CLAREMONT TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA “We are a vibrant, livable, and inclusive community dedicated to quality services, safety, financial strength, sustainability, preservation, and progress with equal representation for our community.”
City Council Chamber Thursday 225 Second Street July 22, 2021 Claremont, CA 91711 7:00 PM
COMMISSIONERS
JUSTINE GARCIA CHAIR
JACK BLAIR GLORIA HERNANDEZ-LOOFBOURROW
JOHN MARLER JULIE MEDERO BRIAN MCCABE SONJA STUMP
Pursuant to the local emergency concerning the COVID-19 virus declared by the City Council of the City of Claremont on March 19, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Health’s “Safer at Home Order” issued March 19 , 2020, and Executive Order N-29-20 issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 18, 2020, the following protocols will apply to public participation for the duration of the emergency:
Members of the public will not be permitted to be physically present at meetings. To allow for public participation, the Traffic and Transportation Commission will conduct its meeting through Zoom Video Communications. To participate in the meeting from the comfort of your own home or office, download Zoom on any phone or computer device and copy and paste the following link into your web browser to access and participate in the live Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m.: https://zoom.us/j/97473747561 or to only listen from the phone dial (213)338-8477, Web ID: 974 7374 7561.
Members of the public who wish to address the Traffic and Transportation Commission on any matter listed on the agenda or a subject matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission may utilize the following methods. The Commission requests, but does not require, the public speakers to identify themselves.
OPTION 1: LIVE COMMENTS - Through Zoom, someone wishing to speak may virtually "raise your hand". Wait to be called upon by the Commission Secretary, and then you may provide verbal comments for up to 4 minutes. Page 2 Traffic and Transportation Commission Agenda July 22, 2021 OPTION 2: E-MAIL - Public comments may be sent via email to Natalie Reagan, Traffic and Transportation Commission Secretary, at [email protected]. All emails received before 3:00 p.m., will be distributed to the Commission, imaged into the City’s document archive system, and read into the record (up to 4 minutes).
OPTION 3: MAIL - Public comments may be mailed to Claremont City Hall Attn: Natalie Reagan, 207 Harvard Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711. All comments received via mail will be distributed to the Commission, imaged into the City’s document archive system, and read into the record (up to 4 minutes).
OPTION 4: TELEPHONICALLY - Members of the public wanting to address the Commission telephonically are requested to inform Natalie Reagan, Commission Secretary, no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Natalie Reagan can be reached at (909) 399-5465, or [email protected]. You will be called during consideration of the item you are interested in and given up to 4 minutes to speak.
The meeting will not be live streamed through Granicus as the meeting will be live streamed through Zoom instead. The recorded meeting will be uploaded and saved as a record.
CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORATION COMMISSION
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS, PRESENTATIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Update on Recent Regional Transportation Developments by Gold Line Construction Authority
PUBLIC COMMENT The Commission has set aside this time for persons in the audience who wish to comment on items that ARE NOT LISTED ON THIS AGENDA, but are within the jurisdiction of the Traffic and Transportation Commission. Members of the audience will later have the opportunity to address the Traffic and Transportation Commission regarding ALL OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA at the time the Commission considers those items.
At this time the Commission will take public comment for 30 minutes. Public Comment will resume later in the meeting if there are speakers who did not get an opportunity to speak because of the 30-minute time limit.
The Brown Act prohibits the Commission from taking action on oral requests relating to items that are not on the agenda. The Commission may engage in a brief discussion, refer the matter to staff, and/or schedule requests for consideration at a subsequent meeting.
The Commission requests, but does not require, speakers to identify themselves. When you come up to speak, please state your name unless you wish to remain anonymous. Each speaker will be allowed four (4) continuous minutes. Page 3 Traffic and Transportation Commission Agenda July 22, 2021
CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. The Traffic and Transportation Commission or one or more Commissions and/or Committees have previously considered most of the items on the consent calendar. The Commission may act on these items by one motion following public comment.
Only Commissioners may pull an item from the consent calendar for discussion.
Now is the time for those in the audience to comment on the consent calendar. Each speaker will be allowed four (4) continuous minutes to comment on items on the consent calendar. 1. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2021
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportation Commission approve and file the Traffic and Transportation Commission minutes of June 24, 2021.
Attachment(s): Draft Traffic and Transportation Commission minutes of June 24 2021
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 2. FOOTHILL GOLD LINE EXTENSION DRAFT PARKING UTILIZATION AND PROTECTION STUDY OUTLINE AND AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Recommendation: Staff recommends the Traffic and Transportation Commission review the Parking Study and provide feedback on the Ad Hoc Committee comments.
Attachment(s): Draft Foothill Gold Line Extension Parking Study Ad Hoc Committee Comments Claremont Station Parking Scenarios (SEIR Excerpt)
REPORTS
Commission
Commissioner Comments
Staff
Briefing on Council Meetings
Briefing on Other Items
Upcoming Agendas and Events
ADJOURNMENT
THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CLAREMONT TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WILL BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2021, AT 7:00 P.M., VIA ZOOM. Page 4 Traffic and Transportation Commission Agenda July 22, 2021
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA, AND SUBMITTED TO THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA, ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT 207 HARVARD AVENUE, CLAREMONT, MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, 7 AM – 6 PM. SUBJECT MATERIALS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE - www.ci.claremont.ca.us. For more information, please call the City Clerk’s Office at 909-399-5461.
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 0 F 1990, THIS AGENDA WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IN APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE FORMATS TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO REQUIRES A MODIFICATION OR ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN A CITY MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY CLERK AT 909-399-5461 “VOICE” OR 1-800-735-2929 “TT/TTY” AT LEAST THREE (3) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING, IF POSSIBLE.
I, NATALIE REAGAN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING AGENDA WAS POSTED AT CLAREMONT CITY HALL, 207 HARVARD AVENUE, ON JULY 15 , 2021, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2.
POST THROUGH: JULY 23, 2021 Claremont Traffic and Transportation Commission Agenda Report
File #: 3889 Item No: 1.
TO: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: MARIA B. TIPPING, CITY ENGINEER
DATE: JULY 22, 2021 Reviewed by: Finance Director: N/A
SUBJECT:
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2021
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportation Commission approve and file the Traffic and Transportation Commission minutes of June 24, 2021.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
The agenda and staff report for this item have been posted on the City website and distributed to interested parties. If you desire a copy, please contact Natalie Reagan at [email protected]
Submitted by: Prepared by:
Maria B. Tipping, P.E. Natalie Reagan City Engineer Administrative Assistant
Attachment: Draft Traffic and Transportation Commission minutes of June 24, 2021.
CLAREMONT Page 1 of 1 Printed on 7/15/2021 powered by Legistar™ TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday, June 24, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Meeting Conducted Via Zoom and Video Recording is Archived on the City Website https://www.ci.claremont.ca.us/government/city-counciI/watch-city-council-meetings
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Garcia called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT VIA ZOOM: COMMISSIONER: BLAIR, GARCIA, LOOFBOURROW, MCCABE, STUMP
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: MEDERO
LATE ARRIVAL: COMMISSIONER: MARLER (Arrived at 7:09 pm)
ALSO PRESENT VIA ZOOM: City Engineer Maria Tipping; City Attorney Alisha Patterson; Administrative Assistant Natalie Reagan; and Senior Administrative Assistant Nancy Krahn
CEREMONIAL MATTERS, PRESENTATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no ceremonial matters, presentations, or announcements.
PUBLIC COMMENT
This item starts at 00:03:30 in the archived video.
Chair Garcia invited public comment.
There were no requests to speak.
CONSENT CALENDAR
This item starts at 00:04:30 in the archived video.
Chair Garcia invited public comment.
There were no requests to speak.
1. Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2021 Approved and filed.
Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes June 24, 2021 Page 2
Commissioner McCabe moved to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Commissioner Loofbourrow, and carried on a roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Commissioner – Blair, Garcia, Loofbourrow, McCabe, Stump NOES: Commissioner – None ABSENT: Commissioner – Medero, Marler
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM
2. Training on the Ralph M. Brown Act and Other Meeting Procedures Presented by Alisha Patterson, City Attorney
This item starts at 00:6:30 in the archived video.
City Attorney Alisha Patterson gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Chair Garcia invited public comment.
There were no requests to speak.
The Traffic and Transportation Commission received training on the Ralph M. Brown Act and other meeting procedures presented by City Attorney Alisha Patterson.
REPORTS
This item starts at 00:29:40 in the archived video.
Commission
Commissioner Comments
Staff
Briefing on Council Meetings
City Engineer Tipping gave an update on previous City Council meetings.
Briefing on Other Items
City Engineer Tipping updated the commission on the speeding enforcement efforts from the Claremont Police Department.
Upcoming Agendas and Events
City Engineer Tipping reported on upcoming agenda items.
Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes June 24, 2021 Page 3
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Garcia adjourned the meeting at 7:33 p.m. The next meeting of the Traffic and Transportation Commission will be held on Thursday, July 22, 2021, at 7:00 p.m.
Chair
ATTEST:
Administrative Assistant
Claremont Traffic and Transportation Commission Agenda Report
File #: 3891 Item No: 2.
TO: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: MARIA B. TIPPING, CITY ENGINEER
DATE: JULY 22, 2021 Reviewed by: Finance Director: N/A
SUBJECT:
FOOTHILL GOLD LINE EXTENSION DRAFT PARKING UTILIZATION AND PROTECTION STUDY OUTLINE AND AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY
At the April 22, 2021 Traffic and Transportation Commission (TTC) meeting, an Ad Hoc Committee was formed to review the Draft Parking Utilization and Protection Study Outline for the Foothill Gold Line Extension (Parking Study) document.
Since the April meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee has met on two occasions to review the document and make recommendations.
This report provides an update on the meetings conducted by the Ad Hoc Committee and the future steps moving forward.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Traffic and Transportation Commission review the Parking Study and provide feedback on the Ad Hoc Committee comments.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
The cost associated with the preparation of this staff report is estimated at $1,106 and is included in the operating budget of the Community Development Department.
ANALYSIS
At the April 22, 2021 TTC meeting, staff announced they had received the Draft Parking Study document, prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., commissioned by the Gold Line Construction Authority (Attachment A). At this meeting, an Ad Hoc Committee was selected with the purpose of reviewing the Parking Study document. The Committee was comprised of the following CLAREMONT Page 1 of 3 Printed on 7/15/2021 powered by Legistar™ purpose of reviewing the Parking Study document. The Committee was comprised of the following TTC members: Chair Garcia, Vice Chair McCabe, and Commissioner Stump. The goal of the Committee was to (a) review the Parking Study document and provide feedback and, (b) work with staff to prepare a response to the Gold Line Construction Authority, anticipated to be sent in August 2021.
Staff met with the Ad Hoc Committee to review the Parking Study on May 17, 2021 and June 7, 2021. The Committee reviewed the plan and discussed the potential impacts and concerns. The comments received are summarized in Attachment B.
The Gold Line Construction Authority commissioned the preparation of this document to present the outline of a parking study for the area near the future Claremont Gold Line Station. City parking could be impacted by increased parking demand and parking poaching once the light rail extension is open to the public. The document summarizes the study area, the data collection efforts to be conducted in the future, and the potential improvements which can be implemented to protect public and private parking supplies near the future station.
The Parking Study did not determine the revised number of parking spaces needed to serve the demand at the Gold Line Parking Facility. The revised number of spaces was established in the Gold Line Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) adopted in January 2021. The SEIR determined the Claremont parking facility recommended for construction by Gold Line Construction Authority to be “Scenario A” as noted in Attachment C. This scenario reduces the number of parking spaces from 1,100 to 539 parking spaces, which will be provided in a combination of a parking structure and surface parking. The parking will be available within the location of the existing Metrolink Park and Ride surface lot at the southeast corner of First Street at College Avenue.
Next Steps:
As the Gold Line Construction Authority moves forward with the Gold Line project and the potential extension to Montclair, the following steps will be taken:
1. A letter will be prepared to include the comments received from the Ad Hoc Committee and submitted to the Gold Line Construction Authority in August 2021; 2. Staff will work with the Gold Line Construction Authority to address the comments provided to finalize the Study; 3. Staff will revise tasks and timelines to adjust to the potential interim and buildout scenarios if the additional funding needed to complete the Claremont and Montclair stations is secured by the October 2021 deadline; 4. The Committee will meet when necessary as new tasks and timelines are identified; and 5. Staff will continue to provide verbal updates to the TTC at upcoming meetings.
CEQA REVIEW
The current item is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment in accordance to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines. The status report from the subcommittee on the Draft Parking Utilization and Protection Study Outline for the Foothill Gold Line Extension will not in itself have a significant effect on the environment because the review will not result in or lead to a physical change in Claremont. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time.
CLAREMONT Page 2 of 3 Printed on 7/15/2021 powered by Legistar™ PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
The agenda and staff report for this item have been posted on the City website and distributed to interested parties. If you desire a copy, please contact Natalie Reagan at [email protected].
Submitted and Prepared by:
Maria B. Tipping, P.E. City Engineer
Attachments: A - Draft Foothill Gold Line Extension Parking Study B - Ad Hoc Committee Comments C - Claremont Station Parking Scenarios (SEIR Excerpt)
CLAREMONT Page 3 of 3 Printed on 7/15/2021 powered by Legistar™ DRAFT
PARKING UTILIZATION AND PROTECTION STUDY OUTLINE FOR THE FOOTHILL GOLD LINE EXTENSION
CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA
JULY 2020
PREPARED FOR
CITY OF CLAREMONT
PREPARED BY
DRAFT
PARKING UTILIZATION AND PROTECTION STUDY OUTLINE FOR THE FOOTHILL GOLD LINE EXTENSION
CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA
July 2020
Prepared for:
CITY OF CLAREMONT
Prepared by:
GIBSON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. 555 W. 5th Street, Suite 3375 Los Angeles, California 90013 (213) 683-0088
Ref: J1777
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1
Foothill Gold Line Extension ...... 1
Station Area Context ...... 2
Potential Parking Impacts ...... 2
2. Study Area and Data Collection ...... 8
Data Collection ...... 10
3. Strategies and Improvements ...... 12
Parking Management Strategies ...... 12
Previous Experience ...... 18
Recommendations ...... 21
Appendix: California Vehicle Code Excerpts
List of Figures
NO.
1 Foothill Gold Line Extension to Montclair ...... 5 2 Claremont Gold Line Station Site Plan ...... 6 3 Claremont Gold Line Station Existing Parking Restrictions & Vulnerable Parking Facilities ...... 7 4 Claremont Gold Line Station Facilities Included in Parking Study ...... 11
List of Tables
NO.
1 Claremont Gold Line Station Parking Planning Priorities ...... 23
Chapter 1 Introduction
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. (GTC) prepared this report to present the outline of a parking utilization and protection study (Parking Study) for the area near the future Claremont Gold Line Station that may be impacted by increased parking demand and parking poaching once the light rail extension opens for service. It summarizes the study area, data collection efforts to be conducted, and the potential improvements that can be implemented by the City of Claremont (City) to protect its public and private parking supplies near the future station.
FOOTHILL GOLD LINE EXTENSION
The Gold Line currently runs from East Los Angeles to Azusa with a total of 27 stations including termini at Azusa Pacific University/Citrus College (APU/CC) and at Atlantic Boulevard. The planned extension, currently underway, will add six new stations east of the current terminus at APU/CC. The six stations, to be located in Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont, and Montclair, may be built in two phases. The first phase will add new stations in Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne and Pomona. This phase is fully funded and is expected to be completed in 2025. If the additional funding needed is secured before October 2021, the project will be extended to include the Claremont and Montclair stations, and the entire extension will be completed in 2028. If the extension is built in two phases, the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority (Authority) will consider conducting the parking utilization and protection study after construction of each phase. Further, the Authority will consider another version of this study if a parking fee is instituted at the Gold Line parking facility in Claremont. Figure 1 depicts the route of the extension as well as the location of the new stations on the extended line.
1
STATION AREA CONTEXT
Figure 2 illustrates the current site plan for the Claremont Gold Line Station and adjacent Metrolink Station as well as the currently approved location of the parking facility to serve both stations. The design of the parking facility is not yet complete. In addition, the location of the parking facility is under review and the number of parking spaces to be provided is currently being studied to ensure that adequate supply will be provided without overbuilding.
As currently planned the Gold Line Station will be located west of College Avenue and south of 1st Street, and the Metrolink Station will be located south of the intersection of 1st Street & Columbia Avenue. The area around the proposed station is a mix of industrial, commercial, educational, and residential uses.
Figure 3 shows the location of the proposed station as well as the existing on-street parking restrictions on streets within 0.5 miles of the future stations (Study Area). As shown, within the Study Area, where on-street parking is allowed, parking is generally unrestricted with the exception of the Claremont Village area, which has existing time restrictions on public streets and within many of the public lots. Parking is currently allowed in a few neighborhoods in the Study Area. There are numerous small public and private parking lots in the Study Area.
POTENTIAL PARKING IMPACTS
Municipalities slated for a light rail station must confront the potential for Gold Line patrons to utilize non-Gold Line parking spaces instead of parking in the designated station parking facility, thereby poaching spaces currently available for local businesses, residences, or others. Poaching may occur when there is a more convenient or cheaper option for parking than is provided at the station parking facility or if the increased demand for parking at the facility exceeds the facility’s parking capacity. Around the future light rail stations, this increased demand could occur on public streets, in public parking lots, or in private parking lots when those facilities are less expensive or more convenient than other local options, or when the supply of parking at the light rail station is fully utilized or less accessible.
2
The Parking Study will identify the parking areas and facilities that are potentially at risk to parking poaching as a result of the Gold Line Claremont Station opening for service. Additionally, the Parking Study will identify strategies and improvements that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate parking poaching and focus all Gold Line parking demand within the Gold Line parking facility. The scope the Parking Study does not include determining the number of spaces that would be most helpful to serve demand at the Gold Line parking facility, as having a strategic parking plan in place is beneficial regardless of the number of spaces ultimately provided at the future station.
The Parking Study will identify the actions that the City may take to prepare for the opening of the Gold Line Claremont Station and the strategies that may be quickly put in place if increased parking demand or poaching so requires. To that end, the Parking Study includes a summary of the strategies currently available to assist the City in preparing for Gold Line service and the collection of data prior to the opening of the station and again a few months after opening to determine the effects of the Gold Line extension on parking demand and patterns in the Study Area.
After the data is collected and analyzed, it will be used to determine if the opening of the Claremont Gold Line Station resulted in parking poaching or adverse impacts from increased parking demand. Strategies and improvements to alleviate any resulting impacts will be recommended based on the severity of the issue.
Locations Likely to be Impacted
Based on a field survey and initial feedback from the City, GTC identified the following locations as being the most likely to experience parking impacts due to anticipated Gold Line parking demand:
Private Parking 1. Our Lady of the Assumption 2. Chase Bank
3
3. Village Commercial Lots 4. Village Commercial Lots 5. Village Commercial Lots 6. Village Plaza 7. VNA 8. Spring Street Center 9. Keck and MOBs 10. Keck and MOBs 11. Auto Sales/Industrial Park 12. Claremont Senior Villas 13. Pepper Tree Shopping Center
Public Off-Street Parking 1. Public Garage 2. Oakmont Elementary 3. College Park 4. Blaisdell Park
Public and Private On-Street Parking o All street segments shown in green in Figure 3
4 FIGURE FOOTHILL GOLD LINE EXTENSION TO MONTCLAIR 1
5 CLAREMONT GOLD LINE STATION FIGURE SITE PLAN 2
6 LEGEND Public Parking at Risk Private Parking at Risk Permit Parking Existing Parking Restrictions No Parking Unrestricted Parking Relocated Metrolink Station Parking Facilities Station Platform Commercial Lots Public Garage Keck & MOBs Auto Sales / Industrial Old Town Claremont Villas Senior EXISTING PARKING RESTRICTIONS & VULNERABLE FACILITIES 1 9 Our Lady of the Assumption Shopping Center 10 Pepper Tree 11 CLAREMONT GOLD LINE STATION 3 1 5 4 2 12 13 6 Chase Bank 8 2 7 Spring St Center Oakmont Elementary Village Plaza
4 VNA 1/4 MILE 1/4 3
College Park
1/2 MILE 1/2
1/4 MILE 1/4 1/2 MILE 1/2 FIGURE 3 7 Not to Scale N
Chapter 2 Study Area and Data Collection
The Study Area was developed in conjunction with the City and the Authority staff. In the City, the Study Area includes 13 private parking lots, three public parking lots, and 44 public streets. Figure 4 depicts the Study Area showing the facilities included in the study. As shown, the private and public parking lots listed above, along with the public street segments below, will be included in the parking study and occupancy surveys:
Public Streets o East-West Streets . 7th Street east of Yale Avenue . 6th Street between Indian Hill Boulevard and College Avenue . Harrison Avenue between Berkeley Avenue and Harvard Avenue . Stanford Drive . 4th Street between Yale Avenue and College Avenue . Grinnell Drive . Bonita Avenue between Berkeley Avenue and Indian Hill Boulevard and between Harvard Avenue and College Avenue . Ashbury Drive . McKenna Street . 1st Street between western terminus and Cornell Avenue and between College Avenue and Mills Avenue . Wharton Drive between Watson Drive and Santa Fe Street . Santa Fe Street between Wharton Drive and Olive Street . Elder Drive north of Green Street . Green Street between Indian Hill Boulevard and eastern terminus . Kirkwood Avenue . Watson Drive
8
. Arrow Highway between Geneva Avenue and Springfield Street and between College Avenue and Claremont Boulevard . Oakdale Drive . Cucamonga Avenue . Fordham Place . Troy Court . Coe Street . Villanova Drive . Annapolis Drive . Point Drive . Cinderella Drive east of Notre Dame Road . Oak Park Drive between Indian Hill Boulevard and College Avenue o North-South Streets . Berkeley Avenue between Harrison Avenue and Bonita Avenue . Hope Street . Cornell Avenue south of Bonita Avenue . Marygrove Road north of Cinderella Drive . Norte Dame Road north of Cinderella Drive . Bucknell Avenue . Virginia Road . Indian Hill Boulevard between 7th Street and 4th Street and between Green Street and Oak Park Road . Yale Avenue between 7th Street and 4th Street . Olive Street . Augustine Avenue . Harvard Avenue between 7th Street and 4th Street . Spring Street . Springfield Street . St Bonaventure Avenue . College Avenue between 7th Street and Arrow Highway . Sycamore Avenue between Cucamonga Avenue and Victoria Place
9
DATA COLLECTION
Parking occupancy surveys will be conducted at each of the facilities listed above. Because there will be a long time gap between the development of the recommendations discussed in the next chapter and the actual opening of rail service along the corridor, an intermediate check-in period (between six and nine months before commencement of passenger service) will be undertaken. This check-in will review the recommendations in light of any land use changes or operational changes that may have taken place in the Study Area.
GTC will review with City staff any immediate actions that could be taken to implement the recommended strategies prior to commencement of passenger service and any modifications to the strategies that appear warranted based on network or operational changes.
During the six to nine-month window before the commencement of passenger service, a field review of parking occupancy will be conducted. On a day approved by City staff for the Study Area, a windshield survey of the sensitive parking areas will be conducted. Each parking location will be reviewed once during the mid-morning when the effects of increased parking demand would be most noticeable (likely 9:00 or 10:00 AM). Each identified susceptible lot and on-street parking block will be surveyed and the level of parking occupancy will be graded as “Light” (0- 50% occupied), “Medium” (50-75%), or “Heavy” (75-100%). A map of the Study Area showing the occupancy survey results will be prepared.
A similar field review of parking occupancy levels will be conducted approximately six months after the commencement of passenger service. The same survey format will be conducted at the same locations to identify parking areas where the occupancy levels have changed. This information would give City staff the information to identify any actual poaching or adverse impacts from increased demand that has occurred and to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures/strategies already implemented. It will also identify areas where additional measures might need to be taken. A map of the “before” and “after” parking occupancy results will be prepared.
10 LEGEND Public Parking at Risk Private Parking at Risk Unrestricted Parking Relocated Metrolink Station Parking Facilities Station Platform 1 9 10 FACILITIES INCLUDED IN PARKING STUDY 11 CLAREMONT GOLD LINE STATION 3 1 5 4 2 12 13 6 8 2 7
4 1/4 MILE 1/4
3
1/2 MILE 1/2
1/4 MILE 1/4 1/2 MILE 1/2 FIGURE 4 11 Not to Scale N
Chapter 3 Strategies and Improvements
This chapter details potential strategies that the City can consider to address any increased demand that may occur as a result of the opening of the Gold Line Claremont Station regardless of the number of parking spaces ultimately provided at the station parking facility. The strategies can be implemented either in advance of the start of passenger service or after the completion of this study within those problem areas identified via the parking occupancy surveys. GTC recommends that only minor strategies be implemented ahead of passenger service (in areas most likely to be affected by the start of passenger service), reserving the larger and more extensive strategies for post-passenger service implementation when significant issues may be identified. While the strategies included in this chapter may not all be relevant for implementation in the City, they are included to show the larger range of possible strategies available to the City, if needed.
PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Parking Restriction Changes
Time limit restrictions are an effective tool to protect parking supply on any on-street or off-street public parking space susceptible to increased parking demand. Transit riders tend to be commuters who park for long periods (eight-10 hours) at or around train stations. Placing time restrictions (e.g., a three-hour time limit) on a public parking space during commute hours generally discourages transit riders from utilizing that parking. If a three-hour time limit is not feasible across the entire day, the restrictions can be more specific to protect parking supplies. For example, as most transit commuters arrive at the station before 9:00 AM, the parking restrictions could have a three-hour limit enforceable from 7:00 AM to 12:00 PM. This would discourage most transit commuters from using the parking space, as they would arrive prior to
12
9:00 AM and would be in violation by 12:00 PM. However, anyone arriving after 9:00 AM could utilize the parking space for the duration of the day.
Alternative Modes of Travel
The City should investigate the feasibility and costs for expanding existing infrastructure to accommodate alternative modes of travel to/from the Claremont Gold Line Station such as installing bike lanes, wider, unobstructed sidewalks, convenient ride-share pick-up/drop-off facilities, and dependable shuttles/buses to/from the station as well as to other primary destinations within the City. Some of these improvements may require additional right-of-way. Many of these strategies were included in the recommendations of the recently completed first/last mile study for the City by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). The City should work with Metro to identify funding mechanisms for implementation of first/last mile projects that would strengthen connections to transit stations and support alternative modes of travel.
Bicycles. The new Claremont Gold Line Station will provide adequate bike storage facilities, but the development of the station will not involve the construction of any bike lanes or routes on City streets. The City should develop a Bicycle Master Plan to include bike lanes with direct access to the station to encourage utilization of bicycles. Expanding from the station, the City should provide bicycle storage facilities at major employment/entertainment destinations along the Gold Line path to accommodate commuters/patrons of City services and businesses and link those facilities to circulation routes serving the station.
Pedestrians. While the Authority will upgrade pedestrian facilities leading to the Claremont Gold Line Station and on the station property as part of the station’s overall construction, the City should ensure that the remaining pedestrian infrastructure provides appropriate connectivity between the station and major residential, business, or entertainment destinations for all vulnerable users.
The City should consider adopting a Master Plan for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure that includes connections between the proposed station and major destinations within the City.
13
Ride-Sharing. The Authority will design and implement a ride-share pick-up/drop-off area at the Claremont Gold Line Station that will accommodate at least four vehicles at one time and be situated such that it does not interfere with the station parking facility access or bike/pedestrian facilities.
In addition to the pick-up/drop-off location, the City could investigate a partnership with one of the ride-sharing providers, such as Uber or Lyft, similar to the City of Monrovia’s GoMonrovia program. The GoMonrovia program replaced a traditional dial-a-ride system that was becoming cost- prohibitive given the number of people it served. GoMonrovia provides anyone in the City of Monrovia a discounted ride on the Lyft platform to destinations within the City of Monrovia. Rides to/from the Monrovia Gold Line Station are further discounted to be in line with the Gold Line parking fee of $3 per day. This program is highly successful and provides rides to and from the Monrovia Gold Line Station to approximately 250 people per day, thus reducing parking demand at the station and surrounding areas.
Shuttles/Buses. The City could implement a shuttle system and include the Claremont Gold Line Station and Metrolink Station as regular stops along the route. The City of Arcadia provides three fixed-route bus lines that were adjusted to provide service to the Arcadia Gold Line Station when it opened in 2016. The three lines in Arcadia provide service from 6:30 AM to 8:30 PM with 35-45 minute headways. Similarly, the City of Pomona operates a shuttle system between the Metrolink station and small underutilized surface parking lots in the northern part of the City.
If a busing program is too expensive to implement/operate, a shuttle system focused on commuters who will pay for a majority of the expenses of the service with per ride or monthly usage fees might be a more tenable solution. The City could identify underutilized parking facilities located more than 0.5 miles away from the station and provide a shuttle that runs once or twice during the peak hours for commuters or students. Churches, such as the Claremont Presbyterian Church and the Claremont Community Church, make ideal commuter parking facilities as they are generally underutilized on weekdays when commuter parking demand is highest.
14
Residential Permit Parking Systems
In residential areas susceptible to parking poaching, a residential parking permit system could be implemented to protect the on-street parking supply for use by residents and their visitors. A residential parking permit system typically allows only residents and their visitors to utilize the on- street parking spaces in the subject area. Addresses in the permit area are generally allotted a set number of permits (two to four) per residence that are either purchased from the City or given to the residents without a fee. Similar to the parking restrictions above, if the goal of the residential parking permit system is only to eliminate parking poaching/adverse impacts of increased demand from the Claremont Gold Line Station, the restrictions can be in place only during the morning hours when commuters are headed to the Gold Line. For example, a residential parking permit that was only enforced from 5:00 AM to 10:00 AM would allow non-residents to park on the street for most of the day, but would discourage most commuters from parking in the area unless they have an atypical schedule that begins after 10:00 AM.
Parking Fees
Parking fees for public or private parking supplies could discourage parking for unintended uses. On-street parking can be controlled using meters. If the parking meters have time limits or are more expensive than parking at the Claremont Gold Line Station, transit riders may be encouraged to utilize cheaper spaces. If merchants are concerned that parking fees would drive customers away, a validation system could be implemented that allows local businesses to override costs and validate limited-time free parking (e.g., three hours of free parking for a theater or two hours of free parking for a restaurant).
Outreach and Education
Promotions should be conducted to inform Gold Line patrons of the preferred parking locations and potential penalties for unlawful parking. The parking available at the station should be heavily
15
promoted along with alternate modes of travel such as walking, biking, local public transit, or ride- sharing services using web-based notifications and/or smart mobile applications.
When a parking fee for Gold Line parking was instituted at the Arcadia Gold Line Station, Metro personnel were located at the station, in the station parking garage, and in nearby private and public parking lots to educate transit riders about the new fee. Metro staff also explained what other options existed for accessing the station, where free parking may be located, and what potential penalties would be imposed for avoiding the fee or parking in unauthorized locations.
Parking Enforcement
As parking supplies experience constraints in the future, rigid enforcement of parking restrictions should be concentrated in the areas of highest parking utilization to ensure turnover and increase public parking availability.
As part of the extension of the Gold Line, Metro’s Parking Management Team has offered to work closely with the City to assist in parking enforcement efforts to help prevent Gold Line riders from poaching City spaces. This should be investigated to determine whether the Police Department could work with Metro to develop an enforcement system that works for both entities.
Oftentimes business owners and merchants in an area like the Study Area call for stricter enforcement only to find out that the enforcement affects their employees and their customers more than anticipated. However, if the employees are given reasonable parking alternatives and the customer spaces are controlled by appropriate time restrictions, then enforcement can be an effective tool for all parties.
Private Parking Lot
Tow-Away Signage/Enforcement. Parking supplies in private parking lots could be protected with signage that conforms to the requirements set forth in California Vehicle Code (CVC) Division
16
11, Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 22658, a copy of which is provided in Appendix A. This section of the CVC details the requirements, including signage dimensions and required wording for an enforceable sign. Costs to private property owners are minimal as the cost of towing and storage would be passed on to the violator; only the costs associated with purchasing, installing, and maintaining the signs would be borne by the property owners.
Parking Control Equipment. If tow-away signage and enforcement does not adequately discourage Gold Line riders from parking in unauthorized private lots, parking control equipment may be required to achieve compliance. While effective parking controls may be too expensive a solution for smaller lots (with less than 50 parking spaces), larger lots could install cost-controlled transaction gates. These systems may be designed and installed in a number of different ways based on the preferred user experience or processing time, such as ticket-dispensers, pay-on-foot kiosks, access cards, or license plate readers. Any system could include a validation system that allows property owners to grant a set amount of time of free parking when patronizing their or their tenants’ establishments.
Parking Supply Increases
If the parking management strategies above are not enough to alleviate parking issues, ridership will likely decline, resulting in a mitigation of the parking demand. To the extent the City or Metro chooses to make additional parking supply available, there are a number of ways to increase parking supply that range from the expensive/difficult (constructing a new parking facility) to relatively inexpensive/not difficult (restriping a parking lot), with moderate options such as striping streets to provide additional on-street parking or leasing private spaces. Additionally, Metro’s Parking Management Team has stated that it would partner with the City in this situation and help identify and potentially provide additional parking supply strategies for the Claremont Gold Line Station.
17
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
The City of Arcadia and City of Monrovia have Gold Line stations with adjacent Gold Line parking structures. Both locations offered free parking until the facilities reached high occupancy, wherein Metro began charging a parking fee of $3.00/day. In both cases, city staff and council members were concerned that the institution of a parking fee would have a detrimental effect on public and private parking supplies near the stations.
It is important to note that both Monrovia and Arcadia provide city-sponsored or city-operated transit alternatives that allow train passengers to access their respective stations without utilizing a parking space in the garage. Arcadia has a bus system with stops at the Gold Line Station and major employment, recreation, entertainment, and shopping destinations within the city. Monrovia has a partnership with Lyft that provides discounted rides to and from the Gold Line station from anywhere within city limits. Both of these programs, as a convenient and affordable alternative to driving to the stations, have an effect on parking demand at the stations.
Arcadia Gold Line Station
The Gold Line garage at the Arcadia station has 294 parking spaces and these spaces were essentially fully occupied by 9:00 AM every weekday morning before the imposition of the parking fee. On June 1, 2019, Metro began charging $3.00/day to park in the station garage. Detailed parking occupancy studies conducted before the imposition of the parking fee showed 270 occupied spaces at the peak hour of 11:00 AM, with 260-270 spaces still occupied through 4:00 PM. On Saturday, the station garage served fewer than 50-60 vehicles all day long. This pattern shows that the garage is used almost exclusively by commuters.
The City of Arcadia commissioned a study to analyze the effects of the parking fee on the parking supplies around Downtown Arcadia. Both public and private parking spaces were inventoried, and the parking occupancy counts summarized above were conducted immediately before the parking fee was implemented. Those counts were used to identify the parking lots and on-street curb areas that were utilized prior to the Gold Line fee program. City of Arcadia staff and GTC identified on-
18
street curb parking areas and public/private lots that were vulnerable to Gold Line users who might seek alternate parking to avoid the fee.
Focusing on the vulnerable locations, parking time limit restrictions were identified, and strategies developed for protecting both public and private lots, but it was decided not to implement any specific actions until increased parking demand was evident.
Metro posted signs in the station garage advising patrons of the imposition of fees about two to three weeks in advance. The signs notified patrons of the availability of free parking at the Sierra Madre Villa Station, one stop to the west. When the parking fees were implemented, Metro and the City of Arcadia stationed personnel at the public and private parking lots adjacent to the station to advise Gold Line patrons not to use the parking lots or the on-street curb areas that were controlled by time limits. The patrons were advised to travel to the Sierra Madre Villa station to obtain free parking or they were directed to available curb parking located about two blocks from the station. The wayfinding personnel were deployed in the early morning hours when it was assumed commuters would have significant parking issues, but it appeared that the advance warning signs were effective. There was no large migration from the Gold Line garage to the downtown parking lots.
A second set of parking occupancy counts was conducted approximately four to six weeks after the implementation of the parking fees The Arcadia study found that, after institution of the parking fees at the Arcadia Gold Line Station, demand for public and private spaces in Downtown Arcadia was reduced from a peak 70% occupancy to a peak 62% occupancy, primarily because the Gold Line parking garage was very lightly used after the fee was imposed. The parking occupancy counts showed that the peak demand in the Gold Line station garage reduced from 270 spaces before the fee to 110 spaces maximum after the fee. The increased parking demand effect that the council and the business community feared did not materialize. The public and private parking lots and the on-street curb parking spaces in the station area and in downtown did not see a shift of parking away from the Gold Line station parking to the public lots in downtown.
The parking demand that was accommodated in the Gold Line garage did not simply disappear. The 160-space reduction in demand at the Arcadia station garage appears to have shifted to the
19
larger Gold Line garage at the Sierra Madre Villa station, where parking remained free. Had free parking not been available at the adjacent station, there may have been more negative effects of increased parking demand at the Arcadia station.
Monrovia Gold Line Station
The City of Monrovia prepared for the implementation of the Monrovia station parking fees by developing two park-and-ride lots in the Station Square area. Both remote lots were constructed on future development sites to provide supplemental Metro and Gold Line parking supply. The two parking lots accommodate 80 and 35 parking spaces, respectively. In addition, there are 61 unrestricted on-street curb parking spaces in the Station Square area.
Before the imposition of $3.00/day parking fees, the 350 parking spaces at the Gold Line station were virtually full by 9:00 AM each weekday morning. Late arrivals hunted for any remaining spaces on the roof level. In addition, the two park-and-ride lots were full every weekday. The area immediately north of the station was under construction with residential developments and much of the curbside parking was occupied by construction worker vehicles. Origin/destination studies tracked drivers and passengers parked in the Station Square area and found that of the 500+ parking spaces in the area, 66% of the vehicles were associated with the Gold Line demand, 25% were area employees (including the construction workers), and the remaining 9% of the vehicles were associated with the adjacent park and open space.
Knowing that the Gold Line was about to implement a parking fee, the City of Monrovia prepared an action plan for dealing with potential parking issues associated with increased parking demand. The plan included on-street and off-street time restrictions around the station, street restriping to increase curb parking spaces, and the provision of one-way streets to allow more curb parking. On a long-range basis, the City adopted a parking impact fee for new developments in the Station Square area to add more public parking to new developments.
The “after” studies at the Station Square area showed that the imposition of parking fees shifted parking demand from Monrovia to the Arcadia station (which had not yet implemented parking fees).
20
The parking demand in the Monrovia station garage reduced from 325 spaces to no more than 100 spaces occupied at any given time. The park-and-ride lots remain full and the 61 on-street curb parking spaces are now filled with Gold Line parkers as the construction workers have left the area.
The parking action plan has not been enacted to date, except for the passage of the parking impact fee, because parking issues have not reached a level to trigger components of the plan. As the nearby apartment building becomes occupied, the initial action could be the implementation of parking time limits on the on-street curb spaces. This would force Gold Line patrons to park inside the garage, or it would force them to walk a further distance. Considering the obstacles created by the I-210 freeway to the north, the Gold Line rail tracks, and an arterial street to the south, the prospect of walking farther to find “free” parking is unappealing.
Experience Summary
In both Monrovia and Arcadia, the cities developed plans to react to increased parking demand by using time limits or by implementing barriers to the all-day use of public/private off-street parking lots. While both cities were prepared to make changes, both decided to wait on implementation, so as to not implement disruptive actions that turned out to not be needed.
The concerns of increased parking demand expressed by the business community and city leaders did not materialize, suggesting reasonable reactions to parking shortages are preferable than implementing significant changes prior to passenger service that may not be ultimately needed. Both Monrovia and Arcadia continue to monitor the Gold Line parking conditions, and both cities have plans ready to implement if parking impacts arise.
RECOMMENDATIONS
City staff should have preliminary discussions regarding potential on-street parking restrictions with affected neighbors on the streets likely to be impacted by Gold Line parking, as detailed in Chapter 1. A delay in action is recommended until after the Gold Line opens for passenger service and any
21 potential parking problems become identified through the data collection results or other justified observations. The City should avoid premature preparations which might be more onerous on local residents and businesses than any Gold Line parking demand warrants. However, in order to effectively react to parking issues that may arise, it is important to develop a plan that can be implemented quickly.
Private lot operators who are concerned about Gold Line parking should install parking restriction signage in advance of the Claremont Gold Line Station opening for passenger service.
Next Steps
Table 1 provides a summary of the recommended steps for various stages of development of the Claremont Gold Line Station, ranging from immediate actions to long-term actions with intermediate steps. The responsible party (Metro, the Authority, or the City) for each recommended step is also provided.
Implementing a full parking protection plan prior to the start of passenger service is not recommended. Observations of actual parking supply conditions during operational passenger service is critical to ensuring that any protection plan is reasonable for the City, its residents and businesses, and transit users.
Prior to the start of passenger service, the City should investigate the potential for installation of the above-mentioned parking restrictions and private lot protections. GTC would not recommend the implementation of more restrictive, or potentially character-altering, strategies discussed in this study until a nexus is identified based on observations and parking occupancy studies.
In order to develop the full parking plan, observations and parking occupancy counts will be conducted before and after the start of passenger service to identify specific areas where parking poaching or adverse impacts from increased demand may be occurring. Once those areas are identified, specific measures and strategies from the actions described above will be developed in concert with City staff to address those issues.
22 TABLE 1 CLAREMONT GOLD LINE STATION PARKING PLANNING PRIORITIES
IMMEDIATE ACTION Responsible Party 1 1 Identify bicycle and pedestrian projects that need funding Metro 2 2 Seek funding for first/last mile projects TBD ACTIVITIES DURING STATION CONSTRUCTION 1 Review loading areas for Transportation Network Companies (TNC) like Lyft/Uber Authority 2 Review design of parking facility at station Authority 3 Finalize policy for charging for parking at station Metro INTERIM ACTIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF PASSENGER SERVICE 1 Begin education campaign Metro 1 2 Design marketing campaign for parking and pedestrian safety program Metro 3 Implement bike and pedestrian improvements as described in the Specific Plan City 4 Review City's micro-mobility (scooters, electric bikes, etc.,) ordinances City 5 Meet with neighbors along identified vulnerable block faces City a Discuss potential for parking restrictions City b Discuss interest in Residential Parking Permit system City 6 Meet with businesses served by vulnerable off-street parking lots Authority a Discuss "No Parking - Tow Away" signs Authority b Discuss ordering of No Parking signs Authority PRE-OPENING OF SERVICE 1 Conduct field surveys to establish Base Conditions (i.e., "before" conditions) Authority 2 Summarize and get City sign-off on Base Conditions Authority 3 Provide parking signage as agreed to by City and Authority Authority POST-OPENING CONDITIONS 1 Conduct field surveys to establish After Conditions Authority 2 Review Post-Opening survey results with City staff to identify problem areas Authority 3 Focus marketing campaign on parking availability locations and first mile/last mile transportation options Metro 4 Implement parking time restrictions discussed with neighbors and business community City 5 Discuss “No Parking – Tow Away” signs with vulnerable off-street lots City 6 Begin enforcement of parking restrictions City or Metro LONG- TERM ACTIONS 1 Work with businesses to order parking control equipment City 2 Identify locations for remote parking and organize shuttle bus operations to those lots City or Metro 3 Consider adding parking meters to vulnerable block faces in the business area City or Metro 4 Consider adding parking supply to the station area Metro
Notes: 1 Will be or has already been done in coordination with City 2 Metro is preparing implementation guidelines which will provide funding options and City will review these guidelines
23
Appendix
California Vehicle Code Excerpts
California Vehicle Code Division 11, Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 22658
(a) The owner or person in lawful possession of private property, including an association of a common interest development as defined in Sections 4080 and 4100 or Sections 6528 and 6534 of the Civil Code, may cause the removal of a vehicle parked on the property to a storage facility that meets the requirements of subdivision (n) under any of the following circumstances:
(1) There is displayed, in plain view at all entrances to the property, a sign not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size, with lettering not less than one inch in height, prohibiting public parking and indicating that vehicles will be removed at the owner’s expense, and containing the telephone number of the local traffic law enforcement agency and the name and telephone number of each towing company that is a party to a written general towing authorization agreement with the owner or person in lawful possession of the property. The sign may also indicate that a citation may also be issued for the violation.
(2) The vehicle has been issued a notice of parking violation, and 96 hours have elapsed since the issuance of that notice.
(3) The vehicle is on private property and lacks an engine, transmission, wheels, tires, doors, windshield, or any other major part or equipment necessary to operate safely on the highways, the owner or person in lawful possession of the private property has notified the local traffic law enforcement agency, and 24 hours have elapsed since that notification.
(4) The lot or parcel upon which the vehicle is parked is improved with a single-family dwelling.
(b) The tow truck operator removing the vehicle, if the operator knows or is able to ascertain from the property owner, person in lawful possession of the property, or the registration records of the Department of Motor Vehicles the name and address of the registered and legal owner of the vehicle, shall immediately give, or cause to be given, notice in writing to the registered and legal owner of the fact of the removal, the grounds for the removal, and indicate the place to which the vehicle has been removed. If the vehicle is stored in a storage facility, a copy of the notice shall be given to the proprietor of the storage facility. The notice provided for in this section shall include the amount of mileage on the vehicle at the time of removal and the time of the removal from the property. If the tow truck operator does not know and is not able to ascertain the name of the owner or for any other reason is unable to give the notice to the owner as provided in this section, the tow truck operator shall comply with the requirements of subdivision (c) of Section 22853 relating to notice in the same manner as applicable to an officer removing a vehicle from private property. (c) This section does not limit or affect any right or remedy that the owner or person in lawful possession of private property may have by virtue of other provisions of law authorizing the removal of a vehicle parked upon private property.
(d) The owner of a vehicle removed from private property pursuant to subdivision (a) may recover for any damage to the vehicle resulting from any intentional or negligent act of a person causing the removal of, or removing, the vehicle.
(e)
(1) An owner or person in lawful possession of private property, or an association of a common interest development, causing the removal of a vehicle parked on that property is liable for double the storage or towing charges whenever there has been a failure to comply with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) or to state the grounds for the removal of the vehicle if requested by the legal or registered owner of the vehicle as required by subdivision (f).
(2) A property owner or owner’s agent or lessee who causes the removal of a vehicle parked on that property pursuant to the exemption set forth in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (l) and fails to comply with that subdivision is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(f) An owner or person in lawful possession of private property, or an association of a common interest development, causing the removal of a vehicle parked on that property shall notify by telephone or, if impractical, by the most expeditious means available, the local traffic law enforcement agency within one hour after authorizing the tow. An owner or person in lawful possession of private property, an association of a common interest development, causing the removal of a vehicle parked on that property, or the tow truck operator who removes the vehicle, shall state the grounds for the removal of the vehicle if requested by the legal or registered owner of that vehicle. A towing company that removes a vehicle from private property in compliance with subdivision (l) is not responsible in a situation relating to the validity of the removal. A towing company that removes the vehicle under this section shall be responsible for the following:
(1) Damage to the vehicle in the transit and subsequent storage of the vehicle.
(2) The removal of a vehicle other than the vehicle specified by the owner or other person in lawful possession of the private property.
(g) (1)
(A) Possession of a vehicle under this section shall be deemed to arise when a vehicle is removed from private property and is in transit. (B) Upon the request of the owner of the vehicle or that owner’s agent, the towing company or its driver shall immediately and unconditionally release a vehicle that is not yet removed from the private property and in transit.
(C) A person failing to comply with subparagraph (B) is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(2) If a vehicle is released to a person in compliance with subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), the vehicle owner or authorized agent shall immediately move that vehicle to a lawful location.
(h) A towing company may impose a charge of not more than one-half of the regular towing charge for the towing of a vehicle at the request of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession of the private property pursuant to this section if the owner of the vehicle or the vehicle owner’s agent returns to the vehicle after the vehicle is coupled to the tow truck by means of a regular hitch, coupling device, drawbar, portable dolly, or is lifted off the ground by means of a conventional trailer, and before it is removed from the private property. The regular towing charge may only be imposed after the vehicle has been removed from the property and is in transit.
(i) (1)
(A) A charge for towing or storage, or both, of a vehicle under this section is excessive if the charge exceeds the greater of the following:
(i) That which would have been charged for that towing or storage, or both, made at the request of a law enforcement agency under an agreement between a towing company and the law enforcement agency that exercises primary jurisdiction in the city in which is located the private property from which the vehicle was, or was attempted to be, removed, or if the private property is not located within a city, then the law enforcement agency that exercises primary jurisdiction in the county in which the private property is located.
(ii) That which would have been charged for that towing or storage, or both, under the rate approved for that towing operator by the Department of the California Highway Patrol for the jurisdiction in which the private property is located and from which the vehicle was, or was attempted to be, removed.
(B) A towing operator shall make available for inspection and copying his or her rate approved by the Department of the California Highway Patrol, if any, within 24 hours of a request without a warrant to law enforcement, the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney.
(2) If a vehicle is released within 24 hours from the time the vehicle is brought into the storage facility, regardless of the calendar date, the storage charge shall be for only one day. Not more than one day’s storage charge may be required for a vehicle released the same day that it is stored.
(3) If a request to release a vehicle is made and the appropriate fees are tendered and documentation establishing that the person requesting release is entitled to possession of the vehicle, or is the owner’s insurance representative, is presented within the initial 24 hours of storage, and the storage facility fails to comply with the request to release the vehicle or is not open for business during normal business hours, then only one day’s storage charge may be required to be paid until after the first business day. A business day is any day in which the lienholder is open for business to the public for at least eight hours. If a request is made more than 24 hours after the vehicle is placed in storage, charges may be imposed on a full calendar day basis for each day, or part thereof, that the vehicle is in storage.
(j)
(1) A person who charges a vehicle owner a towing, service, or storage charge at an excessive rate, as described in subdivision (h) or (i), is civilly liable to the vehicle owner for four times the amount charged.
(2) A person who knowingly charges a vehicle owner a towing, service, or storage charge at an excessive rate, as described in subdivision (h) or (i), or who fails to make available his or her rate as required in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (i), is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than three months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(k)
(1) A person operating or in charge of a storage facility where vehicles are stored pursuant to this section shall accept a valid bank credit card or cash for payment of towing and storage by a registered owner, the legal owner, or the owner’s agent claiming the vehicle. A credit card shall be in the name of the person presenting the card. “Credit card” means “credit card” as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 1747.02 of the Civil Code, except, for the purposes of this section, credit card does not include a credit card issued by a retail seller.
(2) A person described in paragraph (1) shall conspicuously display, in that portion of the storage facility office where business is conducted with the public, a notice advising that all valid credit cards and cash are acceptable means of payment.
(3) A person operating or in charge of a storage facility who refuses to accept a valid credit card or who fails to post the required notice under paragraph (2) is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than three months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(4) A person described in paragraph (1) who violates paragraph (1) or (2) is civilly liable to the registered owner of the vehicle or the person who tendered the fees for four times the amount of the towing and storage charges.
(5) A person operating or in charge of the storage facility shall have sufficient moneys on the premises of the primary storage facility during normal business hours to accommodate, and make change in, a reasonable monetary transaction.
(6) Credit charges for towing and storage services shall comply with Section 1748.1 of the Civil Code. Law enforcement agencies may include the costs of providing for payment by credit when making agreements with towing companies as described in subdivision (i).
(l) (1)
(A) A towing company shall not remove or commence the removal of a vehicle from private property without first obtaining the written authorization from the property owner or lessee, including an association of a common interest development, or an employee or agent thereof, who shall be present at the time of removal and verify the alleged violation, except that presence and verification is not required if the person authorizing the tow is the property owner, or the owner’s agent who is not a tow operator, of a residential rental property of 15 or fewer units that does not have an onsite owner, owner’s agent or employee, and the tenant has verified the violation, requested the tow from that tenant’s assigned parking space, and provided a signed request or electronic mail, or has called and provides a signed request or electronic mail within 24 hours, to the property owner or owner’s agent, which the owner or agent shall provide to the towing company within 48 hours of authorizing the tow. The signed request or electronic mail shall contain the name and address of the tenant, and the date and time the tenant requested the tow. A towing company shall obtain, within 48 hours of receiving the written authorization to tow, a copy of a tenant request required pursuant to this subparagraph. For the purpose of this subparagraph, a person providing the written authorization who is required to be present on the private property at the time of the tow does not have to be physically present at the specified location of where the vehicle to be removed is located on the private property.
(B) The written authorization under subparagraph (A) shall include all of the following:
(i) The make, model, vehicle identification number, and license plate number of the removed vehicle.
(ii) The name, signature, job title, residential or business address, and working telephone number of the person, described in subparagraph (A), authorizing the removal of the vehicle.
(iii) The grounds for the removal of the vehicle.
(iv) The time when the vehicle was first observed parked at the private property.
(v) The time that authorization to tow the vehicle was given.
(C)
(i) When the vehicle owner or his or her agent claims the vehicle, the towing company prior to payment of a towing or storage charge shall provide a photocopy of the written authorization to the vehicle owner or the agent.
(ii) If the vehicle was towed from a residential property, the towing company shall redact the information specified in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) in the photocopy of the written authorization provided to the vehicle owner or the agent pursuant to clause (i).
(iii) The towing company shall also provide to the vehicle owner or the agent a separate notice that provides the telephone number of the appropriate local law enforcement or prosecuting agency by stating “If you believe that you have been wrongfully towed, please contact the local law enforcement or prosecuting agency at [insert appropriate telephone number].” The notice shall be in English and in the most populous language, other than English, that is spoken in the jurisdiction.
(D) A towing company shall not remove or commence the removal of a vehicle from private property described in subdivision (a) of Section 22953 unless the towing company has made a good faith inquiry to determine that the owner or the property owner’s agent complied with Section 22953. (E)
(i) General authorization to remove or commence removal of a vehicle at the towing company’s discretion shall not be delegated to a towing company or its affiliates except in the case of a vehicle unlawfully parked within 15 feet of a fire hydrant or in a fire lane, or in a manner which interferes with an entrance to, or exit from, the private property.
(ii) In those cases in which general authorization is granted to a towing company or its affiliate to undertake the removal or commence the removal of a vehicle that is unlawfully parked within 15 feet of a fire hydrant or in a fire lane, or that interferes with an entrance to, or exit from, private property, the towing company and the property owner, or owner’s agent, or person in lawful possession of the private property shall have a written agreement granting that general authorization.
(2) If a towing company removes a vehicle under a general authorization described in subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) and that vehicle is unlawfully parked within 15 feet of a fire hydrant or in a fire lane, or in a manner that interferes with an entrance to, or exit from, the private property, the towing company shall take, prior to the removal of that vehicle, a photograph of the vehicle that clearly indicates that parking violation. Prior to accepting payment, the towing company shall keep one copy of the photograph taken pursuant to this paragraph, and shall present that photograph and provide, without charge, a photocopy to the owner or an agent of the owner, when that person claims the vehicle.
(3) A towing company shall maintain the original written authorization, or the general authorization described in subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) and the photograph of the violation, required pursuant to this section, and any written requests from a tenant to the property owner or owner’s agent required by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), for a period of three years and shall make them available for inspection and copying within 24 hours of a request without a warrant to law enforcement, the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney.
(4) A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than three months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(5) A person who violates this subdivision is civilly liable to the owner of the vehicle or his or her agent for four times the amount of the towing and storage charges.
(m) (1) A towing company that removes a vehicle from private property under this section shall notify the local law enforcement agency of that tow after the vehicle is removed from the private property and is in transit.
(2) A towing company is guilty of a misdemeanor if the towing company fails to provide the notification required under paragraph (1) within 60 minutes after the vehicle is removed from the private property and is in transit or 15 minutes after arriving at the storage facility, whichever time is less.
(3) A towing company that does not provide the notification under paragraph (1) within 30 minutes after the vehicle is removed from the private property and is in transit is civilly liable to the registered owner of the vehicle, or the person who tenders the fees, for three times the amount of the towing and storage charges.
(4) If notification is impracticable, the times for notification, as required pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3), shall be tolled for the time period that notification is impracticable. This paragraph is an affirmative defense.
(n) A vehicle removed from private property pursuant to this section shall be stored in a facility that meets all of the following requirements:
(1)
(A) Is located within a 10-mile radius of the property from where the vehicle was removed.
(B) The 10-mile radius requirement of subparagraph (A) does not apply if a towing company has prior general written approval from the law enforcement agency that exercises primary jurisdiction in the city in which is located the private property from which the vehicle was removed, or if the private property is not located within a city, then the law enforcement agency that exercises primary jurisdiction in the county in which is located the private property.
(2)
(A) Remains open during normal business hours and releases vehicles after normal business hours.
(B) A gate fee may be charged for releasing a vehicle after normal business hours, weekends, and state holidays. However, the maximum hourly charge for releasing a vehicle after normal business hours shall be one-half of the hourly tow rate charged for initially towing the vehicle, or less.
(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and for purposes of this paragraph, “normal business hours” are Monday to Friday, inclusive, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., inclusive, except state holidays. (3) Has a public pay telephone in the office area that is open and accessible to the public.
(o)
(1) It is the intent of the Legislature in the adoption of subdivision (k) to assist vehicle owners or their agents by, among other things, allowing payment by credit cards for towing and storage services, thereby expediting the recovery of towed vehicles and concurrently promoting the safety and welfare of the public.
(2) It is the intent of the Legislature in the adoption of subdivision (l) to further the safety of the general public by ensuring that a private property owner or lessee has provided his or her authorization for the removal of a vehicle from his or her property, thereby promoting the safety of those persons involved in ordering the removal of the vehicle as well as those persons removing, towing, and storing the vehicle.
(3) It is the intent of the Legislature in the adoption of subdivision (g) to promote the safety of the general public by requiring towing companies to unconditionally release a vehicle that is not lawfully in their possession, thereby avoiding the likelihood of dangerous and violent confrontation and physical injury to vehicle owners and towing operators, the stranding of vehicle owners and their passengers at a dangerous time and location, and impeding expedited vehicle recovery, without wasting law enforcement’s limited resources.
(p) The remedies, sanctions, restrictions, and procedures provided in this section are not exclusive and are in addition to other remedies, sanctions, restrictions, or procedures that may be provided in other provisions of law, including, but not limited to, those that are provided in Sections 12110 and 34660.
(q) A vehicle removed and stored pursuant to this section shall be released by the law enforcement agency, impounding agency, or person in possession of the vehicle, or any person acting on behalf of them, to the legal owner or the legal owner’s agent upon presentation of the assignment, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 7500.1 of the Business and Professions Code; a release from the one responsible governmental agency, only if required by the agency; a government- issued photographic identification card; and any one of the following as determined by the legal owner or the legal owner’s agent: a certificate of repossession for the vehicle, a security agreement for the vehicle, or title, whether paper or electronic, showing proof of legal ownership for the vehicle. Any documents presented may be originals, photocopies, or facsimile copies, or may be transmitted electronically. The storage facility shall not require any documents to be notarized. The storage facility may require the agent of the legal owner to produce a photocopy or facsimile copy of its repossession agency license or registration issued pursuant to Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 7500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, or to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the storage facility, that the agent is exempt from licensure pursuant to Section 7500.2 or 7500.3 of the Business and Professions Code. Ad Hoc Committee Comments
Foothill Gold Line Extension Page 1 (Report Excerpt) The Gold Line currently runs from East Los Angeles to Azusa with a total of 27 stations including termini at Azusa Pacific University/Citrus College (APU/CC) and at Atlantic Boulevard. The planned extension, currently underway, will add six new stations east of the current terminus at APU/CC. The six stations, to be located in Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont, and Montclair, may be built in two phases. The first phase will add new stations in Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne and Pomona. This phase is fully funded and is expected to be completed in 2025. If the additional funding needed is secured before October 2021, the project will be extended to include the Claremont and Montclair stations, and the entire extension will be completed in 2028. If the extension is built in two phases, the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority (Authority) will consider conducting the parking utilization and protection study after construction of each phase. Further, the Authority will consider another version of this study if a parking fee is instituted at the Gold Line parking facility in Claremont. Figure 1 depicts the route of the extension as well as the location of the new stations on the extended line.
Comments Staff was informed by LA Metro that paid parking would be implemented with the Gold Line. This was the result of the Phase 2A experience and analysis conducted in 2019, which was finalized in 2020 (Los Angeles Metro Conceptual Design/Planning in Support of the Metrolink San Bernardino Line/Gold Line Task Force Volume 1-Study Report). The Metro report considered a ticket fare ranging between $2.50-$3.50 and a parking fee of $3.00. The Parking Study should reflect the Metro report fee analysis.
Potential Parking Impacts Page 2 (Report Excerpt) Municipalities slated for a light rail station must confront the potential for Gold Line patrons to utilize non-Gold Line parking spaces instead of parking in the designated station parking facility, thereby poaching spaces currently available for local businesses, residences, or others. Poaching may occur when there is a more convenient or cheaper option for parking than is provided at the station parking facility or if the increased demand for parking at the facility exceeds the facility’s parking capacity. Around the future light rail stations, this increased demand could occur on public streets, in public parking lots, or in private parking lots when those facilities are less expensive or more convenient than other local options, or when the supply of parking at the light rail station is fully utilized or less accessible.
Comments Parking in the Village is already impacted and is not managed. Therefore, it is anticipated that off-site locations such as public streets, public parking lots, and private lots will experience an increased parking demand. Parking Map Page 7 Comments OLA should be removed, private property Packing House is private and public parking at risk Verizon lot is public and private parking at risk Chase and Bank of America banks should be removed VSSP future parking structure is private and potentially public parking Why are the residential streets within the ¼ - ½ mile east of the Gold Line Station not shown on the map? These streets could be affected and need to be addressed.
Data Collection Page 10 (Report Excerpt) During the six to nine-month window before the commencement of passenger service, a field review of parking occupancy will be conducted. On a day approved by City staff for the Study Area, a windshield survey of the sensitive parking areas will be conducted. Each parking location will be reviewed once during the mid-morning when the effects of increased parking demand would be most noticeable (likely 9:00 or 10:00 AM). Each identified susceptible lot and on-street parking block will be surveyed and the level of parking occupancy will be graded as “Light” (0- 50% occupied), “Medium” (50-75%), or “Heavy” (75-100%). A map of the Study Area showing the occupancy survey results will be prepared
Comments The City will require video counts in order to record a wider range of times instead of the suggested 9-10am to gain more feedback and to have a better picture of the developing situation. How will parking turn-over be taken into consideration? Peak hour parking counts will not take into account all the different attractions and destinations in the Village throughout the day, but rather only focusing on specific uses. A specific hour of the day as suggested in the study may not paint the whole picture in the Village.
Alternative Modes of Transportation Page 13 (Report Excerpt) Bicycles. The new Claremont Gold Line Station will provide adequate bike storage facilities, but the development of the station will not involve the construction of any bike lanes or routes on City streets. The City should develop a Bicycle Master Plan to include bike lanes with direct access to the station to encourage utilization of bicycles. Expanding from the station, the City should provide bicycle storage facilities at major employment/entertainment destinations along the Gold Line path to accommodate commuters/patrons of City services and businesses and link those facilities to circulation routes serving the station.
Comments With the proposed reduction of parking, the Gold Line Construction Authority should provide secure bicycle infrastructure to mitigate the impact on parking and to reduce impacts on the commercial district. Long term bike parking should be considered as well.
(Report Excerpt) Pedestrians. While the Authority will upgrade pedestrian facilities leading to the Claremont Gold Line Station and on the station property as part of the station’s overall construction, the City should ensure that the remaining pedestrian infrastructure provides appropriate connectivity between the station and major residential, business, or entertainment destinations for all vulnerable users.
Comments The Construction Authority has informed staff that the Gold Line Construction Authority will not be constructing any First/Last Mile improvements as part of the Gold Line construction. This raises concerns due to lack of dedicated funding and ability to secure funding through competitive grant process. Having these improvements in place is imperative to help mitigate parking demand.
Residential Permit Parking Systems Page 15 (Report Excerpt) In residential areas susceptible to parking poaching, a residential parking permit system could be implemented to protect the on-street parking supply for use by residents and their visitors. A residential parking permit system typically allows only residents and their visitors to utilize the on street parking spaces in the subject area. Addresses in the permit area are generally allotted a set number of permits (two to four) per residence that are either purchased from the City or given to the residents without a fee. Similar to the parking restrictions above, if the goal of the residential parking permit system is only to eliminate parking poaching/adverse impacts of increased demand from the Claremont Gold Line Station, the restrictions can be in place only during the morning hours when commuters are headed to the Gold Line. For example, a residential parking permit that was only enforced from 5:00 AM to 10:00 AM would allow non- residents to park on the street for most of the day, but would discourage most commuters from parking in the area unless they have an atypical schedule that begins after 10:00 AM.
Comments The City has an existing Residential Permit Parking Policy in place that outlines the process for implementing residential permit parking. This process requires pre/post studies and data collection to determine whether or not the specific street segment meets the criteria for implementation. This is an expensive process that will require significant staff and financial resources. Will Metro be assisting with this process? Parking Enforcement Page 16 (Report Excerpt) As parking supplies experience constraints in the future, rigid enforcement of parking restrictions should be concentrated in the areas of highest parking utilization to ensure turnover and increase public parking availability. As part of the extension of the Gold Line, Metro’s Parking Management Team has offered to work closely with the City to assist in parking enforcement efforts to help prevent Gold Line riders from poaching City spaces. This should be investigated to determine whether the Police Department could work with Metro to develop an enforcement system that works for both entities. Oftentimes business owners and merchants in an area like the Study Area call for stricter enforcement only to find out that the enforcement affects their employees and their customers more than anticipated. However, if the employees are given reasonable parking alternatives and the customer spaces are controlled by appropriate time restrictions, then enforcement can be an effective tool for all parties.
Comments Consider the possibility of exploring paid parking options with the City Manager’s office. May consider contacting the Colleges regarding a partnership with the City to use their parking structure on the north side of First Street, to increase available parking options on College Avenue.
Private Parking Lot Page 17 (Report Excerpt) Parking Control Equipment. If tow-away signage and enforcement does not adequately discourage Gold Line riders from parking in unauthorized private lots, parking control equipment may be required to achieve compliance. While effective parking controls may be too expensive a solution for smaller lots (with less than 50 parking spaces), larger lots could install cost- controlled transaction gates. These systems may be designed and installed in a number of different ways based on the preferred user experience or processing time, such as ticket- dispensers, pay-on-foot kiosks, access cards, or license plate readers. Any system could include a validation system that allows property owners to grant a set amount of time of free parking when patronizing their or their tenants’ establishments.
Comments Costs to private property owners are minimal as the cost of towing and storage would be the responsibility of the violator. The costs associated with purchasing, installing, and maintaining the signs/equipment would be borne by the businesses/property owners. o This would put a direct initial impact and possible financial burden on the Village businesses due to the impact on available Village parking. Equipment, such as gates and other systems can be a hefty financial burden.
Previous Experiences Page 18 (Report Excerpt) The City of Arcadia and City of Monrovia have Gold Line stations with adjacent Gold Line parking structures. Both locations offered free parking until the facilities reached high occupancy, wherein Metro began charging a parking fee of $3.00/day. In both cases, city staff and council members were concerned that the institution of a parking fee would have a detrimental effect on public and private parking supplies near the stations
Comments Azusa had some major problems when paid parking was implemented with no mitigation measures in place. This negative experience should be avoided in Claremont. The Azusa experience should be included in this analysis, to show how to avoid these negative impacts. The concern is that Claremont’s situation is very unique, given the geographical location of the Metrolink and Gold Line stations in relation to neighborhoods and the Village. The particular situation creates the opportunity for a wider range of impacts to the businesses and the residents. Claremont downtown is a very popular and busy regional destination, that attracts large crowds who visit and enjoy the local shops, businesses and restaurants. Impacting business parking would create a burden to residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Village.
Monrovia Gold Line Station Page 20 (Report Excerpt) The City of Monrovia prepared for the implementation of the Monrovia station parking fees by developing two park-and-ride lots in the Station Square area. Both remote lots were constructed on future development sites to provide supplemental Metro and Gold Line parking supply. The two parking lots accommodate 80 and 35 parking spaces, respectively. In addition, there are 61 unrestricted on-street curb parking spaces in the Station Square area.
Comments There is no City owned property that can be developed similar to the Monrovia park and ride lots. As an option, the Village Lofts Site on First Street, west of Indian Hill, (which is private) was discussed, but how could this option be funded?
Experience Summary Page 21 (Report Excerpt) In both Monrovia and Arcadia, the cities developed plans to react to increased parking demand by using time limits or by implementing barriers to the all-day use of public/private off-street parking lots. While both cities were prepared to make changes, both decided to wait on implementation, so as to not implement disruptive actions that turned out to not be needed. The concerns of increased parking demand expressed by the business community and city leaders did not materialize, suggesting reasonable reactions to parking shortages are preferable than implementing significant changes prior to passenger service that may not be ultimately needed. Both Monrovia and Arcadia continue to monitor the Gold Line parking conditions, and both cities have plans ready to implement if parking impacts arise.
Comments The Azusa experience should be included in this study, not just the Monrovia and Arcadia experience. As stated previously, the Claremont situation is unique as the stations will be located in the core of the Village and adjacent to residential neighborhoods. This situation requires more attention to detail to minimize the effects on the current Village parking situation and adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Table 1 Claremont Gold Line Station Parking Planning Priorities Page 23 (Report Excerpt) Comments “Implement bike and pedestrian improvements as described in the Specific Plan” o Specific Plan? Is the Parking Study referring to the First/Last Mile Plan developed by LA Metro? If this is the case, who would pay for the improvements, or would state grant funding be available? Long Term Actions o The concern is that the City will need to study all the variables identified in this study to evaluate potential impacts and prepare for those impacts. There is no funding source identified or available for these tasks. In the event these funds are identified, will these funds be allowed to contribute towards the City's 3% match required for the Gold Line?
Ad Hoc Committee Final Comments There is a major concern with financial impacts resulting from the tasks identified in the list above. The City will need to identify funding to begin obtaining studies from consultants to identify the items from the list above that will determine the necessary course of action to mitigate impacts. Thresholds may need to be developed in order to be ready for certain impacts anticipated to be mitigated. The list establishes timelines that create concerns for the City as certain items will need to be re-assigned to be addressed earlier than noted. Additional items, not listed, will also have to be considered. The initial impact for the City of Claremont to study this preliminary list could be upwards of $500,000. These funds are not currently available. There is a concern with transit users coming to Claremont to park and board the Gold Line in Pomona or anywhere else. Since funding for the Pomona-Montclair segment has not been identified, what will happen if this situation remains as such for an extended period of time? In previous sections of this document, it has been stated that patrons of the rail system will navigate to adjacent cities where parking is less expensive, or in Claremont's case free. This will add additional parking demand to Claremont's downtown area even without the Gold Line being constructed in Claremont. The construction of First/Last Mile improvements could mitigate this problem. With the completion of the Gold Line to Pomona, what mitigation measures will need to be done to address any potential impact to Claremont?
First/Last Mile Plan identifies pathways and physical improvements to help people walk to, bike to, and otherwise access the future stations along the Project alignment. Such improvements include wayfinding signage, crosswalks, and enhanced sidewalk and bike infrastructure. As discussed in the First/Last Mile Plan, city staff have been involved throughout the development and each city can adopt the plan for their city if they so choose. The Construction Authority would consider opportunities to implement First/Last Mile Plan projects that are within the Construction Authority’s work areas in conjunction with project construction if additional funding is made available. Current project funding does not include funding for elements of the First/Last Mile Plan that extend beyond the immediate station and parking locations.
Detailed parking lot layout analysis and on-site circulation operations are not part of the CEQA environmental process. This CEQA document evaluates the impacts of revised parking configurations as described in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft SEIR. Significant CEQA transportation impacts are not identified, therefore mitigation measures are not required. First/last mile improvements around stations have been identified and will be incorporated into the project design by the Construction Authority, Metro, and/or the city as viable and based on available funding. Any first and last mile improvements incorporated will be constructed to improve multimodal access, but not as mitigation since significant impacts are not identified.
No. 5 – Claremont Station Parking Scenarios
Several comments received expressed that the areas identified for the potential leased parking for Scenario B have not been fully analyzed to determine the severity of impacts that could result from the Project Modifications. Additionally, there was a preference from city staff for the Construction Authority to recommend Scenario A for the Claremont Station parking. The following master response has been prepared:
For the purpose of this SEIR, the Construction Authority will be recommending Scenario A as the preferred alternative for the Claremont Station parking facility. The parking facility would remain a parking structure and in the same location as approved by the 2013 FEIR and Addendum No. 2. As described in Section 1.2.2.2 of the Draft SEIR, the total number of parking spaces would be approximately 539, a reduction of approximately 561 spaces compared to the approved Project. The site is in the same location as approved by the 2013 FEIR and Addendum No. 2, and the original land uses described within those documents would not change. Because the Construction Authority is not considering or recommending Scenario B, it will not be analyzed any further in the Final SEIR. The Final SEIR reflects this change. If Scenario B is considered in the future because funding for Scenario A is not made available, a separate environmental analysis would be required.
No. 6 – Urban Heat Island Effects and Landscaping at Station Facilities
Various comments received expressed that the thermal effects of the proposed parking lot facilities would contribute more to an urban heat island, and suggested that conformance with local tree ordinances should be incorporated to reduce these effects. The following master response has been prepared:
Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension–Azusa to Montclair Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-3 January 2021