RPP Stakeholder Meeting #3 - City of Palo Alto CA Parking ...paloalto.parkingguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/42453.pdfRPP Stakeholder Meeting #3 May 22, 2014. 2 Parking Management

1

RPP Stakeholder Meeting #3May 22, 2014

2

Parking Management

RPP

Permit Policy Review

Pricing

Incentives

TDM Measures

TMA

Shuttle Expansion

Employee TDM programs

Carshare

Parking Supply Measures

Valet Assist Programs

Satellite Parking

Improved Permit Management

Garage Branding / Wayfinding

Parking Guidance Systems and Revenue Access

New Garages

Optimization of Parking Supply

3

Basemap Development – Ongoing Parking/Permit Technology Implementation Plan:

Council review in August Community Surveys for RPP in September Council dates for RPP review: November/December

– Signage production and construction– Website for permit sales– Enforcement Strategy

Review of Schedule Highlights

4

Review of April 17 Policies

Transferability of permits Boundaries of the District Hours of enforcement

5

Transferability of Permits

Employees: Stakeholder Group emphasized need for permits to be transferred within a company, especially for hourly workers

Residents: Stakeholder Group would like permits to be transferable between household members and guests, although guest permits should also be available

6

District Boundary

Phase 2

Phase 2

7

Hours of Enforcement

Stakeholder Group proposed: 9:00am – 7:00pm

8

Group Presenters

Group 1: Gabrielle, Gloria, Neilson Group 2: Simon, Richard, Michael Group 3: Sue, Rob, John Group 4: Chop, Elaine

9

1. SUPPLY (also includes 3a and 6b)

10

For a housing unit with no onsite parking option, through no fault of owner or renter, one free permit should be provided

For all other residents, a minimum of two residential parking permits should be made available at a minimal price. Additional permits should be made available at a higher cost.

All permits should be tied to a residence.

1a: How many spaces will be allocated, or permits sold, for residents of the RPP

district?

Group 1: Gabrielle, Gloria, Neilson

11

Option 1 – Flat Rate Model 1 space/household 1 space/commuter Gather data on usage for street parking needs Six month test, one year review Revisit supply question with data on usage

1b: How many spaces will be allocated, or permits sold, for downtown

employees?

Group 4: Chop and Elaine

12

Option 2 – Market Based Solution Sell as many permits as necessary Offer 3‐4 street pricing options, the closer to downtown, the more expensive

Pricing for furthest spots affordable for those with limited means


1b: How many spaces will be allocated, or permits sold, for downtown

employees?

13

Group 2: Richard, Michael and Simon

a. Percentage of the available spaces will be designated for downtown workers on a block‐face‐by‐block‐face basis. Such designated spaces will be curb‐marked and striped in a consistent manner that promotes safety and ensures easy access to residents’ homes. Availability: 1st come, 1st served

b. Residents will be entitled to purchase up to 2 permits per household

c. Accommodations should be made for school employees & parent volunteers as well as retail service businesses that have unique customer parking needs (e.g. auto shops)

1c: How will the ordinance address the distribution of spaces for employees and

residents?

14


• Single stage implementation proposal A specific percentage of spaces to be made available to workers. Residents’ parking data indicates 20% is adequate

• Sequenced implementation proposal Assess actual employee need prior to determining percentage and distribution via one of the following options:‐ Two staged (sequenced) RPP

All downtown employees register/receive permits, then determine percentage & distribution strategy‐ Less desirable alternative

40‐50% (guesstimate) initial downtown employee allocation, then adjust down as required by actual count

1c, cont.: How will the ordinance address the distribution of spaces for employees

and residents?

15


Sequenced proposal cont’d:‐ In all cases safe and reasonable walking distances. May result in unequal distribution‐ Per City Council Motion, Item #6: “Minimize disruption when RPP is implemented”

1c, cont.: How will the ordinance address the distribution of spaces for employees

and residents?

16


‐ Yes . . . but only if additional capacity that becomes available via new garages/lots, garage valet parking, various TDM options being considered, etc. is not reasonably utilized

‐ Any reduction in downtown employee permits should be based on objective data

1d: Will the amount of spaces allocated to employees be reduced over time?

17

Group 3: Rob / John / Sue

• Each block has three possible parking types:• all day resident• all day commercial• 2 HR anyone ‐ No reparking in same zone/district on same day

‐ Commercial permits quantity is set at @20% of spaces.‐ *City must make additional parking spaces available for service workers by January

2015*• e.g. 2‐6 spaces 1 Commercial permit• 7‐11 spaces 2 Commercial permits• 12‐16 spaces 2 Commercial permits• 17+ spaces 4 Commercial spaces•‐ Permits made available first come, first served‐ No reserved/guaranteed space

3a: How will the need for employee permits be quantified and how will they

be allocated?

18

6b: Are there specific zones within the District where only certain residents or employees can park? Zone restrictions?• Need zones – some low on‐street parking to home

ratios (ie Ramona)• For market‐based solution, zones could be

determined based on avg demand of street face, but residents & commuters would both be allowed to park along whole street

• Keep it simple & equitable, exclusive privatization of spaces is a slippery slope


19

2. ENFORCEMENT

20

2b: What is the expected Level of Enforcement? Daily? Weekly? Multiple

times per week?

At the onset of implementation of the RPP District, enforcement should be daily, similar to the 2‐hour time zone limits are enforced. In order to change behavior, there has to be a motivating factor and this will be in the form of parking tickets.

After some time, we can move to less frequent enforcement, but some sort of constant enforcement, weekly or so, will have to continue.


21

3. IMPLEMENTATION

22

3b: How will ordinance address permits for residents with different on‐site

parking oppporunities?

‐ Any number of such unique situations exist. For example . . .• No garage/no driveway• Garage/no driveway• Driveway/no garage• Driveway length variation• Garage but repurposed

‐ In the interest of simplicity, in such cases issue the same 2 permits per household as proposed for single‐family homes


23

3c: How will permits be made available? (e.g. website, in person)

• Initially use current program process: in‐person purchase at city hall

• Residents must show proof of residency and car registration

• Commercial permits require proof of employment in commercial core, name of business, and car registration, transferrable within the business

• Consider web‐based system for renewals and eventually for all permits

Group 3: Rob, John, Sue

24

3d/7a: Will there be a trial period for the District? Metrics of success?

Target Level of Occupancy?• 6 month check in, 1 year review• Target occupancy is 85% (15% vacancy)


25

3e: What does the signage and striping look like for the District?

‐ Adopt consistent striping (marking of parking spaces) per current city standard.‐ Signs to indicate types of parking available on given street face.‐ Curbs to be colored to indicate commercial parking space.


26

3f: What is the level of support for the survey?

Assumption: Ordinance will set a minimum number of residents (not registered voters) to petition for creation of a permit parking district. Ordinance will address how permit district boundaries are set, presumably set by Council upon recommendation of staff. Council will reserve right to convene a public hearing(s) and form boundaries for a permit district. Ordinance implicitly allows Council to weigh opinions expressed by Palo Alto’s voters, residents, property owners, merchants and any attendee at public hearing.

Ordinance may or may not enable options for residents(one vote per household) initially to opt‐out or opt‐in by block

• Sample options for opt‐out: 40%, 50%+1, or 60% of returned ballots. One vote per household.

• Sample option for opt‐in: 40%, 50%+1, or 60% of returned ballots. One vote per household.


27

3g: What are the follow up actions if a street originally opts out and then

changes their mind?‐ A Block or Street Face may change their participation status (opt

in/out)by a majority vote (51%) of residents.‐ Process:

‐ Resident initiated petition submitted to city (see form)‐ City sends ballot postcard to all households on block or block

face.‐ Postcard ballots must validate resident vote to change status.

‐ Change of status requests may be submitted 1 month before beginning of RPP program year except for initial program year, when change requests may be submitted 3 months after the start of the program.


28

4. Permit Sales

29

4a: What will the permits look like? Will they be hangtag or decal?

• Resident permits to be decals. Must be affixed to cars registered at district address

• Visitor permits can be hangtag.• Hangtags for business (transferrable within the same business).


30

4c: How will permits be addressed for multi‐resident facilities?

• Multi‐unit buildings will be issued the same 2 permits per tenant unit as residents minus the number of available parking spaces the building already provides. Will be up to the building/tenant organizations to ascertain how best to distribute those allocated permits

• One bedroom and studio apartments should be limited to 1 permit per unit

• Multi‐unit buildings located in or adjacent to commercial zones should not be allowed to use restricted customer street parking in those zones during hours of enforcement

Group 2: Simon, Richard and Michael

31

4d: How will permits be addressed for care facilities?

There are at least 4 care facilities ranging from senior residential to skilled nursing services. All of the facilities seem to have parking for employees, residents and visitors; however, most facilities probably do not have adequate on‐site parking to accommodate everyone.

The ordinance should address how any facility (or any business in the district) allocates its on‐site parking for employees, residents, tenants and visitors. The ordinance must address “gaming” incentives for all businesses and residences.


32

4d, cont.: How will permits be addressed for care facilities?

One facility acknowledges its surplus on‐site parking and has leased a substantial portion of its private parking to local hotel. In this case facility must be accountable for appropriate use of its on‐site parking Leasing spaces to parties not associated with the care facility. A care facility or business must not negatively impact the permit parking district by leasing parking capacity to “third” unrelated entities.

General policy: Care facilities must comply with the permit district regulations applicable to other businesses and residences. Special exceptions might apply to handicapped residents, specially adapted vehicles, severe economic hardships, etc.


33

4e: How will permits be addressed for service workers and contractors?

Service workers/contractors/nannies/house cleaners, etc. all fall into this service worker category and should be allowed to apply for a permit based the house or residential unit they are working with for a pre‐defined time period that matches the work they are contracted to do. There must be realistic term associated with this particular permit. If longer term is needed, that person would need to reapply.

For example, for a home remodel, a contractor should be able to apply for a permit and will have to tie that permit with the home address and with the particular building permit pulled, so the duration matches. If it’s a quick two week project, permit should only be for two weeks. If the project is a several months long, than they should be able to apply for a permit that matches that time frame.


34

5. Costs

35

5a: How much do permits cost for residents and for workers?

• Resident permit pricing must be fair, based on what similar Bay Area communities charge residents for RPP

• Downtown worker permit pricing should be functionally equivalent to the parking garages and lots to discourage parking in the residential neighborhoods as a preference

• Significant price reduction should be made for employees who work in retail and/or service‐oriented businesses. $100‐$200 per year per permit is suggested

• Permits purchased by businesses for their employees should be discounted to encourage this practice

Group 2: Simon, Richard and Michael

36

5b: How will permit costs address the income disparity between workers of

different income levels?Option 1 ‐ Flat Rate Model

• $200 non‐resident, $100 for residents for first year, color coded by use

• Free parking option: Satellite lot with cabs• To be revisited w/data after 1 year• $325/space enforcement (Professorville)


37

5b: How will permit costs address the income disparity between workers of

different income levels?Option 2 ‐Market Based Solution

• Tier 1: 2 closest blocks = 2x garage price• Tier 2: 3‐4 closest blocks 1.5x garage price• Tier 3: 5‐8 closest blocks = garage price• Tier 4: 8+ blocks out = .5x garage price (or some

affordable price point)


38

8. Predicate Actions

39

8b: Parking Supply Measures (e.g. garage technology)

• New credit card‐enabled meters for short term parking in lots, garages, and streets

• No free time until at least 5pm• Wayfinding signage on‐street & garages/lots• No entrance gates• Interactive marketing to consumers, apps • Ability to purchase daily parking permit passes

remotely/online


40

9. Safety

41

9a: Safety Issues

Safety of non‐residents should be considered in the same light as current safety for residents. Therefore, not anticipating any additional expense, but do consider the current standards – adequate street lighting and police presence – a minimum.


RPP Stakeholder Meeting #3 - City of Palo Alto CA Parking ...paloalto.parkingguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/42453.pdfRPP Stakeholder Meeting #3 May 22, 2014. 2 Parking Management

Documents