked more than two blocks away, you probably have. If you are parked more than two blocks away, your vehicle may be cited and you may have to pay a fine. For enforcement questions, contact the Santa Monica Police Department’s Traffic Services Division at 310-458-8466. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/15/2016 5:18 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:David <dkwoh@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 15, 2016 5:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Requests pertaining to tonight's Council Meeting Dear City Council, I am a resident of Crescent Park and my home address is 1140 Lincoln Ave, Palo Alto. For quite some time, I have been much troubled by the vast increase of offices in the downtown area without a corresponding increase in parking space. How could this oversight be allowed to happen? And it will take 10 years to remedy this situation? I am 73 years old and 10 years means a lot to me than to the younger folks. The present situation and time table are simply unacceptable. One consequence of this oversight is that the office workers are now coming into our neighborhood for freebie parking. Though my home address is not within the RPP program yet, I am beginning to see cars parked on my street, in front of our house, which do not belong to people living in this neighborhood. This encroachment is more than simple inconvenience. It is literally an invasion of our neighborhood. Our once quiet and peaceful residential neighborhood is on the way to become a public parking lot for the downtown office workers. The additional traffic creates hazards and inconveniences to us, grownups and children alike. Per tonight’s Council Meeting, I would like you to know that I support adding the two CP blocks (500 Hale and 800 Palo Alto Ave. to the Downtown RP, as residents of those blocks have requested. I also request that the remainder of Item 11 about the RPP to be pulled from the consent calendar for discussion at a future council meeting. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. David Kwoh City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/15/2016 5:00 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 15, 2016 4:54 PM To:Council, City Cc:Vincent Leung; Stump, Molly Subject:Aug 15 Council Meeting: RPP and 411/437 Lytton In order to conserve Council time tonight I want to enter the following issues into the public record. #1 There is an alarmingly high accident rate on Middlefield at Hawthorne and Everett Streets. The traffic studies for 411/437 do not adequately address traffic and accidents. As traffic on University and Lytton increases, there will be greater cut through non-resident traffic within DTN and on Kipling. #2 Downtown RPP administrative rules do not restrict tenants and visitors from non-resident permit eligibility at 411/437 Lytton. This lack of oversight creates incentive to park on residential. This is unnecessary competition for limited supply of non-resident permits with other commercial property tenants, visitors and customers. The proposed project at 411-437 Lytton provides significant on-site parking and city policy must address full incentives and utilization of on-site parking. #3 Narrow streets such as High, Ramona, Palo Alto Avenue and Kipling are not accommodating safe, convenient traffic flow. The increased use of larger trucks such as Amazon, FedEx and UPS delivery throughout each working days is in conflict with city planning for RPP and projects such as 411/437 Lytton. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/10/2016 12:48 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:33 AM To:Council, City Cc:Richard Brand; Michael Hodos; Gabrielle Layton; John Guislin; Elaine Uang; Malcolm Beasley; Norman H. Beamer; Mary Dimit; Gitelman, Hillary; Atkinson, Sue-Ellen Subject:Request to pull RPP Report off the consent calendar Attachments:Attachment A COPA Parked Vehicle Map May 19, 2016.pdf; Attachment B Original Parking Zones with Capacity and Non-Resident Permit Limits.pdf; Attachment C Residents Updated Map for Zones 8 and 9.pdf; Attachment D Non-Resident Permit Parking Loads on Zones.pdf Dear City Council, On behalf of citizens who live in and adjacent to the Downtown RPP district, I ask that Item 11 Update of Status of RPP be pulled off of the August 15 Consent Calendar. I ask the council to pull the consent calendar with the follow conditions: 1. to adopt the staff proposed Resolution (Attachment A), expanding the boundary of the Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 eligibility area originally established by Resolution 9577 2. to direct staff to schedule RPP for Council discussion within the next 30 days with emphasis on discussing 5 issues below and give staff direction to address other citizen concerns and report back to Council not later than Dec 15. #1 RPP cannot be successful without a quality metric. Citizens strongly recommend the best quality standard for any resident street face should be total parked vehicle impact not greater than 80% midday for any working day. Staff has presented standard as 85% which reflects parking levels appropriate for commercial parking lots and garages. There is no forecast of demand for non- resident vehicle parking in the RPP district or commercial core. Analysis is impractical without understanding scenarios of parking demand. #2 The decade long mal-distribution of non-resident vehicles has not been solved. Please review Attachments B, C and D depicting parking loads on each zone. Parked vehicle density on too many residential street faces has not improved and there is no mechanism to proactively manage mal- distribution within zones. #3 The RPP parking "district" still does not have set boundaries, and probably will be expanded again and again as public awareness grows. The current sewer replacement in Downtown South and Professorville distorts impact and residents cannot analyze impact. District is simply excessive in size at the one square mile level. Furthermore, no city data has been presented for Zone 10 which is major section of Crescent Park. Residents estimate that as many as 100-200 more non-resident vehicles will eventually seek non-resident permits when boundaries are expanded to limit the game of parking just outside RPP boundaries. There will be significant negative impact on Zones 9 and City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/10/2016 12:48 PM 2 10. Significant portions of Zones 8, 9 and 10 are pending probable annexation when residents awaken to spillover parking by workers who currently decline opportunities to purchase permits. #4 Programs to mitigate and contain demand for non-resident permits are not funded. Valet parking at Bryant St garage has been abandoned. Valet parking at Cower Webster never commenced. Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) is floundering and unfunded. The TMA is years away from having meaningful, positive impact. Residents' effort to preclude "fully parked" developments (such as 411-437 Lytton) from RPP eligibility have not been acted upon by staff or Council. Staff report does not acknowledge estimated 100-200 non-resident vehicle parked outside current permit parking zones or the vehicles being moved every 2 hours. #5 The city has chosen to use primitive technology for enforcement in the RPP district. This approach reduced enforcement capability and generates more errors, overlooked violations and, more likely, disputed tickets. There is double standard for technology between commercial core and residential neighborhoods. There is almost no ability to effectively manage 2-hr parking limits and vehicles which float between color and residential zones every few hours. Tolerance of the double standard parking enforcement is not in the best interests of downtown workers, businesses and residents. Here is a list of 12 other persistent, unresolved issues to be addressed by Staff and Council. City Council can table these issues for further staff action until late 2016. a. Planning department does not have effective management tools to forecast parking demand that spills out of the commercial core parking capacity. b. There is no restriction for new downtown development to be eligible for non-resident permits. For example, tenants, customers, guests, et al 411-437 Lytton proposed development are eligible for unlimited non-resident and 2-hr parking in residential neighborhoods. This project fully satisfies city on-site parking requirements and should not be competing for declining non-resident parking capacity. c. At this time it is apparent that 2000 parking permit limit was a crude estimate of actual need for non-resident parking. Early in 2017 Council can examine a lower threshold and faster reduction of non-resident permits. d. As residents consistently advised staff, there is significant incentive for non-resident workers to game the system and move vehicles every 2-3 hours with the commercial core's color zones and inside RPP's ten zones. A remedy for this mis-use of parking capacity should be found not later than late 2016. e. Phase 2 encountered an operational problem that must be remedied by April 1, 2017. The permit system issued a large number of paper dashboard print-out permits with no expiration dates. This enables residents and workers to use the paper permit plus the window stickers/hang tags. Essentially some residents and workers have two parking permits for the price of one. There is no practical way to limit use of both permits by multiple vehicles. f. There are dual standard for the window/bumper sticker. Stickers in use within the commercial core have license plate number written on the stickers. This prevents fraud and abuse. In the case of RPP worker and resident bumper stickers, there is no "tie-in" to a special vehicle. RPP bumper stickers can be used by any vehicle. Too many window/bumper stickers are not permanently fixed to vehicles. Therefore, they are transferrable and function outside the intended controls. g. Within 12-months it is likely that paid parking program will be implemented for short-term parking inside the commercial core. This program will have major impact on parking demand within City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/10/2016 12:48 PM 3 residential neighborhoods. Staff and resident must collaborate on pricing policy so that parking is not shift from the commercial core to the residential neighborhoods. h. Integrity of Crescent Park neighborhood has been disrupted with layout of Zones 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Residential streets north of Guinda should be folded into Zone 10 to preserve traditional neighborhood boundaries Attachments: A. COPA Parked Vehicle Map May 19 2016 B. Original Parking Zones with Parking Capacity and Non-Resident Permit Limits C. Resients' Updated Map for Zones 8 and 9 D. Residents' Worksheet Demonstrating Non-resident Vehicle Loads on RPP Zones In conclusion, RPP was launched with very public statement for collaborative problem solving. Chop Keenan proposed this collaboration and City Council and resident supported collaboration. The business/resident stakeholder process has fulfilled its role, but now Council needs the benefits of a staff report with active residents' dialogue with Council. Delaying dialogue with residents until early 2017 will result in a very sub-optimal solution for a viable and "permanent" RPP. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 5/19/2016 12 PM - 2 PM - ~ j i ~ - :.'! - Alm;ii Downtown ~PP Parking Zones . - , ... . . 576 ; .. : . :-; . ii•;.: --, '1;=~_ =:::z:=~ 'l ~ t.'"4 £ ~ •1 "' •/I '""' "' -~ i=o··~!;t -... = SJff. '(. Cnur-chill Ave I~ "'.:•, -:-~ .. "-<1. ..., .~':. ,; ... <.-,.,· .;-... Z>{. I:'l:l·.-mrC'mi ... r.= DCrid: fu::oc:c:d ~r-PXl!C. :::~ ~ai> . .a PAtt.l(tN~ SPAces -·-__ ---8-UJi-a--PE.1.M /t l.IMITS fott. No11.us10ENJ'tj ~-""' . "'• _,;.S~liii; ~,..., ' ~"e j p.\'t<?... J ' ' '?a\o ,,..~ - . .,..-Poe St "' ..... ,.... ' l).-ipi:a-1M•-•""'li.IQ.&:t13_ ... p. """ ~-. :'r,,-\ = 3 a;! : ..... ,,, •• /~ \ : Ruthven Ave ~ ; \ .,.~ i 0 • \ .... _,..,," ' • Vl • .. :------11aW'ihorne'A've----------·--···-·--w"ta ... , ~~~ l> • Downtow.2RPP istric~ r''' -1--------------------~·-··•A•••••ft••···------~ ' ~ , m 3 '?:/ ~ verett Ave ~ ~ !f \ ~ .. ~ 0 ~ tr i" VI ; 3 '< 1 -0 fb 0-. t )> 3 II> I./) .. Ill ::3 .. :::J Ill :::J l 0 QI Ul Ul ~ I.I) I c. Q.. ii .......... ..,~---~J-. .r:t.--~il:.:ytton--Ave-... -~---' ... I Vl ..+ "~ QI fJl I <D = (!) ,... 0 ~ ~ 4 I ~ ?A i ~ ;+° • 0 ~ I 0.. 0 !(;) a. .,, c OFA m 3 Cl) ~ 0 :::J !4' l1l University Ave i ~ 1 !::. I ..+ r :::J I I Q_ ! aJ I Ill I '< I Ul Hamilton Ave t•••'"iY••••-••••••-c .... I :::J I Vl I ..+ I a: :----~--------i,·---·-"F'oresl'"A"Ve••• ~ : ~ 5 ~ : ~ ~ I ii° ::0 i-------------~------J.i9.~~~-------.-......--'=~-~ I Vl A · I I OJ ..+ -· 6 I I -. "Q._ I I '< -· I I II> ::I I I :::J <0 rl...-· A I •••••~•-·•--••••••••~tUUOQ.n.\te~-----•••••••••••• I Ul r ! -()7 ~ I ---.......... 4ddiaoa.A."8.:---~........ ~ Melville Ave Kellogg Ave Churchill Ave Coleridge Ave CD .... '< II> ::s -Vl ..+ Lincoln Ave Kellogg Ave ~ . . ) . PAll.O TO :c DJ ;"' Vl' - Forest Ave Downtown RPP DDtrict O Approved Eligibility Area Zone Total Space Capacity Non- Resident Permit Limit Non- Resident Permits Issued* Issued/ Limit Ratio (D/C) Issued/ Capacity Ratio (D/B) Number of street faces 80+% saturated with resident and non- resident vehicles on May 19 2016 Total Street Faces Currently in Zone** % of street faces over 80% saturated (G/H) See Note 1 1 257 75 75 100%29%28 30 93% 2 360 120 119 99%33%18 26 69% 3 730 225 234 104%32%4 40 10% 4 576 190 209 110%36%14 49 29% 5 534 175 201 115%38%11 48 23% 6 294 100 104 104%35%13 24 54% 7 372 135 142 105%38%8 24 33% 8***583 365 231 63%40%7 59 12% 9****24 245 1 0%4%0 2 0% 10*****tbd 370 19 5%tbd tbd tbd TOTAL 3730 2000 1335 67%36%103 302 34% * as of August 1 **subject to verification with city staff ***Zone 8 originally had 1030 parking space capacity. It has been reduced to 583 until other street faces opt in. **** Zone 9 originally had 701 parking space capacity. It has been reduced to 24 until other street faces opt in. Original Zone 9 has 701 parking space capacity of 701 ***** Zone 10 boundaries are not stable or fixed. Residents could not analyze this zone. Note 1: Does not describe mal-distribution problem. Negative impact is concentrated inequitably. For information: Contact N. Buchanan cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Sources: Previous Public and Private Information from City Staff City of Palo Alto Survey on May 19, 2016 12-2pm Attachment D Worksheet Non- Resident Vehicle Loads on RPP Zones May 19, 2016 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: HILLARY GITELMAN, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: AUGUST 15, 2016 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 11- Acceptance of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program Phase 2 status update and adoption of a resolution amending the eligibility area for the program as directed by City Council. This memo offers some brief responses to the issues and questions raised in some of the public comments regarding the Downtown RPP Program, starting with some background information: The Downtown RPP program is the product of significant community engagement and hard work, particularly on the part of the stakeholder group that was empaneled to assist staff and the Council with the program design. The program is currently in Phase Two of a trial period, which is scheduled to end in March 2017. After some initial hiccups, staff believes the pilot program is working relatively well, and the City will be able to declare it a success and adopt the program on a permanent basis in early 2017, possibly with minor adjustments. This evening’s agenda item was intended as a status report, consistent with Council’s February 2016 request for “review.” It should be noted that since the Council’s request was made, the Council requested inclusion of additional streets in Crescent Park, which necessitated preparation of the resolution provided. Also, since the February request, the Council requested that staff initiate two new RPP districts (Evergreen Park and Southgate), adding significantly to the workload of a small staff with current vacancies. Metrics & Parking Demand. The RPP program design establishes a maximum number of non-residential permits by zone, and rather than forecasting demand, it calls for reducing the overall number of non- residential permits from a maximum of 2,000 to zero over a ten year period. The current maximums per zone were established with the goal of preventing saturation greater than 85% on any block face and the parking occupancy data from June 30, 2016 demonstrates this goal has been achieved on a majority of block faces. As the number of employee permits is reduced over time, and as minor improvements in permit distribution are made, this will improve. With the zone structure, some “bunching” of parking on streets closest to the downtown core within each zone was inevitable, and it was quite pronounced early in Phase Two before enforcement was in full swing. The occupancy counts show less of this in May and June than in March, and when the Council 11 2 of 2 considers making the program permanent, they could reconsider the zonal boundaries or assignment of employee/employer permits to block faces if desired. District Boundaries. As the Downtown RPP program continues, we may continue to see streets within the eligibility area established by City Council resolution “opt in” to the program, and we may see additional requests for expansion of the eligibility area. These requests can be evaluated and accommodated as appropriate when they occur. Data for Zone 10 will be collected and analyzed in future data collection efforts. Phase Two Enforcement: Enforcement staff has been working on implementing handheld devices for use in the field, and was delayed by unforeseen setbacks. The handheld technology now in use by the City’s parking enforcement contractor, Serco, has proven effective as noted in a recent email from Richard Brand: “Had Serco enforcement officers out on both Bryant and Addison today. So I asked if the new wireless hand held devices are now working. He said they are saving them (Serco) a lot of time which can only help with RPP enforcement. Thx to all for getting this technology functional for RPP enforcement” (August 10, 2016). Enforcement officers are citing cars with improper permits and are taking steps to contact individual permit holders with the assistance of customer service to obtain proper permits when necessary. Enforcement officers are also leaving warnings on vehicles with permits that are not properly displayed/affixed, and are then citing vehicles. Concurrent Efforts to Address Parking Supply and Demand. The City has made a substantial financial commitment to the Downtown RPP program, to valet parking in downtown garages (currently active at High Street, Bryant Street, and soon at the Cowper/Webster garages), and to initiation of the Transportation Management Association (TMA). The City has also changed its zoning rules to ensure that “bonus” square footage is fully parked, and has been requiring applicants to meet code requirements for parking. The City is also in the midst of conducting a major study of parking in the downtown core and the surrounding area, which will include an evaluation of paid parking and other parking management options. While it is premature to assume that paid parking will necessarily be the result, if that’s the case, there will be ample time for input on pricing policies, collection systems, and other aspects of the program. In the context of the ongoing parking management study, consultants are gathering data on parkers who move their cars every two hours in the downtown core, and finding it to be a surprisingly small part of the overall picture. _______________________ Hillary Gitelman Director Planning and Community Environment