The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 298-09TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: JULY 6,2009 CMR: 298:09 REPORT TYPE: REPORT OF OFFICIALS SUBJECT: Approval of A Residential Parking Permit Program For The College Terrace Neighborhood EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On July 30, 2007, in response to a Colleagues Memorandum from then Mayor Kishimoto and Council Members Beecham and Drekmeier, Council members recommended that Council direct staff to initiate an assessment of a residential parking permit program in College Terrace and report back to Council with a status report. Staff was authorized to retain outside expertise as needed to supplement staff, using the $100,000 deposited with the City from Stanford University. These funds were to be used to develop a residential permit program in College Terrace that would likely be implemented only in portions of the neighborhood and to survey all households to ascertain support. The assessment would need to advise Council and residents on the potential staffing requirements, cost and fee structure for the program. The program would also have to be revenue neutral to the General Fund. A program has been developed and is being presented to Council for approvaL Staff will return to Council for adoption of an Ordinance for the parking permit program prior to implementation of the program. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt the attached project's Negative Declaration (Attachment K); 2. Approve the elements to be included in a Residential Parking Permit Program in College Terrace, as outlined in Attachment A; 3. Direct staff to prepare a program ordinance approving the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program as described in this report and return to Council for approval; CMR:298:09 Page 1 of 11 4. Direct staff to return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $36,839 (representing interest earned on Stanford University's $100,000 deposit) to provide additional funding for the initial start-up costs; and 5. Authorize staff to accept additional petitions from College Terrace neighborhood blocks that did not initially receive 51 % support, through September 30, 2009, for the initial permit parking program's first year implementation. BACKGROUND The College Terrace neighborhood, located adjacent to Stanford University and Stanford Research Park (See Project Area Map, Attachment B), has historically been affected by substantial non-neighborhood traffic and parking. Residents continue to be affected by a longstanding and growing problem with daytime and night time parking by students and employees of the university and other nearby employers who regularly park on neighborhood • streets to avoid the cost of parking permits or because of convenience. Increasingly, as Stanford works to discourage commute trips onto campus, more people may park nearby and walk, bike or take the Marguerite Shuttle to their campus destination. The construction of multi-story graduate student housing immediately adjacent to Stanford Avenue appears to have added to the problem as well, since some of the student residents and guests prefer to park on nearby city streets rather than pay to park in campus parking facilities. The nature of College Terrace compounds these problems. Small lots and relatively dense housing is common throughout this neighborhood. Many residents have inadequate or no off- street parking. Drivers frequently park too close to intersections, driveways and fire hydrants, creating visibility and safety hazards. This is especially problematic along Stanford A venue, a route used by many children who walk or bike to school. Parking permits have long been discussed in several congested Palo Alto neighborhoods. Previous surveys in University South and Downtown North have indicated strong but mixed support for residential parking permits. The College Terrace Resident's Association (CTRA) has had, for some time, a parking issue task force evaluating permit programs and support for them. The task force's surveys had indicated that support for a residential permit program is strong, though not universal. In 2000, as part of Condition of Approval H.2.a., of the Stanford University's 2000 County General Use Permit, Stanford University was required to provide a $100,000 deposit to the City of Palo Alto for a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) for the College Terrace neighborhood. These funds were specifically designated for the consideration and initiation of a RPPP program and were deposited with the City in October 2001. On July 30, 2007, a Colleagues Memorandum (Attachment C), from former Mayor Kishimoto and Council members Beecham and Drekmeier, recommended that Council direct and authorize staff to retain outside expertise, as needed to supplement staff, using the $100,000 deposited with the City from Stanford University, to initiate an assessment of a residential parking permit program in College Terrace and report back to Council with a status report. CMR:298:09 Page 2 of 11 The direction to staff was to develop a residential permit program in College Terrace that would likely be implemented only in portions of the neighborhood. The assessment would include two outreach meetings in the community to conceptually design a potential program and conducting a survey of all households to ascertain support. The assessment would need to advise Council and residents on the potential staffing requirements, cost and fee structure for the program. The program would also have to be revenue neutral to the General Fund. DISCUSSION In January 2008, staff retained the services of transportation consultants, Kimley Hom and Associates, to initiate and develop a RPPP in College Terrace. A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) consisting of eight College Terrace residents appointed by the College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) Board, staff from Transportation, Police Department and Revenue Collections and consultants was formed to work on the development of the residential parking permit program. On-street Parking Occupancy Survey In early March 2008, in order to understand the current on-street parking conditions in the College Terrace neighborhood, to document baseline parking demand in the neighborhood and to help establish how much of the neighborhood should be included in the program, a parking occupancy study was conducted for both a weekday (Thursday, March 6th, 2008) and a weekend day (Saturday, March 1 st, 2008). On each day, vehicle occupancies on the streets were surveyed midday (roughly 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.) and in the evening (roughly 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.). The number of cars parked were counted and compared to calculated available parking spots, resulting in a parking density by street segment. These occupancy levels were graphed on a map of the neighborhood and color coded by percentage occupancy, as seen in Attachment D, Figures 1 through 4. The weekday midday results showed a relatively high percentage of parking occupancies along Stanford Avenue, with most blocks having greater than 50% occupancy. This occupancy trend continued through the commercial district at the eastern end of the neighborhood and through the cross streets between Stanford Avenue and College Avenue. The occupancy levels were found to decrease at College A venue and on the streets to the south of College A venue. On weekday evenings, the higher occupancies were found to be spread more evenly throughout the neighborhood. There was still a high percentage of parked cars along Stanford Avenue and in the commercial area, but there were also higher percentages along the cross streets within the neighborhood as well as along College Avenue. The survey found relatively low parking density along California Avenue during the evening hours. This is most likely the case because the main non-residential usage along California A venue is Stanford Research Park, which would tend to empty in the nighttime hours. The weekend midday survey showed a high density of parking in the commercial district and along some areas of Stanford A venue. College A venue and some of the cross streets had areas of higher parking occupancies, while California A venue again displayed lower occupancies. CMR:298:09 Page 3 of 11 In summary, during both midday and evening time periods on a typical weekday and weekend day, the on-street parking levels of College Terrace were found to be relatively high in specific areas. Program Alternatives The first neighborhood outreach meeting was held on March 19, 2008. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce and discuss the RPPP and to provide opportunity for residents to share their observations and concerns with members of City staff and the consultants. Approximately 35 people attended this meeting. After a brief presentation, the residents provided input on what type of problems they experienced, where they felt the majority of the parking problems were and the time of day when they felt it occurred. Throughout the next few months, staff continued to work closely with the Project Advisory Committee to study options for a RPPP that would address parking issues in the neighborhood. As a result, four options for a RPPP were discussed and recommended for further study. The following narrative details the specifics of each option: Option 1: Permits required for all on-street parking from 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday. Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permits would be permitted to use on-street parking, Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 5 pm. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods would be cited by the Police Department. Option 2: Parking limited to 2 hours without a permit from 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday. Permit allows unlimited parking. Vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit would be permitted to use on- street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit could park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the 2-hour maximum parking allowance would be cited by the Police Department. Option 3: Permits required for all on-street parking from 8 am to 5 pm, 7 days a week. Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit would be permitted to use on-street parking, all seven days of the week (Monday through Sunday) between 8 am to 5pm. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods would be cited by the Police Department. Option 4: Permits required for all on-street parking from 8 am to 10 pm, Monday through Friday. Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit would be permitted to use on-street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 10 pm. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods would be cited by the Police Department. CMR:298:09 Page 4 of 11 CTRJ\ Board Review On July 17,2008, staff met with the College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) Board. All four residential parking permit program options were presented and staff discussed the next steps involved in the development of the residential parking permit program. The College Terrace Board also expressed its complete support of Option 2 -Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm (with 2-hour parking) as recommended by the PAC, as their preferred option. The members were all in support of the direction City staff was proposing to take for further development of this program (see Attachment E) and to present at the next neighborhood meeting. Staff and the PAC felt that this option would address the majority of the neighborhood concerns and would also allow for the flexibility of visitors in the neighborhood to be able to park at leisure within the two hour time frame. Staff also supports Option 2 as the preferred option. Recommended Program Details For the preferred option (Option 2), a cost estimate and report was prepared (see Attachment F), detailing the recommended program rules and procedures, guidelines, staffing requirements, start up and operational costs, cost recovery plan, permit types for residents and visitors, enforcement hours and methods, permit fees and neighborhood signage. This cost estimate was prepared for scenarios that included one-half of the neighborhood and for the whole neighborhood. The Final Program Background and Development Memorandum is included as Attachment G of this report. Below is a description of the cost assumptions that were made in preparing the cost estimates. • One (1) residential parking permit will be issued for each vehicle of a household owner or person(s) renting a household in the College Terrace Neighborhood. Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide proof of vehicle ownership and residency. Therefore, a vehicle registration form as well as one ofthe following would be required at the time of registration showing College Terrace residency: o Driver's License o Rental Agreement o Recent Utility Bill With Street Address Noted • Multiple resident permits could be purchased per physical address based on multiple vehicle ownership and the following criteria: o The RPPP year is proposed to take place between September 1 and August 31 of the following year. Yearly permit renewal date is September 1. This RPPP year was selected based on consultation with the City's Revenue Collections staff workload and schedule as well as flexibility for the Stanford students residing in the College Terrace neighborhood, but this date could be changed. o Parking permits may be purchased yearly starting August 1st each year, through September 30th• o A grace period will be recognized from September 1st to September 30th for residents with previous year permits (i.e. vehicles not displaying a permit during CMR:298:09 Page 5 of 11 the grace period will be cited but vehicles displaying the permit from the previous year will not be cited during the grace period). o The annual parking permit will consist of a bumper sticker that is to be affixed to the rear bumper, to the left of the license plate bracket. o The annual parking permit will be a different color each permit year (September 1 to August 31 st the following year). o New residents to College Terrace may purchase resident permits throughout a permit year. Parking permit fees will be pro-rated based on date of purchase. o No refund will be administered for any resident, guest, or day permits. • Two (2) reusable guest passes (at no cost) will be issued for any household that has registered for at least one resident parking permit. This allowance is to provide accessibility for resident services in the neighborhood such as lawn care, house cleaners, contractors, etc. as well as for guests of the household. Guest passes are provided per household rather than per vehicle ownership. Guest passes will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and must be clearly displayed in this fashion. The selling of guest passes will be considered illegal under the adopted ordinance. • Residents will be required to complete their initial application for the resident parking permit and guest passes in person at the Revenue Collections office at Palo Alto City Hall located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Applications will require name, household address, license plate number, car manufacturer, color, year and model. Subsequent renewals of the residential parking permits and guest passes could be completed by mail or online, as this program evolves. • There will be a $10 re-issue fee for lost permits or new vehicle ownership for existing residential parking permit holders. • Day permits may be purchased in person at the Revenue Collections office. Day permits will be applicable for one 24-hour period. At the time of purchase, the date of each day permit will be logged in a registry at the Revenue Collections office based on the number of the day permit. A fee of $2 will be charged for each day permit. Day passes will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and allow the user to scratch off the day of usage, which must be clearly displayed. The total number of day permits issued will be limited to 20 day passes for each quarter that the College Terrace RPPP applies. • Construction and maintenance permits will be available for long-term construction activities, consistent with current practice by the City. • The percentage of homes on each block that must approve the RPPP petition to be considered for the program is to be set at 51 % of households. • The residential parking permit program does not obviate the compliance with the City's ordinance relating to vehicles parked on the street for more than 72 hours. CMR:298:09 Page 6 of 11 Second Community Meeting A second neighborhood meeting was held on October 15, 2008 to present the draft program to the neighborhood, to obtain additional comments and to determine if minor adjustments would be needed before finalizing the program. Approximately 35 residents attended this meeting. The recommended proposed program was presented and discussed in full detail. Approximately 8 written comments were submitted. Comments included full support of the program, a request that Stanford pay for the cost of the permits and a request that the City implement the program within the whole neighborhood, as opposed to a block by block opt in basis. Neighborhood Survey Process In February 2009, a detailed letter and neighborhood survey postcard (see Attachment H) was sent to all households to ascertain the level of support and to determine the number of interested households who would like to participate in the RPPP. The survey letter included a description of the parking problem, proposed program elements, anticipated program rules and procedures, and estimated costs. The cost estimate for each residential parking permit is $25 if 50% or less of the blocks in the neighborhood (half neighborhood) voted to be included in the program or $15 if more than 50% of the blocks (whole neighborhood) voted for inclusion in the program. In the letter, staff clearly explained that, if residents were not experiencing the described parking problem within their neighborhood or street, it would not preclude them of problems in the future, once the RPPP is implemented on their neighboring blocks. Currently residents on Stanford Avenue including the streets that have access to Stanford Avenue (Yale, Wellesley Oberlin, Harvard, Hanover, and Dartmouth), experience the most problems with long-term parking. Once the RPPP is implemented in these blocks, cars could possibly move to the neighboring streets without residential parking permit enforcement. Strong recommendations were made that this be considered when casting their votes and mailing in their postcards. Approximately 900 postcards, which included residents in both the residential and commercial zoning areas, were mailed out. Each resident was asked to read the accompanying letter that fully described the background of the project, the description of the proposed rules, procedures and cost of the RPPP. They were then asked to fill out a postcard survey that asked if their household wanted their block to participate in the proposed RPPP as described in the letter, and were given a choice to either vote "yes" or "no." The requirements called for 51 % of the number of houses on a street block to vote "yes" in order for their block to be included in the RPPP. Residents were given three weeks to send back their postcards and were encouraged to work with their neighbors to decide on whether or not they wanted to have the RPPP implemented on their block. Staff extended this deadline by 2 weeks because a high number of postcards had to be resent to residents who had either not received the ballot or had misplaced/lost it and who wanted to be able to have their voted counted and/or to be able to participate in the program. During this time, staff worked closely with the PAC to help with the education and outreach efforts for this program. PAC members, along with the CTRA board, prepared reading materials CMR:298:09 Page 7 of 11 and FAQ's to hand out to the neighborhood to encourage them to get involved and send in their votes. Approximately 47 % of the survey postcards were returned. Attachment J, figures 1 and 2, provides the detailed breakdown of the responses based on the total number of households (not including the vacant households) and the number of "yes" and "no" votes received for each block. The survey resulted in one-third of the total number of street blocks (21 /63 blocks) in the neighborhood voting "yes" to have RPPP implemented on their block. (See Attachment J). Each one of these 21 blocks had a m~ority (over 50 percent) of the households on that block in favor of having their street block opt into the RPPP. Recent Concerns It is important to note that, on May 14, 2009, Facebook moved its 850 local employees to a 150,000-square foot office building in the Stanford Research Park at 1601 California Avenue. This move has raised new concerns for residents in the upper College Terrace neighborhood as the overflow of employees are parking in the neighborhood streets. Staff anticipates that because the survey for this program was conducted before this move, the neighborhood had not realized the extent of the impact of Facebook moving into the neighborhood and most likely did not vote in favor of a RPPP for their block. Staff is proposing to provide a 60 day opt in period prior to the start of the program implementation, allowing the opportunity for residents faced with this new parking challenge the time to work with their neighbors to reconsider opting in to the program. Staff anticipates that additional blocks will want to opt in to the program, resulting in increased program revenue. College Terrace Commercial District The College TelTace commercial neighborhood (CN) zoning area, bounded by EI Camino Real on the east, California Avenue to the south, and all of Canlbridge and Staunton and portions of Oxford Avenues, consists of a mixture of single family residential, neighborhood serving retail and commercial propelties. Concerns were raised at the neighborhood meetings and by the CTRA Board that parking for the residences in the CN areas would be greatly exacerbated if no parking controls (RPPP) were offered on these streets. A letter from the CTRA Board (Attachment K) requested that the City also survey residences in the eN zone and that they be included as part of the initial RPPP implementation. On April 28, 2009, a letter was sent out to residents in the CN Zone (Attachment K) which included residents on both Cambridge A venue and Staunton Court. Businesses were not included as part of the required 51% vote. Unfortunately, the number of postcards returned did not qualify these streets to participate in this initial RPPP implementation. These results are also shown on Attachment 1. CMR:298:09 Page 8 of 11 Program Start-Up Costs While staff has estimated costs for this program to be revenue neutral, start-up funds are needed for the design and installation of street signs and for hiring temporary personnel and purchase of office equipment in the Revenue Collections Department. The initial costs are needed to cover the purchase of the permits, preparation of educational brochures, office supplies and equipment, and purchase and installation of the street signs. Staff is proposing to use the interest of $36,839, which has been accumulating on the initial $100,000 deposit from Stanford University since 2001, to help fund the initial start up costs. The interest amount will be replenished and added as part of the program funds as parking permits are purchased and citation revenues are generated. It is also important to note that the cost and resources needed for implementation of this program have been prepared for the College Terrace neighborhood only and do not include provisions for other neighborhoods in the City. Because this program is required to operate as a revenue neutral program, costs of permits for College Terrace may increase if other neighborhoods come forward and request to have a RPPP implemented in their neighborhoods. Although the Police Department has stated that it could staff this current program in College Terrace without the necessity to hire another CSO, if other neighborhoods request to have a RPPP in their neighborhood, additional staffing and resources will be needed in both the Police Department and Revenue Collections Division. Program Management Following Council direction, staff from the Transportation Section has completed the design, program procedures and guidelines for a residential parking permit program for College Terrace. The ongoing management and oversight of the program will be a collaborative effort by the Police Department and Revenue Collections. RESOURCE IMPACT Staff has prepared a detailed cost estimate that includes the cost of signs, office equipment and supplies and additional personnel required to operate and maintain the permit parking program. Because of the workload associated with the set-up, issuance, renewal and tracking of permits, additional staff hours are required in the Revenue Collections Department. N0 additional staff is needed during the first year of implementation for the Police Department, as they will be absorbing the shared cost of a Community Service Officer (CSO). They will, however, need an additional parking enforcement vehicle for the CSO to be able to patrol the RPPP areas in this neighborhood. The assessment of the College Terrace RPPP was funded by the $100,000 from the Stanford University General Use Permit. $46,200 of the initial fund amount was used for consultant fees for the development of the RPPP. The balance of the deposit, $53,800, and the interest earned, $38,839, will be used for the set up of the College Terrace RPPP, which includes the purchase of the police department patrol vehicle and equipment. The College Terrace RPPP will be established as a Special Revenue Fund with the intent of capturing and segregating future revenues and costs within this program and maintaining CMR:298:09 Page 9 of 11 neutrality to the General Fund. After the first year of implementation, full cost allocations will be applied to the program. Revenue projections for such a program are difficult to calculate due to the uncertainties in the actual number of citations that would be issued and the number of resident permits that would be purchased. The number of citations issued and revenues collected for the program, as shown in Attachment F, are based on historical citation rates evaluated in the City of Palo Alto and compared with other cities with similar residential parking permit programs. Although the intent of the program is to result in cost recovery with no impact to the General Fund, due to these uncertainties the full impacts are unknown. The true cost of the program may not be accurately assessed until the program is actually implemented. Staff recommends that these costs be assessed and evaluated one year after implementation in order to determine if adjustments to the permit costs will be necessary to remain at cost recovery levels. TIMELINE The next steps in the process would be for staff to work with the City Attorney's office to draft an ordinance for Council approval. Preliminary work involving the design and purchase of permits and signs, hiring temporary staff, and purchase of necessary equipment would also take place during the remainder of the calendar year. Staff will also solicit the neighborhood blocks that did not initially opt in to the program, to find out ifthere are any other blocks that would like to opt in prior to this initial implementation. The proposed program would be ready for implementation beginning no later than January 2010. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The implementation of a Residential Parking Permit program is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan T-47: "Utilize engineering, enforcement, and educational tools to improve traffic safety on City roadways." ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Negative Declaration (ND) has been completed and is attached to this report (Attachment L) for approval. The draft Negative Declaration was available for review as of June 12, 2009. A minimum of 20-day public comment period has been provided prior to the finalization of the Negative Declaration. PREPARED BY: ~~ :HAHLA YAZDY Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT HEAD: CURTIS ILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:298:09 Page 10 of 11 CITY MANAGER APPROV AL: ATTACHMENTS A. College Terrace Proposed Parking Permit Program B. Proj ect Area Map C. Colleagues Memorandum D. College Terrace Parking Occupancy Survey Email of Support from CTRA F. Cost Estimate for Option 2 G. Final Program Background and Development Memorandum H. Neighborhood Survey Letter and Postcard 1. College Terrace Parking Results -ParticipatingINon-Participating Residences J. Proposed College Terrace RPPP blocks K. Letter from CTRA Board (CN Zone) L. Letter to CN Zone Residents M. Negative Declaration COURTESY COPIES: College Terrace Resident's Association Board College Terrace Project Advisory Committee Jean Mc Cown, Stanford University CMR:298:09 Page 11 of 11 ATTACHMENT A COLLEGE TERRACE PROPOSED PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM 1. Provide for enforcement of the blocks, in the residential parking permit program, Mondays through Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Vehicles displaying a permit may use on-street parking during this period. Vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to 2 hours during this period. Violators will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. Weekends and holidays will be exempt. 2. Allow a block to opt into the residential parking program (RPPP) if 51 % of households on that block sign a petition to be considered in the program. 3. Require blocks that enroll in the program, to opt in for a period of 2-years, to prevent blocks from entering and exiting the program after initial program implementation. 4. Provide one (1) residential parking permit for each vehicle of a household owner or person(s) renting a household in the College Terrace Neighborhood. The annual parking permit will consist of a bumper sticker that is to be affixed to the rear bumper, to the left of the license plate bracket. 5. Require residents to complete their initial application for the residential parking permit and guest passes in person at the Revenue Collections office at the City of Palo Alto City Hall located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide vehicle registration and proof of residency such as a driver's license, rental agreement or a utility bill with street address noted. Application will require name, household address, license plate number, car manufacturer, color, year and model. There will be a $10 re-issue fee for lost permits or new vehicle ownership for existing residential parking permit holders. 6. Allow new residents to College Terrace to purchase resident permits throughout a permit year. These parking permit fees will be pro-rated for half year increments. No refund will be administered for any resident, guest, or day permits. 7. Provide, at no cost, two (2) annual guest permits per household in the College Terrace neighborhood that has registered for at least one resident parking permit. This allowance is to provide accessibility for resident services in the neighborhood such as lawn care, house cleaners, contractors, etc. as well as for guests of the household. Annual guest permits are provided per household rather than per vehicle ownership. Guest permits will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and must be clearly displayed. The selling of guest passes will be considered illegal under the adopted ordinance. 8. Allow residents to purchase one-day permits for a fee, in person at the Revenue Collections office. One-day permits will be applicable for one 24-hour period. Day permits will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and allow the user to scratch off the day of usage, which must be clearly displayed. The total number of day permits issued will be limited to 20 days passes for each quarter that the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) applies. 9. Allow normal construction and maintenance permits to be available for long-term construction activities on regulated streets, consistent with current practice by the City. 10. Provide residential parking permits at an initial cost of $25, or $15 if more than 50% of the blocks in the neighborhood vote for inclusion in the program. ATTACHMENT B COLLEGE TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD -PROJECT AREA MAP Date: To; From: Subject: ATTACHMENT C 18 CITY OF PALO ALTO COLLEAGUES tlJEMORANDUM July 30, 2007 City Council Colleagues Mayor Kishimoto and Council Members Beecham and Drekmeier Recommending the Council to Direct Staff to Explore the Feasibility of College Terrace Parking Permit Program Recommendation: We recommend Council direct staff to initiate an assessment of a residential parking permit program in College Terrace and report the results back to Council. The assessment would include approximately two outreach meetings in the community to co nce ptu a IIY,d esi 9..Q~li-!?~._!2E9.g[.9}l:L.c;LOsL.i;LSJJIy.eY_._Q.L9J I households to asc:~rtainsupport. Staff would be authorized to retain outside expertfseas ne'eded"to supple"me"nt staff, using funds deposited with the City from Stanford University for the College Terrace permit parking program pursuant to the 2000 General Use Permit conditions of approval. Problem: College Terrace residents suffer from a longstanding and growing problem with daytime and night time non-resident parking. Students and employees of the university and other nearby employers regularly park on neighborhood streets to avoid the cost of permits or because of convenience. Increasingly, as Stanford works to discourage commute trips onto campus, more people park nearby and walk, bike or take the Marguerite to their campus destination. The construction of multi-story graduate student housing immediately adjacent to Stanford Avenue at Oberlin Street has added to the problem as well, since some student" residents prefer to park on nearby city streets rather than in campus parking facilities. The nature of College Terrace compounds these problems. Small lots and relatively dense housing is common throughout. Many residents have inadequate or no off- street parking. Drivers frequently park too close to intersections, driveways and fire hydrants, creating visibility and safety hazards. This is especially problematic along Stanford Avenue, a route used by many children to walk or bike to school. Discussion.: Parking permits have long been discussed in several congested Palo Alto neighborhoods. Previous surveys in University South and Downtown North have indicated strong but mixed support for residential parking permits. The College Terrace Residents Association has had for some time a parking issues task force evaluating permit programs and support for them. As elsewhere, the task force's surveys indicate that supoort for a residential permit program is strong though not universal. In addition, as rt of Stanford's cu General Use Permit, the city has a fund of $1001000 supporting a parking permii: program. A residential permit program in College Terrace would likely implemented only in portions of the n hborhood. The assessment recommend above would need to include means for defining the bound of the program as well as a system for easily adjusting ,.--' bo'und over time as conditions and residential preferences chan The assessment would also need to adv Council and residents on the potential staffing requirem cost and for the program. The program should b-e-'revenuen-e'ulrar't6 the general fund in the long"run ."We encourage staff to find best practices and new technolog available to reduce operational costs and reduce administrative burden on staff, visitors and residents. This memorandum has been reviewe.d by staff. ATTACHMENT D Figure 1 College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study Weekday -Midday Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Thursday, March 6th, at 12:00-1 :OOpm during the midday, The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. EI Camino Real \ Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces Kimley-Horn and ASSOCiates, Inc. ColiegeTerraceRPP _ Occupancy(color)052909.xls Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dal1mouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst 0-25% Occupancy 26-50% Occupancy 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91·100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05129/09 Figure 2 College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study Existing Weekday -PM KimleY-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Thursday, March 6th, at 7:00-8:00pm during the PM The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below, \ EI Camino Real !Xl = Midday Occupancy ~ = Total Available Parking Spaces Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc, College TerraceRPP _ Occupancy(color)052909 ,xis 0-25% Occupancy 26-50% Occupancy 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05129109 Figure 3 College Terrace -Parking Occupancy Study Weekend· Midday Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Saturday March 1st, at 12:00-1 :20pm during the midday. The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. \ Midday Occupancy Total Available Parking Spaces Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ColiegeTerraceRPP _Occupancy(color)052909.xls Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Oartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst 0-25% Occupancy 26-50% Occupancy 51·75% Occupancy 76-90% Occupancy ., 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05/29/09 Figure 4 College Terrace -Parking Occupancy Study .... vj,.,.h ...... Weekend. PM Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Saturday, March 1st, at 7:00-8:00pm during the PM The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below, \ = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc, College TerraceRPP _ Occupancy(color)052909,xls 0-25% Occupancy 26-50% Occupancy = 51-75% Occupancy = 76·90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05129109 ATTACHMENT E Page 1 of2 Yazdy, Shahla From: greg tanaka [gltanaka@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 8:35 AM To: . Likens, Gayle Cc: Yazdy, Shahla; CTRAboard@googlegroups.com Subject: Board Approval Gayle, The College Terrace Residents' Association Board, Permit Parking and Traffic Calming subcommittees appreciate the work you and your staff have done on the Traffic Calming and Permit Parking issues. The Board has unanimously voted in favor of the following recommendations: The Permit Parking Option #2 -We believe it best meets the needs of the neighborhood. Option 2 Summary: Vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on-street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these spe~ified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods and exceeding the two (2) hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. The Traffic Calming Goal & Action Plan --Goal: Lower speed and cut-through traffic in College Terrace while enhancing pedestrian safety and anticipating pressures from future developments. Facilitate an inclusive process, positive relationships with neighborhood, City staff, and consultants, and an expeditious resolution to College Terrace Traffic Calming trial --Short-term Action Plan: -Remove circle at Hanover, make intersection 4-way stop -Flip stop signs at Columbia --Long Term Action Plan: -Additional traffic counts -Review intersection by intersection with CTRA Traffic Calming subcommittee and City staff to develop feasible recommendations that would ensure that the final plan is an improvement on the current trial and what existed before the trial. -Continued interaction with CTRA, CTRA subcommittee, and College Terrace neighbors on this issue. 6/1612009 First Year Costs First Year Citation Revenues Less Revenue from Citations Annual Cost per Household to Recover Expenses 'Day permits are not included in cost estimate process because the physical cost of permit and processing time is offset by the $2 planned charge. $87,577.20 -$63,060.00 $24,577.20 $45.51 $136,160.35 -$111,930.00 $24,230.35 $22.44 ~ () I s:: m z -I -n ATTACHMENTG Memorandum ~-1Ir1I Kimley-Horn 1IIII.......l_~ and Associates, Inc. To: From: Re: Date: Shahla Yazdy and City of Palo Alto Jim West, P.E. and Michael Mowery, P.E. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Final Program Background and Development Memorandum 29 l\JIay 2009 INTRODUCTION The College Terrace neighborhood, located adjacent to Stanford University and Stanford Research Park, has historically been affected by large amounts of non- neighborhood traffic and parking for more than 20 years. Past efforts to address the problem have included traffic calming measures to help reduce cut-through traffic and speeding; however, College Terrace residents continue to suffer from a longstanding and growing problem of non-resident parking during both day and night time periods. As a condition of their revised County General Use Permit in 2000, Stanford University provided $100,000 to the city of Palo Alto for a residential parking permit program (RPPP) for the College Terrace neighborhood. These funds are for the consideration and initiation of a RPPP program. In 2003, the City conducted an occupancy survey to gauge the need for the establishment of a College Terrace RPPP, however, no consensus regarding criteria or implementation was reached at that time. During the same period, the concern regarding cut-through traffic and speeding was evaluated through a neighborhood traffic management project (NTMP). In late 2006, traffic circles, speed tables, and other traffic management measures were installed in the neighborhood as outcomes of the NTMP. The completion of the NTMP led to a renewed focus on the parking concerns of the neighborhood and in a memorandum dated July 30, 2007, Mayor Kishimoto and Council Members Beecham and Drekmeier recommended that the City Council direct City staff to initiate a study of an RPPP in College Terrace. Kimley-Horn was retained by the City of Palo Alto to conduct this project, the background and results of which are discussed herein. OCCUPANCY SURVEY To understand the current on-street parking conditions in the College Terrace neighborhood, a parking occupancy study was conducted for both a weekend day (Saturday, March 1S\ 2008) and a weekday (Thursday, March 6th, 2008). On each day occupancies were surveyed midday (roughly 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.) and in the evening (roughly 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.). City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program College T erraceRPP P. FinalProg Background&Devp .doc Page 1 29 May 2009 Field conditions on both days were good, with clear skies and low pedestrian and vehicle traffic on most of the roadways and survey days were considered to represent a typical day. However, there were construction activities in the neighborhood that affected the weekday midday occupancy counts, and "No Parking" areas were indicated near those zones for weekdays. The streets affected by the construction activity were mainly California Avenue and College Avenue. Counting on non- construction days was not possible due to the long duration of the construction project. The number of cars parked were counted and compared to calculated available parking spots, resulting in a parking density by street segment. These occupancy levels were graphed on a map of the neighborhood, and color coded by percentage occupancy, as seen in Figures 1 through 4 on the following pages. The weekday midday results show a relatively high percentage of parking occupancies along Stanford Avenue, with most blocks having greater than 50% occupancy. This occupancy trend continues through the commercial district at the eastern end of the neighborhood, and through the cross streets between Stanford Avenue and College Avenue. The occupancy levels were found to decrease at College Avenue, and on the streets to the south of College Avenue. On weekday evenings, the higher occupancies were found to be spread more evenly throughout the neighborhood. There is still a high percentage of parked cars along Stanford Avenue and in the commercial area, but there are also higher percentages along the cross streets within the neighborhood as well as along College Avenue. There was found to be relatively low parking density along California Avenue during the evening hours, most likely since the main non-residential usage along California Avenue is Stanford Research Park, which was generally unoccupied in the nighttime hours. Weekend midday shows a high density of parking in the commercial district, and along some areas of Stanford Avenue. College Avenue and some of the cross streets have areas of higher parking occupancies, while California Avenue is again displaying lower occupancies. During the weekday evening, the inner cross streets were found to have higher occupancy levels, as did Stanford Avenue. In summary, during both midday and evening time periods on a typical weekday and weekend day, the on-street parking levels of College Terrace were found to be relatively high in specific areas. The parking levels surveyed in the Spring 2008 Occupancy Study were compared and found similar to those collected in 2003 when the College Terrace RPPP was first considered. Therefore, the relatively high level of parking occupancy experienced in the neighborhood was determined to be a consistent occurrence during the five year term between the studies. City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program ColiegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 2 29 May 2009 Figure 1 College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study Weekday -Midday Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Thursday, March 6th, at 12:00-1 :OOpm during the midday. The results 01 the occupancy study are illustrated below . ~ ., "E 0) c: ~ .!!l ll! "0 til 0 0 Kimiey-Hom and Associates, Inc. College T erraceRPP _ Occupancy( oolor)052909.xls ., 0\ '" "0 'c ." .0 5 E :t ., ro 0 0 \ = Midday Occupancy = Totat Available Pal1<ing Spaces i = 0-25% Occupancy ti§i~ = 26-50% Occupancy = 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05/29109 2 College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study WeeK(l(W • PM Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Thursday. March 6th, at 7:00-8:00pm during the PM The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. " '" m 'E Q) " '1" oS 'E OJ :g ,g " ~ .l!l E .lll '0 '" iii <1) 0 U U u Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. College T erraceRPP _ Occupancy(color)052909.xls EI Camino Real Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst \ Midday Occupancy Total Available Parking Spaces 0-25% Occupancy 26-50% Occupancy 51-75% Occupancy 76-90% Occupancy 91-100% Occupancy Or No Parking Allowed 05/29/09 Figure 3 College Terrace -Parking Occupancy Study Existing Weekend -Midday Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Saturday March 1 st, at 12:00-1 :20pm during the midday. The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. College T erraceRPP _ Occupancy(color)052909.xls \ !xl = Midday Occupancy ~ = Total Available Parking Spaces 1= 0-25% Occupancy .. = 26-50% Occupancy . . = 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05/29/09 College Terrace -Parking Occupancy Study Weekend -PM Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighbortlOod on Saturday, March 1 st, at 7:00·8:00pm dunng the PM The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below, Kimley·Horn and Associates, Inc, ColiegeTerraceRPP _Occupancy(color)052909,xls Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst \ = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces ; = 0·25% Occupancy ';'i': " 26-50% Occupancy = 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy "91·100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05129/09 Based on the slightly higher occupancy survey results in the neighborhood area north of College Avenue, a preliminary evaluation was conducted to determine the results of applying an RPPP only in this half of the neighborhood. As expected, the non- resident parking would be forced to park elsewhere, likely first moving to College Avenue as that would be the closest non-RPPP street, and then spreading south throughout the remaining cross streets and California Avenue. An updated occupancy diagram is shown as Figure 5 for weekday, midday parking conditions, and demonstrates the potential impact of implementation of an RPP program in only the north section of College Terrace. To create this example of potential parking locations, the percentage of residents versus non-residents in each block was calculated from a 2003 license plate survey conducted by Palo Alto Police Department. These percentages were then applied to the total number of vehicles parked in the roadway segments as counted during the March 2008 field survey. In the north neighborhood area where the RPPP was studied, those vehicles that were not assumed to be residents were moved to neighboring streets. College Avenue was first filled to approximately 90% capacity, assuming that most relocated vehicles would park there as it would be the closest non-permitted parking to their previous locations. Once College Avenue was nearly occupied, the remaining relocated vehicles were evenly dispersed amongst the cross streets between College Avenue and California Avenue, as well as along California Avenue itself. Figure 6 depicts the potential parking availability during weekend midday hours. The methodology was identical to that used during the weekday midday exercise, in order to show the most conservative estimate if the parking program were to be in effect on the weekend. The results of this evaluation illustrates the predicted impact of application of a College Terrace RPPP in only one section of the neighborhood and the likely relocation of non-resident parked vehicles to other portions of the neighborhood. This evaluation utilized the north half of the neighborhood but the results are considered a representative illustration of the continued impacts that non- resident parking may have on the College Terrace neighborhood if only part of the neighborhood adopts an RPP program. City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program ColiegeT erraceRPPP .FinalProg Background&Devp .doc Page 7 29 May 2009 College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study Future Weekday· Midday Below is a descriplion of cars parked after the residential parking permll program is in place. Non-residents are now reslricted from parking on slreet in the neighborhood bordered by Slanford Ave, to the north, EI Camino Real 10 the east, Amherst St. 10 the west, and College Ave. to the south. Non-residents are allowed to park on College Ave. Yale Williams Wellesley Cornetl Princeton Oberlin Harvard Bowdoin Amherst Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ColiegeTerraceRPP _RelocatedOccupancy(colorl05290Rxts \ !xl = Midday Occupancy ~ = Tolal Available Parking Spaces 1= 0-20% Occupancy :'T~g = 21-40% Occupancy = 41-50% Occupancy = 50+% Occupancy aT No Parking Allowed = 90+% Occupancy 05129109 College Terrace -Parking Occupancy Study Future Weekend -Midday Below is a descriplion of cars parked after Ihe residenlial parking pennit program is in place. Non-residents are now restricted from parking on street in the neighborhood bordered by Stanford Ave, to the north, EI Camino Real to the east, Amherst SI. to the west, and College Ave. to the south. Non-residents are allowed to park on College Ave. Yale x X \ = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces " .. ~ = 21-40% Occupancy = 41-50% Occupancy 1= 0-20% Occupancy = 50+% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed = 90+% Occupancy Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ColiegeTerraceRPP _RelocatedOccupancy(colorJ052909.xls 05129109 RPP BEST PRACTICES FROM OTHER CITIES To determine best practices and/or ideas for implementation in the College Terrace neighborhood, a literature review was conducted comparing various residential parking permit programs in the local area. The cities selected for comparison were Berkeley, Cupertino, Emeryville: Oakland, Monterey, Santa Cruz, and Walnut Creek. The research focused on the following points of the permit policies: • Enforcement Agency: The agency that enforces the program. In some areas, this may be the public works department, finance department, parking division, or other department. • Cost of Yearly Permit: Most programs have an annual fee, others charge a fee once every two years. • Threshold for Adopting RPP: The percentage of residents within the proposed program limits that must sign a petition for the program to be considered. • Enforcement Periods: Defined by the days of the week (usually Monday through Friday) and the hours during the day which the program will be enforced. • Parking Time without Permit: Allowed time for a vehicle with no permit to park in a restricted street parking spot. This time period usually ranges from one to two hours. • Voting Privileges: Whether the owner, resident, or renter gets to vote to implement a program. • Guest Permit Violation Policy: Policy for violation of guest permits such as ticketing and towing after 72 hours. • Enforcement of Guest Permit Violations: Actions taken for guest permit violations. • Residences in Commercial Districts: Policy on how residences in commercial districts are handled such as obtaining a permit and parking in a metered space and not have to pay the meter or parking in a residential district. • SellinglTransfer of Guest Passes: Policy on replacing or transferring guest passes such as a $25 fee to replace the guest pass. An option is available in some programs for homeowners to purchase a certain number of one-day guest passes for use throughout the year. • Adoption Entity: Amount of neighborhood that will be part of the program, i.e. full neighborhood or street by street participation. Usually requires 2/3 majority or 51 % of residents participate. • Commercial/Contractor/Maintenance Vehicles: Treatment of vehicles such as gardeners or contractors who park in the street but do not have a parking permit. Most locales allow for issuance of guest passes to facilitate commercial and non-resident parking. • Application Process: Action necessary to apply for a residential permit. • Form of Permit: The form of the permit, such as a sticker to put on your car bumper. City.of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program ColiegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProg6ackground&Devp.doc Page 10 29 May 2009 • Proof of Residency: List of acceptable proofs of residency such as a driver's license, utility bill, rental agreement, etc. • Time to Issue: Amount of time expected to be necessary to obtain permit • Day Passes: The cost associated with a day pass and the duration of the validity of the pass. A summary of the RPP programs reviewed was compiled and summarized in Table 1. The results of the local area RPPPs aided in the selection of alternative elements in the College Terrace RPPP based on the specific issues and cost ramifications of establishing a successful RPPP in other areas. City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program ColiegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 11 29 May 2009 Finance Rowcloa CUstomer 510-981-7200 Servic::e Center/Office 01 Transportation Table 1: Local Area RPP Programs 530 Oaify passes can get ahead of tlmo when you apply for annl.l.al permit COLLEGE TERRACE RPPP ALTERNATIVES Based on the local area RPPP research and concerns discussed with the project advisory committee (PAC), alternatives were developed for consideration for the College Terrace RPPP. At the April 16, 2008 College Terrace RPPP PAC meeting, four options for a College Terrace RPP Program were discussed and recommended for further study. The following narrative details the specifics of each option; with further details concerning types of permits contained in later text. • Option 1: Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on-street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. • Option 2: Vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on-street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods and exceeding the two (2) hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. • Option 3: Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on-street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on all seven days of the week (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. • Option 4: Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on-street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program ColiegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 13 29 May 2009 COLLEGE TERRACE RPPP PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE On July 15, 2008, the College Terrace RPPP PAC in consultation with the College Terrace Board recommended to City staff that Option 2 be considered the primary option for RPP program implementation. The following describes the recommended details for the College Terrace RPP program under the Option 2 criteria. For each program, parking enforcement officers would be required to ensure that the provisions of the program are being met; otherwise fines would be issued to violators. For the preferred alternative, the City of Palo Alto Police Department has stated that they could staff this option without the need to hire another Community Service Officer (CSO). [A summary of the estimated cost of the preferred alternative, based on staffing hours, rates, overtime compensation, and other costs was computed. Since the program is required to operate as revenue-neutral, an estimate of the number of citations issued and revenues collected is also calculated for the program based on historical citation rates evaluated in the City of Palo Alto as well as cities with existing RPP Programs. These citations are assumed to cost $35 per citation, based on the current downtown parking violation citation cost.] The following Program Details and Cost Assumptions explain the Preferred RPPP Alternative, Option 2. A survey was sent out to all households in the College Terrace neighborhood in spring of 2009 by US mail. The survey resulted in approximately 200 households choosing to opt-in to the RPPP in the initial deployment. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the voting results by neighborhood block for households choosing to opt-in or not participate in the RPPP initial deployment, respectively. Based on the results of the survey, the City of Palo Alto staff is revising the Cost Estimate for permits in the initial deployment area. These updates include the number of households in the neighborhood updated from 1080 to 900 households, a revision of staffing support time and expenses to operate the program, and application of the General Use Permit funds to be included in the program. The final Staff Report for City Council review will include this Cost Estimate update and final program details. City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Permit Program Page CollegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProgBackground&Devp.doc 29 May 2009 Figure 7: College Terrace Parking RPPP Survey Results (Participating Residences) Stanford Oxford College Cambridge California Yale Oberlin r-____________ ~--l--L--H~aNaro Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Legend I xx I xx I Yes voles I T alai # of houses xx I xx No voles I TOlal # of houses OS/29/09 Figure 8: College Terrace RPPP Survey Results (Non-Participating Residencies) Stanford Oxford College Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. Cambridge California Legend I xx I Xl( EYes votes I Total # of houses __ .... "'.IINO votes I T olal # of houses ~~~r-IT~rr~~elle5Iey Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin 05/29/09 Program Details: • One (1) resident permit will be issued for each vehicle of a household owner or person (s) renting a household in the College Terrace Neighborhood. Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide proof of vehicle ownership and residency. Therefore, a vehicle registration form as well as one of the following would be required at the time of registration showing College Terrace residency: o Driver's License o Rental Agreement o Recent Utility Sill With Street Address Noted • Multiple resident permits may be purchased per physical address based on multiple vehicle ownership and the following criteria: o The RPPP year is defined as between September 1 and August 31 st of the following year. Yearly permit renewal date is September 1. (This RPPP year was selected based on consultation with the City Department of Revenue Collections as well as flexibility for Stanford students residing in the College Terrace neighborhood.) o Parking permits may be purchased yearly starting August 1st each year, through September 30th• o A grace period will be recognized from September 1 st to September 30th for residents with previous year permits due to the start of school each year (Le. vehicles not displaying a permit during the grace period will be cited but vehicles displaying the permit from the previous year will not be cited during the grace period). o The annual parking permit will consist of a bumper sticker that is to be affixed to the rear bumper, to the left of the license plate bracket. o The annual parking permit will be a different color each permit year (September 1 to August 31 st the following year). o New residents to College Terrace may purchase resident permits throughout a permit year. Parking permit fees will be pro-rated for half year increments, e.g. permits applied for from February 1 to July 31 st will pay half price. o No partial or full refund will be administered for any resident, guest, or day permits. • Two (2) guest passes will be issued per household in the College Terrace Neighborhood that has registered for at least one resident parking permit. This allowance is to provide accessibility for resident services in the neighborhood such as lawn care, house cleaners, contractors, etc. as well as for guests of the household. Guest passes are provided per household rather than per vehicle ownership. Guest passes will be designed to hang from the rear view City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program CollegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProgBackground&Devp,doc Page 17 29 May 2009 mirror and must be clearly displayed in this fashion. The selling of guest passes will be considered illegal under the adopted ordinance. • Residents will be required to complete their initial application for the resident permit and guest passes in person at the Revenue Collections office at the City of Palo Alto City Hall located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Subsequent renewal of the resident permit and guest passes must be completed in person at the Revenue Collections office. Application will require name, household address, license plate number, car manufacturer, color, year and model. There will be a $10 re-issue fee for lost permits or new vehicle ownership for existing resident parking permit holders. • Day permits may be purchased in person at the Revenue Collections office. Day passes will be applicable for one 24-hour period. At the time of purchase the date of each day permit will be logged in a registry at the Revenue Collections office based on the number of the day permit. A fee of $2 will be charged for each day permit. Day passes will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and allow the user to scratch off the day of usage, which must be clearly displayed. The total number of Day Passes issued will be limited to 1/3 of the total days each 3 months that the College Terrace RPPP applies (e.g. 60 weekdays in a 3 month period would allow a resident to purchase 20 day passes for that quarter). Day permits may only be purchased by College Terrace residents. • Construction and maintenance permits will be available for long-term construction activities, consistent with current practice by the City. Program Cost Assumptions: • Permits will be applied for and renewed annually. • 900 U.S. Postal Service households in College Terrace used for "whole neighborhood" cost, 450 used for half, and 225 used for quarter. • Total available parking spaces in College Terrace are estimated to be 1,246 parking spaces, with an estimated 644 parking spaces in half the neighborhood. • The percentage of homes on that block that must approve a RPPP petition to be considered/go into effect is to be set at 51% of households. • Enforcement of the ~-hour limitation will be conducted by coding license plates in electronic format and not chalking tires. • After the initial survey, to enroll a block in the College Terrace RPPP, there is 1 year opt in period. A block may only enter the RPP program on the program renewal date of September 1. • Once a block is enrolled, there is a 2 year opt out period to prevent blocks from entering and exiting the program frequently and causing confusion. For City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program ColiegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 18 29 May 2009 example, a block that joins the program on September 1, 2009 will be a RPPP block until at least August 31,2011, if an opt-out process is completed. • RPP program sign installation and maintenance cost is to be funded by the College Terrace RPPP. • The City of Palo Alto public library located in the College Terrace neighborhood is exempt from the College Terrace RPPP. • The residential portion of the CN zone on the east side of Yale Street will be included in the College Terrace RPPP. • The development and implementation of the College Terrace Program is initially funded by $100,000 from a Standard University General Use Permit fund contribution. The initial fund amount will be used for set up of the College Terrace RPPP including consultant fees and one police department patrol vehicle. To apply this fund equitably for all neighborhood residents, the remaining fund balance will be applied on a percent of blocks partiCipating in the program through the third full year of the program. After the third full year RPPP program completion, the remaining fund balance will be applied to the program to offset resident permit costs. For example, if half of the neighborhood opts-in to the RPP program for year one, one half of the fund balance will be applied to offset program costs. City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program CoIlegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 19 29 May 2009 February 18, 2009 Resident «AddressBlock» «Ad(lressBlock» ATTACHMENT H SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM IN COLLEGE TERRACE- POSTCARD BALLOT Dear Resident, As a follow up to the letter of January 28, 2009, I am sending with this letter a postcard ballot to all College Terrace households in the residential zoning area, to find out if your household would like to have your street block opt in to the proposed Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). As previously discussed, the proposed program would allow vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit to use on-street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the two hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the Police Department. The cost of a parking permit is $25 for each vehicle, if less than 50% of the street blocks in College Terrace vote to be included in the program. If more then 50% of the street blocks vote for inclusion in the program, the cost for each vehicle will decrease to $15 for each permit. Attached you will find the program details, cost, rules and regulations that are being proposed in this RPPP. Please note that the majority of the number of houses on your street block must vote "yes" for your block to be included in this program. For example, 4 out of 6 homes on a block must vote "yes" in order for the block to be included in the initial RPPP. Blocks that choose to opt into the program are required to participate for 2 years. Enclosed is a postcard ballot for your vote on whether your household would like to opt into the residential parking permit program. When filling out the postcard, please note the following: 1. Please print your name and address CLEARLY. 2. Only one vote per household is allowed. 3. 51 % of homes on a block must request inclusion in the Program. (i.e. 4 of 7 homes on a block must vote "yes" for the Program to be included in the initial RPPP Program). 4. Please check "yes" if you would like your block to participate in this RPPP program. 5. Please check "no" if you do not want your block to participate in this program. 6. Please stamp and return the postcard no later than March 11, 2009. The final recommended College Terrace RPPP and voting results will be presented to the City Council, for consideration and adoption of a new College Terrace RPPP, which would be initiated on September 1, 2009 on the neighborhood blocks which voted to be included in the program. Residents are strongly encouraged to work together to decide whether or not you would like your block to be included in this initial offering. Blocks that choose not to participate at this time will have to wait one year before they can request to be included in the program. More detail on how residents can apply for an RPPP for the following year will be developed and presented at a later time. I would like to remind you again that if you currently don't experience a problem with an excess of cars parking on your street now, it doesn't mean that you won't in the future, once the RPPP is implemented on your neighboring blocks. Currently residents on Stanford Avenue including the streets that have access to Stanford Avenue (Yale, Wellesley Oberlin, Harvard, Hanover, and Dartmouth) experience the most problems with long-term parking. Once the RPPP is implemented in these blocks, cars will most likely move to the neighboring streets where there isn't any residential parking permit enforcement. We strongly recommend that you consider this when you cast your vote and mail in your postcard. All of the background information and studies that have been completed to date, including notes from the neighborhood meetings can be found at the following website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/city projects/transportation/college terrace residential parkin g permit program.asp. Results of this ballot will also be posted on the website as information becomes available. If you have any questions you can email me at Shahla.yazdy@cityofpaloalto.org or call me at (650) 617-3151. Sincerely, Shahla Yazdy Transportation Engineer Attachment College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) Program Enforcement Period will be Monday-Friday, between 8:00am and 5:00pm. • Vehicles displaying a permit may use on-street parking during this period. • Vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to 2 hours during this period. • Violators will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. • Holidays will be exempt. • All vehicles may utilize on-street parking outside of this period. One resident permit may be issued for each vehicle of a household owner or person renting a household. • Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide a vehicle registration form as well as a Driver's License, rental agreement, or recent utility bill with street address noted. • Residents will be required to complete initial and renewal applications for permits in person at the Revenue Collections office at the City of Palo Alto City Hall. Applications will require name, household address, license plate number, car manufacturer, color, year and model. • Multiple resident permits may be purchased per household if multiple vehicles owned. • The RPPP year is between September 1 and August 31 of the following year. • Permits may be purchased yearly starting August 1. • A grace period will be set from September 1-30 for residents with previous year permits. • Resident permits will be a sticker affixed to the rear bumper, to the left of the license plate. • Resident permits will be a different color each permit year (September 1-August 31 ). • New residents to College Terrace may purchase resident permits throughout a permit year. • Resident permits will cost $25 if 50% or less of the blocks in the neighborhood vote to be included in the program or $15 if more than 50% of the blocks vote for inclusion in the program • Resident permits will be pro-rated for half year increments (permits applied for Feb 1-July 31 will pay half price). • A $10 re-issue fee charged for lost permits or new vehicle ownership for existing permits. • No partial or full refund will be administered for any permits. • A person employed by or a representative of a neighborhood-serving establishment may purchase one resident permit per vehicle owned. Two annual guest permits may be issued per household that has at least one resident permit. • Annual guest permits provide accessibility for resident services in the neighborhood such as lawn care, house cleaners, contractors, etc. as well as for guests of the household. • Annual guest permits will be free. • Annual guest permits are provided per household rather than per vehicle ownership. • Annual guest permits will hang from the rear view mirror. • Selling of guest passes will be considered illegal under the proposed ordinance. Day guest permits may be issued for one 24-hour period based on additional purchase. • At the time of purchase the date of each day guest permit will be logged in a registry at the Revenue Collections office based on the number of the day permit. • A $2 fee will be charged for each day guest permit. • Day guest permits will hang from the rear view mirror and allow user to scratch off day of use. • Total number of day guest permits will be limited to 20 each 3-month calendar quarter. • Construction and maintenance permits will be available for long-term construction activities, consistent with current practice by the City. • Selling of day guest passes will be considered illegal under the proposed ordinance. College Terrace RPPP Cost: Annual Guest Permit"'* On Permit*** Lost Residential Parki Permit Permit 10 Reissue for transfer to new vehicle ownershi 10 .~. ~~rrr.'i~.s p~r~~~~~9~~ rit1~the 2nd half of~~~R P PPYE!c> ~ti~~~r-il~r~~l to A u~~s.~~~tpi'ly~alfpri~E!~ **Max imu m of~.pE!~~it~p~! Y~i'I:p~~r"e .. s ... i.d .. e .... n ... c ... e ........... w ....................... . *"'*Maximum of 20 its in a 3 month per residence. Initial Ballot Voting Process • A voting ballot will be sent to all residents in 2-3 weeks. • Each household receives one vote for inclusion or exclusion in the initial Program. • 51 % of homes on a block must request inclusion in the Program. (i.e. 4 of 7 homes on a block must vote "yes" for the Program to be included in the initial RPPP Program). • "Block" means any street segment intersected by two other streets. (e.g. Yale Street from Stanford Avenue to Oxford Avenue). • Residential portion of the CN zone on east side of Yale Street will be included in the RPPP. • Parking spaces located "behind" Palo Alto public library located in the College Terrace are exempt from the RPPP. Additional information on this program can be found at the following web address: www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/city projects/transportation/college terrace residential parking permit program.asp City of Palo Alto Contact Info: Shahla Yazdy (650) 617-3151 or shahla.yazdy@cityofpaloalto.org College Terrace Resident's Association Contact: Steven Woodward (650) 858-2908 (evenings) College Terrace Project Advisory Committee Contact: Diane Finkelstein (650) 857-0400 College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Does your household want your block to participate in the proposed Residential Parking Permit Program as described in the enclosed attachment? Please check only one box. __ YES ___ NO You must print your address CLEARLY on the reverse and mail it by March 11,2009, for your vote to be counted. Stanford ATTACHMENT I College Terrace RPPP Survey Results (Participating Residences) Oxford College Cambridge iii .It I Library I ~ .. 15129 1 129 California lUI 'ill '" • Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Legend Yes votes I Total # of houses" No votes 1 Total # of houses" " # of houses does not include vacancies College Terrace RPPP Survey Results (Non-Participating Residences) Stanford Oxford College Cambridge California Legend ameli Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Yes votes I Total # of houses· No votes I Total # of houses· • -# of houses does not include vacancies ATTACHMENT J PROPOSED COLLEGE TERRACE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM (RPPP) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CollegeTerraceRPPPEnforcementArea.062509.xls EI Camino Real Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin HalVard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst \ • = RPPP enforcement area (Represents 51% of the number of households on a block that voted ''yes'') 05129109 ATTACHMENT K TO: Shahla Yazdy Transportation Engineer, City of Palo Alto Via email shahla.Iazdy@cityofpaloalto.org FROM: Greg Tanaka President, College Terrace Residents' Assn. DATE: November 13,2008 SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM IN COLLEGE TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD Shahla, Thank you for your hard work with other city staff, the consultants and the Advisory Committee to devise a parking solution. It is encouraging to see the progress toward finding a feasible solution for the problems of parking scarcity in a growing segment of the College Terrace neighborhood. The purpose of this letter is to consolidate the feedback of the CTRA Board of Directors, with input from the Advisory Committee, about the proposed Residential Parking Permit Program for our neighborhood, as outlined by City Staff at the October 15th neighborhood meeting. As presented, the residential pennit parking program would reduce the problem of stored vehicles of non-residents on College Terrace streets as well as the intrusion of commuter parking from Stanford University and surrounding commercial areas. The recommended restrictions would apply on blocks that opt-in to the program between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. Vehicles without permits could park on these blocks for two hours, after which they would be subject to tickets. Overall, the Board remains supportive of the recommended option, a.k.a. "Option 2", which is based on a review of programs that have been successful in similar neighborhoods in other cities and is projected to meet the City Council requirement of revenue neutrality. However, some issues identified in the October 15 meeting need to be addressed before moving to the next step of sending out a ballot to all College Terrace households. Our feedback focuses on three areas: 1. Overnight parking (problems after 5:00 pm) 2. Block voting process 3. Parking controls in the CN zone Overnight parking (problems after 5:00 pm) The expectation is that the proposed two-hour parking limit for cars without permits on weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. wil"l significantly reduce the non-resident parking intrusion caused by both day commuters and Escondido Village residents who currently use adjacent College Terrace streets to park for free. However, on the most impacted College Terrace blocks (near the comer of Stanford Ave. and Wellesley St.), residents are concerned that this reduction will not carry over to the evening hours, due to overnight parking by residents of a nearby 4-story graduate studio apartment complex and related visitors. We understand that there are logistical and budget issues that arise with any proposal to extend enforcement past 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. However, we believe that not having a solution to overnight parkers could be an obstacle to getting permit parking approved in this segment of the neighborhood, unless there is a written commitment to consider modifications for this impacted zone if need be within a reasonable period after program implementation. We would like to see the PAC and City team re-visit this issue and see if there is a way to address it prior to the next step in gaining official neighborhood input. Opt-in Voting Process We agree that the program should roll out block by block as residents come together to seek parking relief. Neighbors can opt-in to the program on a block by block basis via a ballot process. However, some streets have only three residences; others have dozens of apartment units who tend to have less involvement in neighborhood issues. Our request is that we count the Yes or No votes of each residence returning ballots -one vote per residence. Non-voters should not be counted as if they had voted no; instead we urge that the normal definition of majority approval be used, i.e. based on the total number of household ballots returned. Parking controls in the eN zone Congested parking problems also affect several streets in the CN-zoned portion of College Terrace, which has a mixture of residences, neighborhood-serving retail and other commercial uses. The currently proposed parking program would not cover the CN zone, leaving them with no parking control of any kind. The CN-zoned portion of College Terrace is bounded on the north by Stanford Avenue, by EI Camino Real on the east and by California Avenue to the south, and includes all of Cambridge, Oxford and Staunton plus portions of Yale Street. Our concern is that controlling parking on the residential streets outside the CN zone while offering no controls within the CN will greatly exacerbate the parking problem on streets within the CN zone. We understand that you share this concern and that staff have informally discussed it. Our request is that city staff quickly initiate a formal process designed to address the parking concerns of CN residents and businesses, so that the proposed residential permit parking program does not exacerbate the existing CN zone parking challenges. In summary, the CTRA Board of Directors and Parking Advisory Committee feel that, with changes in these three areas, the proposed program will be ready to present to our neighbors. Please let me know if you have and questions or would like to meet about any of these topics. We are eager to move forward quickly with the implementation of the permit parking program in our neighborhood. Once again, you have our many thanks for your assistance. ATTACHMENT L April 28, 2009 SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM IN COLLEGE TERRACE- POSTCARD BALLOT -COMMERCIAL ZONING AREA Dear Resident, The City of Palo Alto has been working on a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) for the College Terrace neighborhood and we are sending this letter to households located in the commercial neighborhood (CN) zoning area to ascertain the level of interest in the participation of this program. I am sending with this letter a postcard ballot to find out if your household would like to have your street block opt in to the proposed Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). This process included close consultation between residents, neighborhood stakeholders, and City Engineering, Revenue Collections and Police Department staff. The study has included discussion and presentation at multiple College Terrace Board and Resident Public Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings, as well as two neighborhood meetings held on March 19, 2008 and October 15, 2008, where the recommended College Terrace RPPP Option was presented to the neighborhood residents. A ballot has already been sent out to all of the households in the residential zoning areas and approximately 1/3 of the street blocks have opted into the RPPP. A map of the voting results has been posted on the project website (see web address below). We now have a program that we feel will address the majority of the neighborhood concerns and at this time, we would like to assess the level of support for all households that are located in the CN zoning areas in College Terrace. The proposed program would allow vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit to use on-street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the two hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the Police Department. The cost of a parking permit is $25 for each vehicle, if less than 50% of the street blocks in College Terrace vote to be included in the program. If more then 50% of the street blocks vote for inclusion in the program, the cost for each vehicle will decrease to $15 for each permit. Attached you will find the program details, cost, rules and regulations that are being proposed in this RPPP. Please note that if you currently don't experience a problem with an excess of cars parking on your street now, it doesn't mean that you won't in the future, once the RPPP is implemented on your neighboring blocks. Currently residents on Stanford Avenue including the streets that have access to Stanford Avenue (Yale, Wellesley Oberlin, Harvard, Hanover, and Dartmouth) experience the most problems with long-term parking. Once the RPPP is implemented in these blocks, cars will most likely move to the neighboring streets where there isn't any residential parking permit enforcement. We strongly recommend that you consider this when you cast your vote and mail in your postcard. Please note that the majority of the number of houses on your street block must vote "yes" for your block to be included in this program. For example, 4 out of 6 homes on a block must vote "yes" in order for the block to be included in the initial RPPP. Blocks that choose to opt into the program are required to participate for 2 years. Enclosed is a postcard ballot for your vote on whether your household would like to opt into the residential parking permit program. When filling out the postcard, please note the following: 1. Please print your name and address CLEARLY. 2. Only one per household is allowed. 3. 51 % of homes on a block must request inclusion in the Program. (i.e. 4 of 7 homes on a block must vote "yes" for the Program to be included in the initial RPPP Program). 4. Please check "yes" if you would like your block to participate in this RPPP program. 5. Please check "no" if you do not want your block to participate in this program. 6. Please stamp and return the postcard no later than MAY 15, 2009. The final recommended College Terrace RPPP and voting results will be presented to the City Council, for consideration and adoption of a new College Terrace RPPP, which would be initiated on September 1,2009 on the neighborhood blocks which voted to be included in the program. Residents are strongly encouraged to work together to decide whether or not you would like your block to be included in this initial offering. Blocks that choose not to participate at this time will have to wait one year before they can request to be included in the program. More detail on how residents can apply for an RPPP for the following year will be developed and presented at a later time. All of the background information and studies that have been completed to date, including notes from the neighborhood meetings can be found at the following website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/city projects/transportation/coliege terrace residential parking permit prog ram.asp. If you have any questions you can email me at Shahla.yazdy@cityofpaloalto.org or call me at (650) 617-3151. Sincerely, Shah la Yazdy Transportation Engineer Attachment • ATTACHMENT M City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: June 11, 2009 Project Name: Project Location: Applicant: Owner: Project Description: College Terrace Residential Parking Pennit Program The project area is the College Terrace Neighborhood and is located in the southern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and west of State Route 82 (El Camino Real), and is bounded by Camino Real on the east side, California Avenue on the south side, Amherst Street on the west side and Stanford A venue on the north. City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 The proposed project, the Residential Parking Permit Program, requires participants to purchase a parking pennit (resident pennit, guest penn it, or day pennit) for display on their vehicles that would allow use of on-street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a pennit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a pennit during these specified time periods and exceeding the two hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the Police Department. As part of the RPPP, permit parking/2 hour signs will be installed on affected blocks. Depending on the length of the block, approximately 2-3 signs will be placed on each block face to warn drivers that the street block is designated as residential parking permit only. The signs will be placed between property lines and behind the sidewalk. The signs will be no larger the 14 inches by 20 inches in size. The signs will be a minimum 7 feet high from the ground to the bottom of the sign. Sign poles will be 2-inch tubular galvanized steel post and will be posted 24 inches below ground and surrounded by 6 inches of concrete. No damage will be done to existing landscaped areas. II. DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto's procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: Page 10f2 ;.~'.c,;.JJUle •. ~¢g1l~h:en~Clarat~~~~n,,J·Iijitinl.·Studyma}iA)~vieive,<li!tJlJefo.nowillglo~ati9ns:. I (1) Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • (2) Development Center, 285 Hamilton A venue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ! .T8~s.pO~$ij)t¢.A~nde~s~ilta~()p.y. of.thisdQctimenf:· . ) Not Applicable. *~I~~~I,)~~$.iIl;clll~¢di~.thep' toje~ttor~d"9~p()tentiaJiy .siglrific~lltill1PIl~ts 19,11 less tban nnev~l::,' ,. ... ... ... .. ..... .... .. . ..... . . Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Planner CXc;,-t I -~\ Date Page 2 of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PROJECT TITLE College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Shahla Yazdy City of Palo Alto 650-617-3151 4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer Transportation Division 5. APPLICATION NUMBER Not applicable 6. PROJECT LOCATION College Terrace Neighborhood Palo Alto, CA The project site is located in the southern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and west of State Route 82 (EI Camino Real). The College Terrace Neighborhood is bounded by EI Camino Real on the east side, California Avenue on the south side, Amherst Street on the west side and Stanford Avenue on the north as shown on Figure 2. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 1 Figure 1: City of Palo Alto Figure 2. College Terrace Neighborhood College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 2 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The College Terrace neighborhood is designated as Single Family Residential in the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan. The area predominantly contains single-family residences except for a small amount of commercial uses along El Camino Real. Main land uses surrounding College Terrace area consist of Stanford University on the north and west sides and Stanford Research Park on the south side. 8. ZONING Zoning within the College Terrace neighborhood includes Single-Family Residential (R-l), Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District (RMD), Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP), Public Facilities District (PF) and Neighborhood Commercial (CN). 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background The College Terrace neighborhood, located adjacent to Stanford University and Stanford Research Park, has historically been affected by large amounts of non-neighborhood traffic and parking. Residents continue to suffer from a longstanding and growing problem with daytime and night time parking of students and employees of the university and other nearby employers who regularly park on neighborhood streets to avoid the cost of parking permits or because of convenience. Increasingly, as Stanford works to discourage commute trips onto campus, more people park nearby and walk, bike or take the Marguerite Shuttle to their campus destination. The construction of multi-story graduate student housing immediately adjacent to Stanford Avenue has added to the problem as well, since some of the student residents and guests prefer to park on nearby city streets rather than in campus parking facilities. The nature of the College Terrace neighborhood compounds these problems. Small lots and relatively dense housing is common throughout. Many residents have inadequate or no off-street parking. Drivers frequently park too close to intersections, driveways and fire hydrants, creating visibility and safety hazards. This is especially problematic along Stanford Avenue, a route used by many children who walk or bike to school. In January 2008, staff retained the services of transportation consultants, Kimley Hom and Associates, to initiate and develop a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) in College Terrace. A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) consisting of eight College Terrace residents appointed by the College Terrace Resident's Association Board, staff from Transportation, Police and Revenue Collections Department and consultants, was formed to work on the development of the Residential Parking Permit Program. In early March 2008, in order to understand the current on-street parking conditions in the College Terrace neighborhood, to document baseline parking demand in the neighborhood and to help establish how much of the neighborhood should be included in the program, a parking occupancy study was conducted for both a weekday (Thursday, March 6th, 2008) and a weekend day (Saturday, March 1st, 2008). On each day vehicle occupancies were surveyed midday (roughly 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.) and in the evening (roughly 7 p.rn. to 8 p.m.). On weekday evenings, the higher occupancies were found to be spread more evenly throughout the neighborhood. There was still a high percentage of parked cars along Stanford Avenue and in the commercial area, but there were also higher percentages along the cross streets within the neighborhood as well as along College Avenue. There was found to be relatively low parking density along California Avenue during the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 3 evening hours, most likely since the main non-residential usage along California Avenue is Stanford Research Park, which would tend to empty in the nighttime hours. Weekend midday survey showed a high density of parking in the commercial district, and along some areas of Stanford Avenue. College Avenue and some of the cross streets had areas of higher parking occupancies, while California Avenue again displayed lower occupancies. In summary, driving both midday and evening time periods on a typical weekday and weekend day, the on- street parking levels of College Terrace were found to be relatively high in specific areas. Proposed Project The proposed project, the Residential Parking Permit Program, requires participants to purchase a parking permit (resident permit, guest permit, or day permit) for display on their vehicles that would allow use of on- street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the two hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the Police Department. As part of the RPPP, "Permit Parkingl2 hour" signs will be installed on affected blocks. Depending on the length of the block, approximately 2-3 signs will be placed on each block face to warn drivers that the street block is designated as residential parking permit only. The signs will be placed between property lines and behind the sidewalk. The signs will be no larger the 14 inches by 20 inches in size. The signs will be a minimum 7 feet high from the ground to the bottom of the sign. Sign poles will be 2-inch tubular galvanized steel post and will be posted 24 inches below ground and surrounded by 6 inches of concrete. No damage will be done to existing landscaped areas. A workable community majority has been reached in favor of the Residential Parking Permit Program. The percentage of homes on a block that must approve a RPPP petition to be considered and to go into effect is set at 51% of households on a street block. Initially, it is anticipated that approximately 25 blocks will participate, but will likely expand into other blocks of the College Terrace neighborhood. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The neighborhood consists primarily of single family residential properties, with some neighborhood and regional/community commercial properties on the easterly edges of the neighborhood adjacent to El Camino Real. Local parks are located within College Terrace neighborhood. Stanford University is located on the north and west sides of College Terrace area. Stanford Research Park is located on the area's south side. 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES REQUIRING REVIEW None College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).] 2). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (0). ill this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting illformation Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 5 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a) Substantially degrade the existing visual 1,2,4 X character or quality of the site and its surroundings? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1,4 X public view or view corridor? 2-Map L4 c) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1,4 X including, but not limited to, trees, rock 2-Map L4 outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,4 X policies regarding visual resources? e) Create a new source of substantial light or 1,2,4 X glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? f) Substantially shadow public open space 1,2,4 X (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? DISCUSSION: The Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) would result in some street signs placed in the neighborhood where residents have requested to have parking permits on their street block. These signs will be noticeable but are not uncharacteristic features of a typical streetscape. The proposed signs will not detract from the residential character of the streets nor will it significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings. It is anticipated that the implementation of the RPPP will actually help improve the street aesthetics (where applicable) as it will reduce the number of non-resident vehicles from parking on the residential streets. The proposed project will not damage scenic resources, creative new source of light or glare that will impact views in the area nor shadow public open spaces. The project area does not include designated scenic routes as indicated by the California State Department of Transportation. Mitigation Measures: None required B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No a) b) c) Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 1,2 X or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2- use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9 X Involve other changes in the existing 1 environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland, to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ofthe California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and will not convert or result in the conversion of farmland and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation 1 X of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 1 X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: 1. Direct and/or indirect operational 1 X emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitTOgen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine palticulate matter ofless than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10); ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1,2 X concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page? Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No c) d) e) f) Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,2 X increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1 X of toxic air contaminants? 1. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1 X Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) exceeds lOin one million ll. Ground-level concentrations of non-1 X carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEl Create objectionable odors affecting a 1 X substantial number of people? Not implement all applicable construction 1,2 X emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? DISCUSSION: The proposed Residential Parking Permit Program will not conflict with any applicable air quality plans, expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants, nor add any objectionable odors to the neighborhood. This program will not contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard and will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. All development in Palo Alto is subject to the BAAQMD regulations. Mitigation Measures: None required College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 8 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either I, X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, 2-MapNI or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 1, X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 2-MapNl community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? c) Interfere substantially with the movement of 1, X any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 2-MapNl species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2,5 X e) protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1,2 X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any species, or have any substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources (trees), such as a tree preservation policy or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project area is entirely within the urban setting, with urban adapted wildlife species. There are no native habitats, sensitive plant or wildlife species, or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans for the project area, nor are there any wetlands that could be affected by the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None required College Tenace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 9 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact a) b) c) d) e) 1) Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural 1,2 X resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1, X significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 2-MapL8 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1, X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 2-MapL8 Disturb any human remains, including those 1, X interred outside of formal cemeteries? 2-MapL8 Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2-X eligible for listing on the National and/or MapL7 California Register, or listed on the City's Historic Inventory? Eliminate important examples of major periods 1 X of Califomia history or prehistory? DISCUSSION: Much of the City of Palo Alto is identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR (1996) as having at least moderate sensitivity with respect to archaeological resources. Several pockets of "Extreme Sensitivity" are also indicated. The proposed project has virtually no potential to impact archaeological resources. This project does not involve widening onto previously undisturbed ground that would have a potential for impacting archaeological resources. There are no known historical resources that would be impacted by the proposed project. None of the project features are located in areas of known paleontological resources or unique geological features. In addition, implementation of project sign poles would not involve excavation to depths that would reveal unknown paleontological resources. This project will not directly or indirectly destroy any local cultural resources, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or disturb any human remains, or adversely affect any historical resources listed. Mitigation Measures: None required F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISlVllCITY Issues and Supporting Informatiou Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, 1,2 X as delineated on the most recent College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 10 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,2-X MapNlO iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 1,2-MapN5 X including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 1,2-MapN5 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 1 X of topsoil? c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 1,2-MapN5 X unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 1,2-MapN5 X Table l8-l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? t) Have soils incapable of adequately I X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? g) Expose people or property to major 1,2 X geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? DISCUSSION: This proposed project is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay area and an area with expansive soils, but this project would not increase the risk to the public and safety or increase the potential for geo-seismic hazards. The project streets are located in an area of high potential for surface rupture along fault traces and potential for earthquake induced landslides where sloped. Since the project streets are on flatlands, there is no impact. The proposed project will not create any new geology, soils and seismicity impacts. The City is subject to fault rupture and related seismic shaking from several faults in the area (Comprehensive Plan, 1996). The risk associated with the project is no greater than any other construction activity and, in fact, is considered low because of the relatively small amount of construction involved and its short duration. Once implemented, the project would not significantly expose people or structures to hazards associated with fault rupture to any greater seismic risk than that which would otherwise be experienced. Mitigation Measures: None required College TelTace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 11 G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Sa(etv if the primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Wonld the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,2 X environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,2 X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1,2 X or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,2 X to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list 1,2-MapN9 X of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use 1 X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the . project area? h) Impair implementation of or physically 1,2-MapN7 X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 2-MapN7 X ofloss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,2 X environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 12 DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not create any new hazards and hazardous materials impacts. The project implementation includes improvements entirely within the public right-of-way. The project does not increase the exposure to hazardous materials. The project area does not include any hazardous materials sites. The project is not within 1/4 mile of the runway at Palo Alto airport, the only airport within Palo Alto. The project streets are not identified in the city of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as primary evacuation routes, nor are they located in areas of wildland fire risk. Mitigation Measures: None required H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,2 X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 1,2-X interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit MapN2 in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,2 X of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,2 X . of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,2 X exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,2 X g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard 1,2 X area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area 2-MapN6 X structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk College Tenace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 13 j) k) ofloss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or being located within a 100-year 2-MapN6 X flood hazard area? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1 X Result in stream bank instability? 1,2-Map X N2 ~ DISCUSSION: The proposed project would comply with City, State and Federal standard pertaining to water quality and waste discharge and storm water run-off. City standard conditions of approval require incorporation of Best Management Practices for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations. The project would not create any new water quality and hydrology impacts. Mitigation Measures: None required I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No a) b) c) d) e) 1) g) Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 1,2,3,4,5 X policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat 1,2,4 X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,3,4 X intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,2,3,4 X the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? Conflict with established residential, 1,2,3,4 X recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,2 X farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The project will not create any new land use impacts. Compliance with the designated land uses and zoning is a requirement for all projects. The implementation of the project would further the goals of policies and programs in the Transportation Element of the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 14 City's Comprehensive Plan The project is consistent with the following Transportation Goals T-47: Utilize engineering, enforcement and educational tools to improve traffic safety on City roadways. Mitigation Measures: None required J. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources • Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 1,2 X mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-1,2 X important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-l). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None Required. K. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2 X levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 1,2 X excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2 X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2 X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proiect? e) For a project located within an airport land use 1,2 X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to College TelTace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 15 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact f) g) h) i) j) k) ~: .... 1) Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private 1,2 X airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,2 X increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,2 X an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 1,2 X existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,2 X development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,2 X than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,2 X daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? DISCUSSION: All development in the City, including construction activities, must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant. This proposed project will not expose persons to noise levels in excess of the established standards nor will it create any new noise impacts. Mitigation Measures: None required. L. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an 1,4 X area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 1,4 X housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 16 ! Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigatiou Incorporated c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 1,4 X necessitating the construction of replacement I housing elsewhere? d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1,2,4 X employed residents and jobs? e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1,2,4 X poplJ.lation Erojections? DISCUSSION: The proposed project does not encourage growth and development in the district and therefore will not create any new population and housing impacts. The proposed plan's goal is to reduce non-resident parking in the College Terrace neighborhood. This project does not add any new, nor displace existing housing nor will it induce population growth or displacement of the existing population. Mitigation Measures: None required M. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the ~ublic services: ~ i a) Fire protection? 1,4 X -....... b) Police protection? 1,4 X c) Schools? 1,4 X d) Parks? 1,4 X e) Other public facilities? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: This project does not encourage growth and development in the City and is not anticipated to generate a significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing public services for the City. The installation of the necessary parking signs could result in increased maintenance workload for upkeep of these features but compared to the total City maintenance needs, these additional features do not represent a significant increase in maintenance requirements. Mitigation Measures: None required College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 17 N. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources I Potentially I Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact I Mitigation Inc«:Jrporated a) Would the project increase the use of 1,4 I X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ... b) Does the project include recreational 1,4 X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? _. - DISCUSSION: The proposed project does not result in any new land uses and does not increase the demand for recreational facilities or curtail the use of existing facilities. This project does not encourage growth and development in the district and is not anticipated to generate a significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing City recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures: None required O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources ! Potentially I Potentially I Less Than Noimpact I Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 1,4 X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity ofthe street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at I intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 1,4 X a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,4 X including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 1,4 X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible lL<;es (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,4 X ~. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 18 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? . g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative 1,4 transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & 1,2,3,4 t--_..:..b1c.,.·c.ycle facilities)? h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,4 to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average t d d I £ th '1' I t b s oppe e ay or e cn lca movemen s y four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase I i by 0.01 or more? I 1) Cause a local intersection already operating at ! 1,4 LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,4 from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or more? k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 1,4 or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,4 increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environm~l1t (TIRE) index by 0.1 ()r more? m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,4 comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. n) Impede the development or function of 1,4 planned ~edestrian or bic~cle facili!ies? 0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,4 result of congestion? p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,4 DISCUSSION: x x x X X ! I X X X X X X The proposed project does not encourage growth and development in the district and is not anticipated to generate transportation impacts. This project will not cause an increase in traffic nor directly add vehicle trips to the area. Therefore, the operational level of service (LOS) in the project area is not expected to deteriorate to less than acceptable (LOS F). College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 19 Signs installed within the project area will prevent fewer non-resident cars being parked on the streets therefore there will be an increase in safety due to improved visibility and sight distance and less congestion along the sides of the road. The proposed project will not impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities to the operation of a transit system and create any operational safety hazards. Mitigation: None required P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Infor~~tion Resources I Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 1,4 X the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new 1,4 X , water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new 1,4 X storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? T:Have sufficient water supplies available to 1,4 X serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? r---e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,4 treatment provider which serves or may X serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider'S existing commitments? it) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 1,4 permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1,4 X and regulations related to solid waste? h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,4 of a public facility due to increased use as a X result ofthe project? DISCUSSION: No utilities or service systems would be affected by the proposed Project. This project does not encourage growth and development and therefore no significant increase in the demand on existing utilities and service systems or impacts to these services are expected. Mitigation Measures: None required. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 20 Q. MANDATORY FINDI~GS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incor orated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife 1,4 x population to drop below self-sustaining 1 Is thr t t r . tit eve , ea en 0 e nruna e a p an or amma community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal I or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are 1,4 I X individually limited, but cumulatively .. considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? '--'---.. . c) Does the project have environmental effects 1,4 X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: The proposed project area is within the existing public right-of-way and therefore does not have the potential to significantly degrade the environment as discussed above. The project would not have any impacts that would be considered cumulatively significant. The nature of the proposed project is relatively small in scope and would have no significant adverse effects on human beings .. Global Climate Change Impacts Global climate change is the alteration of the Earth's weather including its temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic generated atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping into outer space, which is known as the "greenhouse" effect. The world's leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway and is very likely caused by humans. Agencies at the international, national, state, and local levels are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. There is no comprehensive strategy that is being implemented on a global scale that addresses climate change; however, pursuant to Senate Bill 97 the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is in the process of developing CEQA guidelines "for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions." OPR is required to "prepare, develop, and transmit" the guidelines to the Resources Agency on or before July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency must certify and adopt the guidelines on or before January 1,2010. Assembly Bill 32 requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost- effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. By 2050, the state plans to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the state of California has established programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are no College Terrace Residential Parking Pennit Program Page 21 established standards for gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions; these standards are required to be in place by 2012. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide any methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases. Given the "global" scope of global climate change, the challenge under CEQA is for a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to the level of a CEQA document for a specific project in a way that is meaningful to the decision making process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are whether a project creates or contributes to an environmental impact or is subject to impacts from the environment in which it would occur, and what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts. The project would not generate substantial greenhouse gases because it is minor in scope with little physical construction (i.e. street signs). Although not studied, the implementation of a parking permit program may reduce vehicles trip duc to the disincentive of limited or paid parking. Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single project would have an individually discernable effect on global climate change (e.g., that any increase in global temperature or rise in sea level could be attributed to the emissions resulting from one single development project). Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the proposed project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. To determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on global climate change is speculative, particularly given the fact that there are no existing numerical thresholds to determine an impact. However, in an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to conform with the CEQA Guidelines [§ 16064(b )], it is the City's position that based on the nature of this project with its nominal increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the proposed project would not impede the state's ability to reach the emission reduction limits/standards set forth by the State of California by Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. For these reasons, this project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions. ------------------------"--"---- College Tenace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 22 SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Project Manager's knowledge of the proposed project; Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer 2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 -Zoning Ordinance 4. Technical Memo with Program Details 5. City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance, PAMC Section 8.10 College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 23 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ! I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the • environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wlll not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A lVIITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. i I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: Transportation Engin Reviewed by: ~¢::C2 ---mnne ~ 00-\ \ -01 Date College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program x Page 24