Residential Permit Parking

!
!
Butchers Hill Association
Ad Hoc Parking Committee
Proposal for
Limited Expansion of
Residential Permit Parking (RPP) Area 17
July 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. RPP Basics
3. Existing Area 17 RPP
4. RPP Area 17 Expansion Proposal
5. Implementation of Area 17 Expansion
6. Common Questions and Answers
1!
2
3
6
8
10
11
1. Introduction
Parking in Butchers Hill is becoming more difficult by the year. The continued
growth of the neighborhood as a desirable residential community within walking
distance of a major hospital and employment center has continued to exert
strong pressures on the availability of neighborhood street parking.
Street parking issues in the neighborhood were last systematically addressed by
the Butchers Hill Association (BHA) in the late 2000s, when an earlier ad hoc
parking committee met to investigate and propose solutions to this growing
problem. The work of this committee resulted in the current reverse angled
parking configuration, which while not without its problems, has significantly
increased street parking capacity. At the time, the committee also thoroughly
researched and presented a proposal to implement a form of Residential Permit
Parking (RPP). However, after a detailed neighborhood petition effort and a
formal survey conducted by the Parking Authority of Baltimore City (PABC), an
RPP proposal which would have spanned the entire Butchers Hill community with
daytime and evening restrictions was subsequently rejected by the BHA
membership. Despite this, interest in some form of RPP has persisted within the
neighborhood as a possible solution to the area’s growing parking challenges.
Since that time, significant changes have further altered the parking landscape in
Butchers Hill. Chief among these include the imminent opening of the highly
anticipated 500+ unit Jefferson Square apartment and retail development in the
area immediately adjacent to Butchers Hill, and the recent opening of the new
Johns Hopkins hospital expansion and adjacent biotech park, whose
employment base has continued to add to daytime parking pressures. Beginning
in March 2014, a committee that included a number of members with prior
experience with BHA parking matters met once again at the invitation of the BHA
executive committee to establish an agenda to investigate and propose
recommendations for improving the availability of parking in the neighborhood.
Owing to continued interest from the community, the ad hoc parking committee
also specifically addressed the issue of RPP.
As RPP requests are complex, requiring significant lead-time, the ad hoc parking
committee initially prioritized the investigation of RPP during its early meetings.
The enclosed report details the work of the ad hoc parking committee on this
matter during meetings over half a year. The committee encourages you to
carefully read this document and welcomes your comments and questions.
Dr. Remington Nevin
Chair, Ad Hoc Parking Committee
2!
2. RPP Basics
Residential Permit Parking (RPP) is a program administered by the Parking
Authority of Baltimore City (PABC) that in certain cases can be employed to
prioritize available streetfront parking on residential blockfaces for residential
use. RPP is traditionally most successfully employed where predictable
“generators” of parking pressures, such as major hospitals and employment
centers, have served to deprive neighborhood residents of convenient parking
during particular times of the day. In recent years, RPP has been less
successfully employed as a solution to problems brought about by a
neighborhood’s own residential growth, such as in many portions of Southeast
Baltimore. The recent moratorium on new RPP districts in Canton has served to
raise awareness of challenges created by implementation of RPP in response to
these pressures, particularly where the residential demand for overnight parking
mathematically exceeds the availability of streetfront parking1. In such cases, the
RPP infrastructure serves only as a “hunting license” rather than truly serving to
restrict parking or increase the availability of parking spaces in the community.
Despite concerns with recent RPP implementations, in the areas surrounding
Butchers Hill, RPP has been successfully employed for many years primarily to
counter the tendency of employees and students of Johns Hopkins to otherwise
seek out free street parking during the daytime work hours. However, the current
map of these existing RPP areas primarily reflects parking patterns prior to
recent construction, with only one half of a single blockface of RPP located within
Butchers Hill (Exhibit 2.1). This construction has served to expand retail and
employment centers (and corresponding parking pressures) southeast towards
the Butchers Hill community in the absence of any corresponding expansion of
RPP.
During its consideration of this issue, the ad hoc parking committee was made
aware that councilman Jim Kraft, whose District 1 includes about half of Butchers
Hill, would likely at least initially oppose the creation of a new RPP area within his
district boundaries, being constrained by his need to apply a consistent standard
among his constituents while maintaining his long-time support for the current
Canton RPP moratorium. The ad hoc parking committee also considered that the
recent partition of Butchers Hill between District 1, represented by Jim Kraft, and
the newly modified District 13, represented by Warren Branch, might create
opportunities to explore novel RPP options unconstrained by considerations
specific to District 1.
As many of the blockfaces in Butchers Hill most affected by daytime parking by
Johns Hopkins employees and students and expected to be impacted the most
by the Jefferson Square development are within District 13, during its
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
Rector, Kevin. In Canton, parking woes part of growing pains. Baltimore Sun. February 18,
2013. Available at: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-02-18/news/bs-md-ci-canton-parking20130218_1_canton-community-association-patterson-park-canton-area
3!
deliberations, the ad hoc parking committee met with Councilman Warren
Branch, and found him to be highly receptive to considering novel RPP options
for addressing parking challenges in his district.
Exhibit 2.1: Current daytime RPP areas (in green) in areas surrounding Butchers Hill. Only one
half of a single blockface of daytime RPP is located within the boundaries of Butchers Hill.
During its deliberations, the parking committee also received a detailed briefing
by a representative of PABC on the current procedures for a neighborhood to
request a new RPP area. PABC also shared with the ad hoc parking committee
the results of the most recent survey from 2009 (Exhibit 2.2), conducted
Wednesday December 16, 2009 from 9am to 10pm and Thursday, December 17,
2009 from 6pm to 11:30pm. This study recorded approximately 2,678 separate
vehicles parked at one or more surveyed times in the studied blockfaces. This
study found that only 891 of these vehicles (approximately a third) were
registered to addresses in the study area, rendering the area easily eligible for
RPP were this option to have been pursued, and suggesting that any similar
study in the future would likely arrive at similar findings.
4!
Although a new RPP area was seen as procedurally feasible based on the
results of this prior study, the committee concluded that any new RPP proposal
would face significant delays, similar to those encountered during the
neighborhood’s most recent consideration of this issue in 2009. These delays
would include the time required to once again canvass and petition every
blockface to be included within the new RPP area, and the requirement for PABC
to once again conduct a new parking survey. These were considered by the ad
hoc parking committee to add months to years to the time necessary for
implementation. The ad hoc parking committee therefore sought additional
options that could be implemented more quickly, and identified expansion of one
or more existing RPP Areas as a possible solution worth pursuing.
Exhibit 2.2: 2009 Butchers Hill RPP Study Area and area of current Canton RPP moratorium.
The 2009 study found that a large majority of cars parked in the study area were not registered to
homes in Butchers Hill and the immediately surrounding area, rendering the area eligible for RPP
at the time, and suggesting that any new survey would also meet with success.
5!
3. Existing RPP Area 17
Many residents of Butchers Hill are surprised to learn that the neighborhood has
been home to a limited form of RPP for many years, referred to as “RPP Area
17” and also known by PABC as “Fairmount on the Park”. RPP Area 17 limits
non-permit holders to a maximum of 2 hours of parking between the hours of
7am and 7pm on weekdays. Under existing RPP Area 17 rules, those residents
who own property or have a lease in their name at an address within the RPP
area may obtain up to 4 permit decals for vehicles registered to their household
address, and are entitled to one guest pass per household which may be
transferred between cars belonging to their guests while visiting. Sold for $20 per
year, these decals and permits permit unrestricted parking during the hours of
7am to 7pm on those blockfaces where RPP Area 17 signage is in place.
Vehicles parking during those hours without decals or permits for longer than 2
hours are subject to escalating fines that rise with subsequent violations. In
recent months, enforcement of RPP Area 17 restrictions by the Department of
Transportation (DOT) has been improving, commensurate with increases in other
parking enforcement efforts.
RPP Area 17 is somewhat
unique among city RPP
districts in having a number of
additional,
non-contiguous
blockfaces
located
some
distance
to
the
west.
Currently, these are located
among the townhouses on the
west side of the Jefferson
Square development. RPP
Area 17 is also somewhat
unique among city RPP
districts in having numerous
non-residential
blockfaces
signed with restrictive RPP Exhibit 3.1: 1800 block of E. Lamley, looking northwest,
immediately west of Wolfe Street, on the west side of the
Area 17 signage (see Exhibit Jefferson Square development. Non-residential blockfaces
3.1), which increases the have been signed with restrictive RPP Area 17 signs to
amount of parking available to increase the availability of residential parking and to
RPP Area 17 residents and further discourage Johns Hopkins employee and student
further
discourages parking from overwhelming this residential area.
employees and students from parking in these areas. In the years since RPP
Area 17 was established, city ordinances have restricted the ability of PABC to
authorize new restrictive signage on streetfronts not directly in front of residential
properties; however, in rare instances, special legislation may be proposed by
city council to effect similar improvements. Currently, the extent of RPP Area 17
within Butchers Hill is limited to portions of the southern blockface of the 2000
block of E. Fairmount, which is opposite Commodore John Rodgers School and
6!
which shares the block with the northern entrance to Castle Street Park and with
the Life of Reilly pub (see Exhibit 2.1 for further details).
During its regular monthly
meetings, some of which
were held at the Life of Reilly
pub, members of the ad hoc
committee noted that daytime
parking restrictions of RPP
Area 17 not only ensured the
availability of daytime parking
along this blockface, but also
had
the
somewhat
counterintuitive
effect
of
resulting
in
significant
availability of parking well
into the early evening hours
(Exhibit 3.2).
While not
addressing concerns related
to
well-known
overnight
parking challenges, the ad
hoc committee believed that
the example provided by the
RPP Area 17 restrictions
could provide a way forward
in
addressing
parking
concerns related to parking
during those hours when a
large proportion of the area’s
working population returned
home.
Exhibit 3.2: 2000 block of E. Fairmount, looking northeast
at 4pm on a weekday. The blockface at left with reverse
angled parking is not subject to Area 17 RPP restrictions
and is full. The blockface at right is subject to Area 17 RPP
restrictions, which limit parking to 2 hours between the
hours of 7am and 7pm. Possibly owing to these restrictions,
the RPP blockface is completely devoid of cars at 4pm.
This blockface will become available for unrestricted
parking beginning at 5pm when many area residents,
including those who reside outside of Area 17, begin to
return home from work. Even without an Area 17 permit,
these residents will be able to park in Area until 9am the
following day, owing to the 2 hour allowance. As this
example illustrates, daytime RPP restrictions create areas
where neighborhood parking may be reliably found during
those hours when many residents are returning home.
The “foothold” provided by
the existing Butchers Hill RPP Area 17 affords the Butchers Hill neighborhood
the opportunity to pursue a proposal built around an expansion of RPP Area 17
without many of the usual delays that accompany the creation of a new RPP
area, providing potential benefits to the community in a much shorter time. For
this reason, the ad hoc parking committee elected to initially pursue developing
an RPP proposal that would see a limited expansion of RPP Area 17 throughout
those surrounding blockfaces most affected by daytime parking pressures, rather
than the entirety of Butchers Hill. The ad hoc parking committee emphasizes that
this proposal is not being developed to the exclusion of future consideration of
additional RPP proposals, but as a practical solution that can be readily
implemented in the near-term to provide immediate benefits to a large proportion
of neighborhood residents.
7!
4. RPP Area 17 Expansion Proposal
Based on its deliberations, the ad hoc parking committee is submitting the
following proposal for consideration by the general membership (see Exhibit 4.1):
1.
That BHA formally request PABC initiate petition procedures that, if met with
resident approval on a block by block basis, would expand the existing RPP
Area 17 along the following primarily residential blockfaces and to any corner
properties adjoining such blockfaces, located exclusively within those areas
of Butchers Hill within city council District 13, to include: both sides of the
2000 blocks of E. Baltimore between Washington and Chester; both sides of
the 2000 blocks of E. Lombard between Washington and Chester; both sides
of the unit blocks of S. Washington between Baltimore and Lombard; the
east side of the unit block of N. Washington between Fairmount and
Baltimore; both sides of the unit block of N. Chester between Fairmount and
Baltimore; the east side of the 100 block of N. Chester between Fairmount
and Fayette; and the west side of the unit block of S. Chester between
Baltimore and Lombard.
2.
That BHA support similar efforts, if desired by adjacent neighborhood
associations, to expand RPP Area 17 to any currently unsigned streetfront
along, and to any corner properties adjoining, the following primarily
residential blockfaces outside of Butchers Hill but within city council District
13, to include: The south side of the 1900 block of Baltimore between Wolfe
and Washington; both sides of the 1900 block of Lombard between Wolfe
and Washington; and the west side of the unit block of S. Wolfe between
Baltimore and Lombard; and that furthermore BHA support efforts, if desired
by adjacent neighborhood associations, to convert any area currently signed
RPP Area 20 to RPP Area 17.
3.
That BHA, in coordination with adjacent neighborhood associations, support
consideration by councilman Warren Branch of District 13 to sponsor special
legislation to sign any otherwise unrestricted non-residential streetfront areas
of the above mentioned blockfaces as subject to RPP Area 17 restrictions
upon their inclusion in RPP Area 17; and subject to existing restrictions, to
sign the entirety of certain currently non-residential blockfaces, located
exclusively within city council District 13, as subject to RPP Area 17
restrictions, provided that residents of any future residential development
within these blockfaces would be ineligible for RPP Area 17 permits, to
include: the east side of the unit block of S. Wolfe between Baltimore and
Lombard; the east side of the unit and 100 blocks of N. Wolfe between
Fayette and Baltimore; the north side of the 1900 block of E. Baltimore
between Wolfe and Washington; the west side of the unit and 100 blocks of
N. Washington between Baltimore and Fayette; the north side of the 2000
block of E. Fairmount between Washington and Chester; and the west side
of the 100 block of N. Chester between Fayette and Fairmount.
8!
!
Exhibit 4.1: RPP Area 17 expansion proposal
9!
5. Implementation of RPP Area 17 Expansion
Following careful review, the proposed RPP Area 17 expansion plan has met
with the approval of the Butchers Hill executive committee.
Notwithstanding this approval, the ad hoc parking committee emphasizes that
unlike similar proposals for RPP expansion that are currently under consideration
elsewhere in Baltimore City2, no expansion of RPP Area 17 in Butchers Hill will
occur without the strong and expressly articulated support both of resident
members of the Butchers Hill Association, and of residents of the affected
blockfaces. The ad hoc parking committee believes that strong neighborhood
support of the proposal is critical for its success.
Should the expansion proposal meet with the approval of the Butchers Hill
Association general membership, the Butchers Hill Association will then formally
request that PABC initiate petition procedures to seek the necessary consent of
residents of the listed blockfaces located in Butchers Hill for RPP Area 17
expansion. These petition procedures are described in greater detail in Baltimore
City Code. The petitions would be provided to Butchers Hill Association by PABC
and the task of soliciting resident signatures for the petition would be coordinated
by the ad hoc parking committee with the assistance of interested neighborhood
volunteers. This process, which includes verification by PABC, is expected to
take a few months, depending on volunteer support.
At the same time, the Butchers Hill Association will solicit the support of adjacent
neighborhood associations for the other elements of the expansion proposal. If met
with appropriate approval, interested members of city council would then draft and
submit supporting legislation for consideration in support of the specific goals of the
proposal.
Although the ad hoc parking committee believes the proposal can provide benefits
even if implemented in less than its entirety, to provide maximum benefit to the
community, all three specific goals should be pursued equally.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2
Wenger, Yvonne. Hampden parking woes lead to call for strict limits. Baltimore Sun. July 17,
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/northbaltimore/bs-md-ci-hampden-parking-20140713,0,3005955.story
10
!
6. Questions and Answers
Why is Butchers Hill Association not proposing evening or overnight parking
restrictions?
Recent overnight parking restrictions have met with limited success in Southeast
Baltimore and are both politically controversial and divisive among communities
which have recently implemented or considered them3. Overnight restrictions would
also be more administratively problematic to implement in Butchers Hill as compared
to a simple expansion of existing daytime restrictions. While the ad hoc parking
committee believes that there may be cause to consider overnight parking
restrictions at a future date, the proposed expansion of existing daytime restrictions
would begin to address some of the parking challenges faced by our neighborhood
residents. By limiting daytime parking, the proposal will improve the availability of
open streetfront parking space during the late afternoon to early evening hours when
many of our residents return home and seek parking.
Why is Butchers Hill Association limiting the proposal only to those blockfaces
listed?
The current proposal is an attempt to balance a number of competing interests,
including the need to expeditiously implement neighborhood parking solutions. As
the ad hoc parking committee is proposing simply expanding an existing RPP area,
the proposal should be able to be implemented relatively fast along the listed
blockfaces. Additionally, by limiting the number of blockfaces initially included in the
proposal, the effects of the changes brought about by this proposal can be identified
and the potential benefits of future expansions assessed. The ad hoc parking
committee intends to closely monitor the effects of this proposal on patterns of
neighborhood parking, and will recommend additional expansions or other measures
if needed. Should the neighborhood determine that further expansion of RPP Area
17 is warranted, it would not be that difficult to do in the future fairly quickly.
I live on the east side of the unit block of S. Chester. Why wasn’t my blockface
included in the proposal?
The unit block of S. Chester constitutes a portion of the border between District 13
and District 1. While Councilman Warren Branch of District 13 has been highly
receptive to considering novel RPP options for addressing parking challenges in
his district, Councilman Jim Kraft of District 1 has previously expressed opposition to
any expansion of RPP within his district. While the ad hoc parking committee is
confident that Councilman Kraft would favorably consider supporting the expansion
of RPP Area 17 to blockfaces within his district at some point in the future, to
minimize the potential for controversy and to expedite the benefits of the proposal in
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
Perl, Larry. Parking plan for Rotunda area divides Hampden community. Baltimore Sun. June
20, 2014. Available at: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/northbaltimore/ph-ms-parking-0626-20140620,0,7480942.story!
11
!
the near-term, it was felt best to exclude these blocks from the initial proposal.
Although not eligible for daytime permits themselves, residents of blockfaces in the
vicinity of the expanded RPP Area 17 restrictions should nonetheless benefit from
these expansions through increased availability of late afternoon and early evening
parking in those nearby areas signed with RPP Area 17 restrictions.
I live on a street that is located blocks away from the proposed RPP Area 17
expansion. How will this proposal affect me?
Residents on blockfaces not included in this proposal will be eligible to park on any
of the listed blockfaces weekdays from 5pm to 9am without risking a violation, owing
to the 2 hour allowance. The ad hoc parking committee believes that the daytime
restrictions in effect on the listed blockfaces will serve to minimize daytime parking
on the listed blockfaces, increasing the amount of open streetfront parking during the
late afternoon and early evening hours when many residents are returning home
from work. The ad hoc parking committee believes that the availability of large
expanses of available streetfront parking during these hours will serve to shift
neighborhood patterns of overnight parking northwest towards the blockfaces listed
in the proposal. This in turn may reduce pressure on those blockfaces not included
in the RPP Area 17 expansion.
Despite these benefits, it is anticipated that this proposal will result in a slight
increase in daytime parking by Johns Hopkins employees and students along certain
blockfaces not included in the proposed restrictions. Owing to the added distance
from campus and increased area over which shifting patterns of parking are
anticipated to be accommodated, the ad hoc parking committee anticipates that the
burden of this parking should be reduced relative to the burden on currently affected
blockfaces. However, the ad hoc parking committee acknowledges that it is possible
that daytime parking on certain blockfaces will become problematic as a result of this
proposal. Should additional daytime restrictions become necessary in response to
specific concerns, these can be addressed fairly quickly in the future through
additional blockface expansions.
How was this proposal influenced by the Jefferson Square development?
The proposal initially limits the expansion of RPP Area 17 restrictions to those
blockfaces within one block of the Jefferson Square development. During its
deliberations, members of the ad hoc parking committee were made aware that
residents of the Jefferson Square apartment development will be charged an
additional fee for monthly parking in the internal parking structure. This is expected
to add to on-street parking pressures on surrounding blockfaces. However, the ad
hoc parking committee believes that residents of this complex will only rarely seek
regular on-street parking that is located more than a few blocks away from the
development. It is therefore anticipated that the proposed restrictions will serve as a
sufficient disincentive for residents of Jefferson Square to seek on-street parking
during the restricted hours, and will encourage use of the development’s internal
parking structure. The ad hoc parking committee believes that it is in the mutual
12
!
interests of both the developers of Jefferson Square, and the surrounding
neighborhoods, to discourage on-street parking by residents and their guests for
more than 2 hours during the daytime hours. The proposed restrictions, which
include legislative provisions to sign the blockfaces surrounding the Jefferson
Square development as subject to RPP Area 17 restrictions, will serve to prioritize
the use of these blockfaces for use by residents of Butchers Hill and surrounding
neighborhoods, minimizing the impact of the development on residents.
Won’t this proposal interfere with the economic viability of the Jefferson Square
development?
A major cost of the Jefferson Square development was the cost of its internal
concrete parking structure, reserved both for tenants and those patronizing its retail
establishments. The ad hoc parking committee believes that the Jefferson Square
development will benefit economically by maximizing its economic return on this
investment, by ensuring this parking structure is filled to capacity both during
daytime and overnight hours. By limiting the availability of extended daytime parking
on the blockfaces surrounding the development, this proposal encourages both retail
customers and apartment complex residents and guests to make maximum use of
off-street parking. The ad hoc parking committee believes this constitutes a “win-win”
scenario where both the developers and the surrounding neighborhoods benefit.
Shouldn’t the goal be to prohibit daytime parking by Johns Hopkins students and
employees altogether?
The ad hoc parking committee believes that the presence of daytime parking by
commuter employees and students of Johns Hopkins can provide certain benefits to
the Butchers Hill community that should be preserved if these do not otherwise
inconvenience our neighborhood residents. For example, commuter parking results
in increased pedestrian traffic, particularly during the early morning and evening
hours, which results in increased safety and a strengthened sense of community.
The presence of commuter parking also justifies the continuation of the Johns
Hopkins shuttle, which is perceived as increasing rental rates and property values as
a valued convenience to employee and student residents of the neighborhood.
Commuters who park in Butchers Hill may also patronize local businesses, bars, and
restaurants as they walk or shuttle to and from Johns Hopkins, which provides
additional benefits to the community. Additionally, commuters who park in our
neighborhood may begin to view the Butchers Hill community as a desirable and
viable alternative to their current commute, potentially increasing neighborhood
rental rates and property values.
However, the ad hoc parking committee strongly believes that certain blockfaces,
particularly those nearest to the Jefferson Square development, have been
overwhelmed by commuter parking, to the detriment of area residents. The current
proposal seeks to minimize the adverse effects of this parking by spreading existing
commuter parking out over a larger number of blockfaces. For example, by
encouraging commuters to walk 2 additional blocks to find parking, the number of
13
!
available blockfaces on which these commuters can park increases by a factor of 4.
This serves to minimize the negative effects on area residents while providing the
benefits of increased pedestrian traffic through a larger area of the neighborhood.
I live on one of the listed blockfaces and have reservations about this proposal.
Should I oppose the entire proposal or merely oppose my blockface expansion?
The ad hoc parking committee strongly encourages those members who may have
reservations about extending RPP Area 17 to their blockfaces to nonetheless
consider supporting the proposal as a whole. The expansion of RPP Area 17 to each
of the listed blockfaces will only occur on a blockface by blockface basis with the
approval of a majority of the residents of the blockface. Should residents of a
particular blockface strongly oppose expansion of RPP Area 17, that block will not
be included in the expansion. Although residents of that block will not be eligible for
RPP Area 17 permits, they will nonetheless benefit from increased availability of late
afternoon and early evening parking on nearby participating blockfaces, and on
those blockfaces surrounding the Jefferson Square development.
I live on one of the internal alley streets surrounded by blockfaces included in this
proposal. How will I be affected?
It is the understanding of the ad hoc parking committee that upon approval of the
RPP Area 17 expansion by residents of surrounding blockfaces, residents of these
internal alley streets (e.g. the unit block of S. Castle) will become eligible for RPP
Area 17 permits.
How will this proposal impact the staff and teachers of Commodore John Rodgers
School?
On-street parking for employees of the school is already severely limited by the early
arrival of commuting students and employees of Johns Hopkins, for whom the
blockfaces surrounding the school are a popular location for early morning parking.
Monthly parking at the commercial lot across the street is priced at upwards of $100
a month, making on-street parking on the blockfaces surrounding the school highly
desired by commuters. The current proposal would prioritize daytime parking along
these blockfaces to area residents, while making these blockfaces eligible for limited
2 hour parking as an added convenience to visitors to the school.
In recent years, off-street parking has been provided by the school to a limited
number of employees through the conversion of a paved area to daytime parking.
The ad hoc parking committee is exploring the feasibility of additional legislative
options that would provide for a limited number of transferrable RPP Area 17 passes
that could be distributed by the school administrators to eligible teachers and staff to
permit daytime parking in RPP Area 17, in exchange for concessions that would
permit evening or overnight off-street parking on school property by RPP Area 17
permit holders.
14
!

Download Report