City of Piedmont COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "City of Piedmont COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT"

Lucas Crawford
5 years ago
Views:

1 City of Piedmont COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: October 16, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and Council Paul Benoit, City Administrator Consideration of the Establishment of a New Preferential Parking District for the Neighborhood of Kingston Ave., Rose Ave., Lake Ave., and Linda Ave. RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct a public hearing on the possible establishment of a new Preferential Parking District for Kingston Ave., Rose Ave., Lake Ave., Linda Ave. as described in this Staff Report, and if so agreed, 2. Approve the attached resolution which takes the following actions related to the Kingston, Rose, Lake and Linda Avenues Preferential Parking District a. Establishes a preferential parking district as proposed in this Staff Report. b. Approves a parking restriction between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, holidays included, unless the approved resident parking permit is displayed. c. Authorizes the Director of Public Works and the Police Chief to establish the start date for enforcement of the new parking restrictions subsequent to the completion of the sign installation and distribution of parking permits to the qualifying parcels. d. Approve an appropriation from the Measure B Fund of $60,000 to defer the cost of the permits and parking sign installation. e. Authorize the Director of Public Works to re-examine the parking district effectiveness for potential impacts to adjacent, non-regulated streets, 6 months from the start date of this Preferential Parking District, and make an updated report to the Council. BACKGROUND A study for the possible formation of a residential parking district for the residents of Kingston Ave. has been underway since July of The following is a brief chronology of the events leading up to this meeting: July 8, 2015: Due to the increased scarcity of parking for the residents of Kingston Ave., a petition from Kingston Ave. residents is received by the City. This is attached as Exhibit A. December 2015 Kittleson & Associates were contracted through Coastland Engineers to provide traffic

2 AGENDA REPORT PAGE 2 engineering services to determine whether there was adequate justification for a parking district. January 21, 2016: Kittelson publishes their memorandum showing the results of the neighborhood survey. The Technical Memorandum dated January 21, 2016 is attached as Exhibit B. February 2016: Kittelson collects data and field observations in preparation for their report. May 4, 2016: Kittelson publishes their first report entitled Residential Permit Parking Survey on Kingston Ave. and Vicinity. This is attached as Exhibit C. September 8, 2016: A town hall meeting was noticed and held at City Hall. In attendance was Chester Nakahara, Director of Public Works, John Wanger, City Engineer, Jeremy Bowers, Police Chief, and 3 representatives from Kittelson & Associates. Kittelson made a presentation of their May 4, 2016 report, and Chester Nakahara lead an open discussion with the 21 residents that attended the meeting. A summary of the meeting by Kitteslon & Associates is attached at Exhibit D. Based on action items Staff moved forward by requesting that Kittelson prepare a supplemental scope of work. Kittelson was delayed in presenting this to Coastland, but finally scheduled the collecting of additional data, which occurred in January and February of (The holiday period between Thanksgiving and Christmas was avoided due to possibly anomalies in parking habits.) March 6, 2017: Received the agreement with the Department of Motor Vehicles to authorize identifying the collected license plates by Kittelson. April 14, 2017: Received preliminary findings from Kittelson and draft addendum report analyzing if parked vehicles were local Piedmont residents, non-local Piedmont residents, or non-piedmont residents. May 23, 2017; Kittelson publishes the Addendum to the Residential Permit Parking Survey on Kingston Ave. and Vicinity. This report is attached as Exhibit E. May 25, 2017: A second town hall meeting was noticed and held at City Hall. In attendance was Chester Nakahara, Director of Public Works, John Wanger, City Engineer, Jeremy Bowers, Police Chief, and 2 representatives from Kittelson & Associates. Kittelson made a presentation of their May 23, 2017 report, and Chester Nakahara lead an open discussion with the residents that attended the meeting. A summary of the meeting by Kitteslon & Associates is attached at Exhibit F. In concluding the meeting, Staff made it clear that the matter would not move forward unless

3 AGENDA REPORT PAGE 3 there was a consensus amongst the various streets and residents. In order to achieve this goal, Staff suggested that a single representative from each street be selected so that consensus could be reached amongst the representatives and the parking district could move forward for Council approval. DISCUSSION Kittelson has prepared 2 studies to assist the City and affected residents in coming to conclusions with respect to the establishment of a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program. A representative from Kittelson & Associates will be present at this meeting to make a summary presentation of their findings and be available for questions. Their first report dated May 4, 2016 is attached as Exhibit C and their Addendum Report dated May 23, 2017 is attached as Exhibit E. In their first report dated May 4, 2016, the conclusion drawn by Kittelson states the following: The findings of this study suggest that on-street parking in the study area is constrained and that non-residents are a large contributor to the scarcity of parking spots, particularly during midday on weekdays. The implementation of a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program would improve access to on-street parking spaces by study area residents, and is justified by the data collected for this study. Their second report dated May 23, 2017 further supports the establishment of the parking district. In their Recommendations on Page 13, Kittelson concludes: The findings of this additional research confirm the earlier findings that on-street parking in the study area is constrained and that non-residents are a large contributor to the scarcity of parking spots, particularly during midday on weekdays. and further in their recommendations: it is clear that a substantial share of overnight parking (about one-quarter) is due to nonresidents. With the support of the data and conclusions from Kittelson, it was agreed at the May 25, 2017 Town Hall meeting that even though multiple parking problems exist, the highest priority problem at this time was the over-night parking of non-residents. To that end, with concurrence from Kittelson, Staff and the residents agreed to a possible parking restriction of 10:00am to 7:00am, 7 days a week. This would keep the working hours free from restriction to accommodate day-time visitors, workers, and activities at home, provide free, open parking for local business activity, and not be overly burdensome for the staff and parents coming and going from Beach School. In early June of 2017, Staff received a call from Andy Skov indicating that all of the representatives have agreed to the proposed restriction of 10:00pm to 7:00am, 7 days a week, holidays included. However, it was not clear that the neighborhood on Greenbank Ave. between Rose Ave. and Lake Ave. was in favor of any restricted parking. Based on this input, Staff moved forward with the steps to bring this before the City Council for approval, but it was agreed that it would be preferable not to do so during the summer vacation. Inclusion of Oakland Residents on Rose Ave.

4 AGENDA REPORT PAGE 4 The entirety of Rose Ave. and the side walk on both sides of Rose Ave. are within the City of Piedmont City limits. However, many of the homes sitting on the north side of Rose Ave. are in Oakland. The question of the inclusion of Oakland residents on the north side of Rose Ave. was discussed at both town hall meetings. The Rose Ave. right-of-way is entirely under the jurisdiction of the City of Piedmont as the dividing line between Piedmont and Oakland is essentially the back of the sidewalk. Thus, the homes and apartments on the north side of Rose Ave. are in the City of Oakland. It was the opinion of both the Piedmont and Oakland residents on Rose Ave. that if the parking restrictions were implemented for only the Piedmont side, or south side of the street, that there would be a likely adverse impact on the north side of Rose Ave. for those Oakland residents. In fairness to their neighbors, the Piedmont residents of Rose Ave. urged Staff to include the Oakland neighbors across the street. From an enforcement point of view, Police Chief Jeremy Bowers pointed out that Piedmont currently enforces traffic issues on Rose Ave. and in checking with his counterpart in Oakland, given that the entirety of Rose Ave. is within Piedmont s jurisdiction and may be lawfully regulated by Piedmont, the City of Oakland has no issues with Piedmont enforcing a possible parking district on Rose Ave. Basic Details for the Proposed Residential Parking Program 2 parking permits will be issued to each dwelling unit. There will be no provisions for obtaining additional permits. An example of the typical parking permit is attached as Exhibit G. Dwelling units in large complexes greater than 8 units will be excluded from receiving parking permits. (This will also apply to the Oakland side of Rose Ave.) Dwelling units on the Oakland side of Rose Ave. that meet the approved criteria will be included to receive parking permits. This includes the following addresses on Rose Ave. 1075, 1069, 1063, 1057, 1051, 1045, 1039, 1053, 1027, 1021 (4 units), 1015, 1007, 1001, 995 (3 units), 142 Echo Ave. ( 3 units) 957, 951, , , 933, , 921, 901(4 units), 849, 847, 843, , 785 and 781. Boundaries of the Proposed Residential Parking Program A map of the Proposed Kingston, Lake, Rose, and Linda Parking District is attached as Exhibit H. It should be noted that the potential future inclusion of the parcels on Greenbank Ave. have been included because discussions related to this street segment have occurred through this process. Potential Impacts to Adjacent, Non-Regulated Streets At the first Town Hall meeting of September 8, 2016, residents of Greenbank Ave. queried as to what the potential impacts of the proposed parking district on Kingston Ave., Rose Ave. Lake Ave. and Linda Ave. would be on Greenbank Ave. After much discussion, the City and Kittelson Associates agreed to include a study of Greenbank Ave. in the follow-up study that was to include the additional task of identifying whether the parked cars were Piedmont residents or not. In the Addendum Report dated May 23, 2017, Page 9 10, where Kittelson concludes the following: Greenbank Ave. has space for approximately 69 on-street parked vehicles, compared to 278 in the original study area. Relative to the parking supply, fewer vehicles are parked on Greenbnak

5 AGENDA REPORT PAGE 5 Ave. than the rest of the study area, and a small number of these vehicles are registered outside of the study area. Figure 3 (page 9) shows Greenbank Ave. does not meet the occupancy thresholds used to justify inclusion in the RPP (Residential Parking Permit) program. Only in one observation Thursday 2-16 at 5am did Greenbank Ave. exhibit occupancy above 75%, primarily due to residents of the study area. Additionally, there has been mixed reactions and reluctance from some of the residents of Greenbank Ave. to be included in the RPP for various reasons, even though there is also some concern about the potential impacts if the other streets do enact a RPP. Based on input received from the community and the fact that the Kingston, Rose, Lake, and Linda groups are unified in moving forward with the recommended restriction on a 6-month trial period before we reexamine the impacts, Greenbank Ave. has been not included in this proposal, but will remain on our radar for further observation. If deemed appropriate, Kittelson & Associates will be reengaged to provide professional engineering analysis. Howard Ave., Nace Ave., and Lake Ave. (between Linda Ave. and Olive Ave.) are also other adjacent streets that potentially could be impacted should the RPP be implemented as proposed. Similar to our sensitivities to the Greenbank Ave. issues, Staff and Kittelson Associates will reexamine the impacts on these streets after the proposed 6 month trial period has been reached. Impacts of the Linda Ave. Crosswalk Project It is worth noting that the recently completed Linda Ave. Crosswalk Project yielded an additional 12 new parking spaces. In as much as this may or may not affect the parking on the subject streets, it should have a positive impact on the parking pressures in general for the surrounding neighborhood and Beach School operations during the day. Currently, the City is working with the Piedmont Unified School District to finalize the on-street loading and parking signage so the additional public parking is more apparent. FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS The estimated cost of installing the appropriate poles and signage, and the cost of the mirror hung parking permits is approximately $60,000. This will be paid through the Measure B Fund. CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the resolution. By: Chester Nakahara, Public Works Director LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Neighborhood Petition received by the City on July 8, Exhibit B Community Input Technical Memorandum - January 11, 2017 by Kittelson & Assoc. Exhibit C Residential Permit Parking Survey by Kittelson & Assoc., dated May 4, 2016 Exhibit D Sept. 8, 2016 Town Hall Meeting Summary by Kittelson & Assoc., dated Sept. 14, 2016 Exhibit E Addendum - Residential Permit Parking Survey by Kittelson & Assoc., dated May

6 AGENDA REPORT PAGE 6 23, 2017 Exhibit F - May 25, 2017 Town Hall Meeting Summary by Kittelson & Assoc., dated May 25, 2017 Exhibit G Map Proposed Kingston-Lake-Rose & Linda Parking District Exhibit H Proposed Signage - Kingston-Lake-Rose & Linda Parking District Exhibit I Typical Parking Permit

7 AGENDA REPORT PAGE 7 RESOLUTION No. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PIEDMONT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A NEW PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING ON-STREET PARKING IN THE DESCRIBED AREA OF KINGSTON AVENUE, ROSE AVENUE, LAKE AVENUE, & LINDA AVENUE, FINDING THAT: WHEREAS, on-street parking on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue in the City of Piedmont ( City ) is congested; and WHEREAS, since July of 2015, the City has conducted several studies and held several public forums to discuss the possibility of creating a preferential parking district pursuant to Vehicle Code section on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue. WHEREAS, on street parking congestion on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue creates substantial inconvenience for the residents of those streets; and WHEREAS, on street parking on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue constitutes a safety hazard; and WHEREAS, use of existing off street parking spaces on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue is inadequate; and WHEREAS, creating a preferential parking district on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue will not adversely affect the neighborhoods next to the proposed parking district; and WHEREAS, creating a preferential parking district will not adversely affect the general safety and welfare of the residents of the City as a whole. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PIEDMONT AS FOLLOWS: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as findings of the City Council of the City of Piedmont. 2. Pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22507, the City hereby establishes a preferential parking district on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue, as more particularly depicted on Exhibit A ( Parking District ).

8 AGENDA REPORT PAGE 8 3. Vehicles are prohibited from parking within the Parking District between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, holidays included, unless an approved resident parking permit is displayed on the vehicle. 4. City staff is hereby directed to implement all necessary measures to install signage to notify residents and visitors of the parking restrictions and to distribute approved parking permits to residents within the Parking District. 5. Two parking permits will be issued to each dwelling unit within the Parking District. Residents may not obtain additional permits. Dwelling units in large complexes greater than eight units are excluded from receiving parking permits. The dwelling units on the north (or Oakland) side of Rose Avenue will be entitled to receive parking permits. This includes the following addresses on Rose Avenue: 1075, 1069, 1063, 1057, 1051, 1045, 1039, 1053, 1027, 1021 (four units), 1015, 1007, 1001, 995 (three units), 957, 951, , , 933, , 921, 901(four units), 849, 847, 843, , 785 and 781. The three dwelling units on 142 Echo Avenue will also be entitled to receive parking permits. 6. Subsequent to the installation of approved signage, City staff is directed to establish an effective date of enforcement and to notify the affected residents of that effective date. 7. This Resolution shall become effective immediately. 8. All portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual component of this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the remaining resolution portions shall be and continue in full force and effect, except as to those resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid. The City Council of the City of Piedmont hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional.

64 EXHIBIT H AGENDA REPORT PAGE 64 KINGSTON ROSE LAKE LINDA PARKING DISTRICT SIGNAGE

66 Item #8 Lake/Linda/Kingston/Rose Avenues Preferential Parking District Correspondence received before 3:00 p.m. on Monday, October 16 th I am a Greenbank Ave resident; my home is located half a block from two of the proposed district boundaries (Rose Avenue and Kingston Avenue); I attended the Town Hall meeting in May to learn more and provide input to the process. I am concerned that implementation of the proposal will have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and oppose the parking restrictions. If approved, I support the requirement that the district be evaluated after a six month period of operation. My other comments are directed at the process that led to this agenda item and the standards for approving the proposal. The process was not transparent or well-defined. Kingston neighbors have voiced frustration that the process has taken too long. From my perspective, there was inadequate, inconsistent notice to impacted residents regarding the process. There does not appear to be a requirement that the City notify residents that a petition for a parking district has been submitted. What alerted me and other residents that something was up was the field survey conducted by Kittelson in February of 2016, months after the petition was submitted and an online community survey had been conducted among some residents. The first public notice to potentially impacted neighbors was a mailed notice announcing the Town Hall meeting in September 2016, over a year after the original petition was submitted. More recently, orange dots on curbs in the neighborhood and subsequent calls to Public Works alerted us to the fact that this agenda report was forthcoming. Regarding the actual proposal, the Municipal Code Section states the requirements for approval of a parking district. Evidence to support the findings in the proposed resolution appears to be lacking or inadequate. Specifically, (1) evidence that on-street parking in the proposed district constitutes a safety hazard, (2) a petition signed by 70% of the owners of the lots in the described area (the petition includes only residents in the 900 block of Kingston). Now it is up to the Council to evaluate the proposal, its fiscal impacts, and the potential impact to the neighborhood, and Piedmont as a whole. Thank you for your time. Winifred Walters Mayor McBain and Council Members Anderson, Cavenaugh, King and Rood, I am writing in reference to the agenda item Consideration of the Establishment of the Lake/Linda/Kingston/Rose Avenues Preferential Parking District scheduled for the 10/16/17 City Council meeting. My comments begin two paragraphs below but first there is this: This is the second conversation I ve had with him (Chester Nakahara) where he suggested that we will bring the wrath of the other streets on ourselves if we speak against his proposal at the council. This time it was You will have a scary Halloween if you oppose this. I asked if I

67 could quote him and he said it was a joke. Chester Nakahara to Greenbank resident, October 11, 2017 Interpret it as you will but I take it as a reflection of the tension that has built over this proposal. Have we reached a point where intimidation or threats of vandalism are made over a place to park your car? I encourage the Council to address this head on before considering the merits of any proposal. Comments on the Proposed Parking District You will no doubt be hearing from people on both sides of the issue. It has lurched along for a couple of years, fraught with a host of problems, some are data-based, some are differences in subjective values and many, many result from very poor communications between the City and neighbors and between neighbors themselves. It is true that there have been two town hall meetings which seems to imply that there was some working toward consensus. That is wholly incorrect. Little, if anything, was resolved in those meetings. It may be that opposing views will never be reconciled but it has now come to Council to determine what is best for the whole neighborhood and for the City. Because it has dragged on for so long there may be an urge to want to approve. The lengthy time period stems in part from lack of a clear process but, even so, a bad plan does not become a good plan with age. I am not in favor of establishing this district for a number of reasons (alternatives never pursued, selective reliance on a thin dataset, questionable analysis, determination of impacts ignored, cost of implementation unlikely that the trial could be rolled back, plan for permits/eligibility was not public, unintended consequences such as a reduction of total parking spaces where a space in the district is not being used but unavailable to anyone else, the blight of a forest of No Parking signs... I could go on.). However, even ignoring the concerns above, I do not believe the Council can adopt the proposed resolution based on the staff report that supports it. Given the requirements set forth in the City Code, the Council cannot proceed to approve this district. It simply does not meet the criteria for approval. Requirements for creating a preferential parking district are enumerated in Section in the City Code. Section requires a petition requesting creation of a parking district in the described area which is signed by the owners of 70% of the lots in the described area. The agenda report includes a single petition, for Kingston Ave. with 24 signatures. Six signatures duplicate the same parcel, leaving 18 unique parcels in the petition. Per Kittelson (5/23/17, p. 17) there are 173 buildings (as a proxy for parcels) in the proposed district. While it is possible that other petitions exist they are not included in the agenda report. 18/173=10.4%. The agenda report does not support the proposed resolution in these areas: (b) On-street parking congestion creates substantial inconvenience. These terms are subjective and not defined but the Kittelson survey noted that in the past month 83% of residents had not had to park farther than a 3 minute walk from their residence. There is no indication of

68 how frequently this occurs but a 3 minute walk does not appear to meet the threshold of substantial inconvenience. (Kittelson, 5/4/16, p. 11) (c) On-street parking is a safety hazard. Unsafe conditions are not raised in the Kittelson report nor was it raised as an issue in either town hall meeting (d) Use of off-street parking spaces is inadequate. The intent of this point is unclear but it seems to imply that off-street parking is available but not being used? It is difficult to see how that would be requirement in order to create a district (e) Creating a parking district will not adversely affect adjacent neighborhoods. Of course this is an unknown until a district is actually implemented but it is highly likely that there will be an impact. It is a reasonable assumption that the cars that would have been parked in the district will not simply evaporate. They likely will be pushed to the streets at the perimeter of the parking district, read adjacent neighborhoods. In order to approve the proposal all conditions of Section (a)-(f) must be met. The proposal fails on more of these criteria than it passes. Thank you for your consideration. Tom Walters