HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 364-09City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2009
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
DEPARTMENTS: CITY CLERK AND
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
ENVIRONNIENT
CMR: 364:09
SUBJECT: Approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance
Amending Title 21 (Subdivisions) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Define the Minimum Width for Private Streets and
Excluding Private Streets from the Calculation of Floor Area
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve the proposed Negative Declaration (Attachment B); and
2. Adopt the proposed ordinance amendments (Attachment A) defining the minimum width
of private streets and excluding the area of private streets from the calculation of lot size.
BACKGROUND
A proposed initiative to provide minimum widths for private streets (Initiative) qualified for the
November ballot, according to the certification of the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters on
July 15, 2009. On July 27-, 2009, the City Council voted to direct staff to prepare the ordinance
for adoption and to prepare the associated environmental review, both to return to the Council on
September 21,2009. This action negated the need to place the measure on the November ballot.
DISCUSSION
The draft ordinance amendments are included as Attachment A, and reflect verbatim the
language of the Initiative. The intent of the proposed ordinance, as stated in the Initiative
language, is to address concerns about vehicle circulation on private streets (particularly for fire
and garbage trucks), inclusion of streets in determining lot size and floor area, and overflow
traffic and;parking onto nearby residential streets.
The specific provisions of the Initiative would amend the Subdivision Ordinance of the City to:
• Generally limit private street width to a minimum of 32 feet (as compared to a public
street width of 40 feet);
CMR: 364:09 Page 1 of3
• Allow lesser width at a minimum of 26 feet where either a) at least a 6-foot parking strip
is provided adjacent to the street or b) homes are set back at least 20 feet from the street;
• Allow lesser width at a minimum of 22 feet where the street serves 4 or fewer lots;
• Provide that all of those widths are "minimums" and the streets must be shown to be
adequate to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and,
for widths less than 32 feet, by the City Council; and
• Exclude the area of private streets from the calculation of Floor Area Ratio for
determining allowable development.
Additionally, the definition of "Lot area" would be amended in the Zoning Ordinance to exclude
"public or private" street right-of-way (current code interpretations only exclude public right-of-
way). This would again further limit the floor area allowed on a site.
If the attached ordinance is adopted, no second reading is required according to the City Charter
and State law regarding adopting ordinances generated by initiative. The ordinance would then
become effective on October 22,2009 (31st day after the adoption). The Initiative indicates an
effective date of July 31, 2009, but notes that, if the retroactive date is voided or otherwise
deemed unenforceable by judicial action, then November 4, 2009 would be the effective date.
The City Attorney has noted that the retroactive provision of the Initiative is not likely to be
defensible, so that November 4 would be the operative effective date.
Applicability and Enforceability of Ordinance
In order to avoid the costs of an election, the Council directed that the Initiative ordinance be
adopted exactly as written. The City Attorney has indicated that the retroactive provision is
unenforceable, but it would not nullify the ordinance if adopted as written because the ordinance
contains a severability clause that would leave all legally enforceable portions of the ordinance
intact.
Using the City's current definition of private streets, however, the initiative would apply only to
non-dedicated streets which are on a "separate parcel of land used for ingress to or egress from
two or more lots which do not have the minimum street frontage" or non-dedicated streets that
provide access to one lot that does not meet minimum street frontage "if the parcel of land used
for ingress or egress is more than two hundred feet in length." Because this definition predates
enactment of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, it is unlikely that any future
development will propose vehicular access in a way that would meet the City's definition of
private streets. As such, absent further clean-up, the initiative would not have any direct impact
on any project currently in the planning or development process.
The ordinance will have no impact upon the Alma Plaza development as the tentative map was
already passed by the Council long before the initiative. Due to the improper definition, it is the
City Attorney' sopinion that the ordinance will have no impact upon any current application
including t,he proposed Palo Alto Bowl project.
Potential Revisions to the Ordinance
Staff has met with the Initiative sponsor and believes that a few revisions to the City's
subdivision ordinance, in particular the definition of "private streets," would allow for effective
implementation of the intent of the Initiative. Subsequent to adoption of the Initiative ordinance,
CMR: 364:09 Page 2 of3
staff will prepare further subdivision code amendments to make those clarifications to better
realize the intent of the Initiative. Staff believes the amendments could be made in a way that
does not affect the Initiative ordinance and would not therefore require a public vote. Staff
expects to provide those amendments to the Planning and Transportation Commission in October
and the City Council in November.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Initiative specifically calls out Comprehensive Plan Policies C30, L17, T23, and T25, as
well as Programs T33 and T53, which would be enhanced by the ordinance. Staff concurs that
those policies and programs are further supported by the proposed standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Negative
Declaration has been prepared and is included as Attachment B to be adopted by Council.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The costs of the ordinance are anticipated to be negligible, since· the costs of construction and
maintenance of private streets will be borne by project developers and subsequent owners and
homeowners' associations.
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHNIENTS
A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Draft Negative Declaration
COURTESY COPIES
Robert Moss
r I
CMR: 364:09
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
Page 3 of3
( ;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT A
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. ---Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Title 21 (Subdivisions) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Define Minimum Widths for Private
Streets and Excluding Private Streets from the Calculation of
Floor Area
The Council ofthe City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows:
A. On July 15, 2009, an initiative petition defining the minimum width of private
streets and excluding private streets from the calculation of floor area was certified by the Santa
Clara County Registrar of Voters as qualified to be submitted to voters on the November 2009
ballot.
B. On July 27, 2009, the City Council directed that the City should adopt the
ordinance amendments proposed in the initiative petition rather than placing the initiative on the
November 2009 election ballot.
C. The Council finds that the ordinance amendments further the public interest,
health and welfare of the community and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby amends Section 18.04.030(a)(85) to read as
follows:
(85) "Lot area" means the area of a lot measured horizontally between bounding
lot lines, but excluding any portion of a flag lot providing access to a street and
lying between a front lot line and the street, and excluding any portion of a lot
within the lines of any natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway,
channel, or flood control or drainage easement and excluding any portion of a lot
within a public or private street right-of-way whether acquired in fee, easement,
or otherwise.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby amends Section 21.040.030(a)(30) to read as
follows:
(30) "Private street" means any parcel of land not dedicated as a public street
wliich is used for ingress and egress from two or more lots which do not have the
required minimum frontage on a public street, or to or from one lot which does
not have the required minimum frontage on a public street if the parcel of land
used for ingress or egress is more than two hundred feet in length. Private streets
shall be excluded for the purpose of determining Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
Minimum width of "private streets" shall be as defined in 21.20.240Cb)(4).
1
090916 syn 0120405
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby amends Section 21.040.240(b)(4) to read as
follows:
(4) Private streets: Such right-of-way as would be required for a comparable
public street, except as specified below. unless sabdivider caa de:moastrate to the
satisfaetioa of the city cooocil Of director of planniag aoo eommooity
ea'lirol'lfB:eB:t. as apflroflriate, facts relatiag to the aature or locatioa of the
flroposed stireet or tae aature of the proposed de·;elopmeat which reader such
rigat of vlay l:lfllleeessary fOf or detrimental to the pablie health. safety or vf'elfure.
Streets serving five or more lots shall be no less than thirty two feet wide. Streets
serving four or fewer lots shall be no less than twenty two feet wide providing
that the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City Council
specifically approves the twenty two foot street width.
(a) If a building adjacent to a private street has a setback of at least 20 feet
between the street and building allowing on-site parking, then the width
of the private street may be no less than twenty six feet at the discretion
of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City
Council.
(b) If a private street has a public parking strip of at least six feet in width
between the street and the building location, then the width of the private
street may be no less than twenty six feet at the discretion of the Director
of Planning and Community Environment and the City Council.
Effective Date: This private street width requirement applies to any project or
development that has not obtained a final map, building permit. and performed
significant construction as of July 31. 2009. If the effective date of July 31, 2009
is held by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void,
voidable. or unenforceable. then the effective date of this ordinance as it applies
to private street width shall be November 4, 2009.
SECTION 6. Severability. If any section of this initiative ordinance, or part hereof,
is held by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void, voidable. or
unenforceable, such section or part hereof, shall be deemed severable from the remaining
sections of this initiative ordinance and shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining
sections hereof
SECTION 7. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental
review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An
environmental assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that no
potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the project
would have no significant impact on the environment.
II
II
2
090916 syn 0120405
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 8. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31 st) day after its
passage and adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
r I
090916 syn 0120405
3
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
ATTACHMENT B
DRAFT ADOPTED ON: __________ _
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: August 26, 2009
Project Name:
Project Location:
Applicant:
Owner:
Project Description:
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets
City of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and C.ommunity Environment
Clare Campbell, Planner
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
The City of Palo Alto proposes to amend Palo Alto Municipal Code sections 18.04.030(a)(85),
21.04.030(a)(30) and 21.20.240(b)(4) regarding private streets to specify minimum widths and to exclude
private streets from the related project's floor area calculation.
The proposed Ordinance includes the following amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance:
-For streets serving five or more lots the width shall be a minimum of a 32 feet (as compared to a
public street width of 40 feet);
-For streets serving four Qf fewer lots the width shall be a minimum of a 22 feet;
-Allow lesser width at a minimum of 26 feet where either a) at least a 6-foot parking strip is provided
adjacent to the street or b) homes are set back at least 20 feet from the street allowing on-site parking;
-Provide that all of the proposed widths are "minimums" and the streets must be shown to be adequate
to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, for widths less than
32 feet, by the City Council; and
-Exclude the area of private streets from the calculation of Floor Area Ratio for determining allowable
development.
Additionally, the definition of "Lot area" would be amended in the Zoning Ordinance to exclude "public
or private" ~treet right-of-way (current code interpretations only exclude public right-of-way). This would
further limit the floor area allowed on a site.
II. DETERMINA TION
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:
X The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the
project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is
hereby adopted.
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant infonnation regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confinns the determination that an EIR is not required
for the project,
Project Planner
Adopted by City Council, Attested by
Director of Planning and Community Environment
r ,
the Declaration has been nnn"""",?>'i
n<3 -210 --if1
Date
Date
Page 2 of2
ENVIRONMENTAL CI-IECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. . PROJECT TITLE
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets
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
Clare Campbell
City of Palo Alto
650-617 -3191
4. PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning 'and Community Environment
5. PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed Ordinance would apply to designated development projects that create private streets within
the City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto is located in the northern part of Santa Clara County in the portion of the
Bay Area known as the Mid-Peninsula. The City shares a boundary with San Mateo County and six cities
and is approximately 35 miles south of San Francisco and 14 miles north of San Jose.
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION r I
The Ordinance would apply city-wide. The Comprehensive Plan policies and programs that support the
project include the following:
• POLICY C-30: Facilitate access to parks and community facilities by a variety of transportation
modes.
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page I Negative Declaration
• POLICY L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide
continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians.
• POLICY T -23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street
parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details.
• POLICY T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all
users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
• PROGRAM T -33: Develop comprehensive roadway design standards and criteria for all types of
roads. Emphasize bicycle and pedestrian safety and usability in these standards.
• PROGRAM T-53: Discourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
7. ZONING
The Ordinance applies city-wide and does not conflict with purposes of the Zoning code, which include
the promotion and protection of public heath, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general
welfare.
8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background .
The intent of the proposed Ordinance is to address concerns about inadequate vehicle circulation on
private streets (particularly for fife and garbage trucks), the inclusion of street area in determining lot size
and therefore allowing larger floor areas, and the impacts from overflow traffic and parking onto nearby
residential streets.
Proposed Project
The City of Palo Alto proposes to amend Palo Alto Municipal Code sections l8.04.030(a)(85),
21.04.030(a)(30) and 21.20.240(b)(4) regarding private streets to specify minimum widths and to exclude
private streets from the related project's floor area calculation.
The proposed Ordinance includes the following amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance:
• For streets serving five or more lots the width shall be a minimum of a 32 feet (as compared to a
public street width of 40 feet);
• For streets serving four or fewer lots the width shall be a minimum of a 22 feet;
• Allow lesser width at a minimum of 26 feet where either a) at least a 6-foot parking strip is provided
adjacent to the street or b) homes are set back at least 20 feet from the street allowing on-site parking;
• Provide that all of the proposed widths are "minimums" and the streets must be shown to be adequate
to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, for widths less than
32 feet, by the City Council; and .
• Exclude the area of private streets from the calculation of Floor Area Ratio for determining allowable
development.
Additiopally, the definition of "Lot area" would be amended in the Zoning Ordinance to exclude "public
or private" street right-of-way (current code interpretations only exclude public right-of-way). This would
further limit the floor area allowed on a site.
The proposed Ordinance would apply to any project or development that has not obtained a final map and
building permit, and performed significant construction as of July 31, 2009.
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 2 Negative Declaration
9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
Ordinance applies city-wide. The City is situated within a developed urban area with mUltiple cities
adjacent to the city limits.
10. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED
None
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) (D). In 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.
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths Private Streets Page 3 Negative Declaration
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to infonnation 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 Infonnation 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 evalu~te each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
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 1,2,3,4 X
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1,2-Map X ,
public view or view corridor? L4,3,4
c) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1,2-Map X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock L4,3,4
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1, 2, 3, 4 X
policies regarding visual resources?
e) Create a new source of substantial light or 1,4 X
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
t) Substantially shadow public open space 1,4 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:
All individual projects proposed that would be impacted by the Ordinance would be subject to discretionary
design review by the City. The review is intended to promote visual environments that are of high aesthetic
quality and to assure that use and development will be hannonious with other uses in the general vicinity, and will
be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 4 Negative Declaration
The proposed Ordinance will not create any new aesthetic impacts. All individual proposed projects are subject to
review to address aesthetics and the required CEQA analysis will be completed on a case-by-case basis to
determine potential impacts.
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.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 1,2,4 X
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-X
use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9,4
c) Involve other changes in the existing 1,2-X
environment which, due to their location or MapL9,4
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Ordinance does not encourage development nor change the existing uses that have been established
throughout the City and therefore is anticipated to have no impacts on agricultural resources.
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 X
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,4
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
b) Violate any ai{quality standard or contribute ;'i, <,
substantially to an existing or projected air ' ,
,,' quality violation indicated by the following: , "
i. Direct and/or indirect operational 1,4 X
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 5 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PMIO);
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1,4 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
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)?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,4 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) ?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1,4 X
e)
f)
of tOXIC air contaminants?
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1,4 X
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl)
exceeds 10 in one million
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-1,4 X
carcinogenic T ACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
MEl
Create objectionable odors affecting a 1,4 X
substantial number of people?
Not implement all applicable construction 1,4 X
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), 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. The proposed revisions to the Palo Alto Municipal Code will not create any new air
quality impacts. All individual proposed projects will be reviewed for impacts and are subject to CEQA.
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 6 Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measures: None Required
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Wonld the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1, 2~ X
directly or through habitat modifications, on MapNl,
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, 3,4
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? .
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 1,2-X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural MapNl,
community identified in local or regional plans, 3,4
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 1,2-X
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife MapNl,
species or with established native resident or 3,4 migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,3,4,9 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 8.1O)?
Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1,2,4 X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto, with its various developed and open space areas, provides habitat for a broad range of
wildlife and plants, including some designated as protected or sensitive either by the State of California or
through Federal designation. All development projects are subject to design review in addition to the
environmental review (CEQA) to ensure an environmentally sensitive project is approved. The proposed
Ordinance will ))fot create any new biological impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 7 Negative Declaration
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
i a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural 1,4, 10 X
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-X
significance of an archaeological resource MapL8,
pursuant to 15064.5? 4
i c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2-X
paleontological resource or site or unique MapL8,
geologic feature? 4
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-X
e)
f)
interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapL8,
4
Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2-X
eligible for listing on the National andlor MapL7,
California Register, or listed on the City's 4,10
Historic Inventory?
Eliminate important examples of major periods 1,2,4 X
of California history or prehistory?
DISCUSSION:
The majority of the City of Palo Alto is considered to have areas with low to moderate sensitivity for
archaeological resources, with a few pockets of extreme sensitivity. For all projects, if during grading and
construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a
qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Oara County Medical Examiner's office
shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are
encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant,
appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and
make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
The proposed Ordinance will not create any cultural impacts to the affected area. All individual proposed projects
are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Wc{uld 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, 4,6 X
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 8 Negative Declaration
I as delineated on the most recent
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? 2-X
MapNlO,
4
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 2-X
including liquefaction? MapN5.
4
iv) Landslides? X
4
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 1.4 X
of topsoil?
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,4 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 2-X
unstable, or that would become unstable as MapN5,
a result of the project, and potentially 4'
result in on-or off-site landslide. lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 2-X
Table 18-1-B ofthe Uniform Building MapN5,
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to 4
life or property?
f) Have soils incapable of adequately 1,4 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 1.4,5 X
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto would experience a range from weak to very violent shaking in the event of a major
earthquake along the San Andreas or Hayward fault. Although hazards exist, development would not expose
people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be addressed through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques, as required by building codes. With proper engineering new development is
not expected to Jesuit in any significant adverse short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity.
I
The proposed Ordinance will not create any new geology, soils and seismicity impacts. All individual proposed
projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 9 Negative Declaration
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,4 X
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,4 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 1,4 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 1,4 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-X
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant MapN9,
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 4
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use 1,4 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 1,4 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-X
interfere with an adopted emergency response MapN7,
plan or emergency evacuation plan? 4
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-X
ofloss, injury, or death involving wildland MapN7,
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to 4
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,4 X
environment fr,em 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?
•
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 10 Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has an area within its city limits west of Highway 280 (Palo Alto Foothills) that has been
identified to have medium to high wildland fire danger. The Fire department has specific requirements of property
owners in this area that are directed at fire suppression and control. The proposed Ordinance will not create any
new hazards and hazardous materials impacts. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. .
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 1,4 X
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 1,2-X
interfere substantially with groundwater MapN2,
recharge such that there would be a net deficit 4 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 1,4 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 1,4 X
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or a,mount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,4 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? 1,4 X
• g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard 1,4 X
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
I
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood haz'rd delineation map?
h) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area 1,2-X
structures which would impede or redirect MapN6,
flood flows? 4
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-X
of loss, injury or death involve flooding, MapN6
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page II Negative Declaration
!
including flooding as a result of the failure of a N8,4
levee or dam or being located within a lOO-year
flood hazard area?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? 1,2-X
MapN6,
4
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,4 X
DISCUSSION:
All development is required to comply with building codes that address the flood safety issues. All development
projects are required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction activities as specified by
the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (CASQA, 2(03) and/or the Manual of
Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). The BMPs include measures guiding the
management and operation of construction sites to control and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to
storm runoff from these areas. These measures address procedures for controlling erosion and sedimentation and
managing all aspects of the construction process to ensure control of potential water pollution sources. All
development projects must comply with all City, State and Federal standards pertaining to storm water run-off
and water quality.
The proposed Ordinance will not create any new hydrology and water quality impacts. All individual proposed
projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,4 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 1,2,3,4 X
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (incIl.!ding, 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?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 1,2,4 X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,4 X
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatibly with adjacent land uses or with 1,2,3,4 X
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
f) Conflict with established residential, 1, 2,3,4 X
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,2-X
Ordinance to MinlmumWidths Private Streets Page 12 Negative Declaration
a)
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to MapL9,
non-agricultural use? 4
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Ordinance is not anticipated to create any new land use impacts. The Ordinance eliminates using
the area dedicated to private streets from a project's floor area calculation, which in tum would reduce the
area/mass of the related project, and potentially provide additional street parking. This is not considered a
significant impact because it does not prevent development; developers would need to adjust their projects
accordingly to accomplish the overall project goals. Compliance with the designated land uses and zoning is a
requirement for all development. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
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
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the 1,2
region and the residents of the state? X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
a)
important mineral resource recovery site 1,2
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan X 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-1). 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
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2,4 X
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 13 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 1,2,4 X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2,4 X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2,4 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use 1,2,'4 -X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1;4 X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,4 X
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
h) Cause-the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,4 X
i)
j)
k)
1)
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an 1,4 X
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,4 X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,4 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 1,4 X
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
DISCUSSION:
All development, including construction activities, must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter
9.10), which r¢"stricts 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.
The proposed Ordinance will not create any new noise impacts. All individual proposed projects are subject to
CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 14 Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measures: None Required
L. POPULA TION 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?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people. 1,4 X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1,.4 X
employed residents and jobs?
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1,4 X
population projections?
j
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Ordinance does not encourage growth and development and therefore will not create any new
population and housing impacts. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
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
t 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 performan" objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,2.4 X
b) Police protection? HH X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? 1.2,4 X
Ordinance to Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 15 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Other public facilities? 1,2,4 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Ordinance does not encourage growth and development and is not anticipated to generate a
significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing public services for the City. All individual
proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
N. RECREA TION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) W ouId the project increase the use of 1,2,4 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 1,2,4 X
faCilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Ordinance 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 City recreational facilities. All
individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential
impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
o. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than NO
Significant Significant Significant IMPACT
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact ,.. Mitigation
I Incorporated
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 1,4 X
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (Le.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 16 Negative Declaration
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
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
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,4 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,4 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1,2,3,4 X
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,4 X
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (VIC) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 1,4 X
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 X
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 X
or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
I) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,4 X
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,4 X
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
capacity? Quetllng 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 spill back queues on ramps.
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 17 Negative Declaration
n) Impede the development or function of 1,4 X
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,4 X
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,4 X
DISCUSSION:
All development projects must be submitted for design review and in that review the traffic/circulation/parking
impacts will be considered. The minimum private street width should improve safety because it provides
consistent standards that meet emergency vehicle and garbage. truck access requirements. The. Ordinance is
anticipated to increase street parking as applicable and thereby reducing spillover parking into adjacent
neighborhoods. The proposed Ordinance does not encourage growth and development and is not anticipated to
generate transportation impacts. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
Mitigation: None Required
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 1,2,4 X
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new 1,2,4 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 1,2,4 X
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to 1,2,4 X
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,2,4 X
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? .'
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 1,2,4 X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1,2,4 X
and regulations related to solid waste?
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,2,4 X
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 18 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Ordinance 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. All individual proposed
projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to 1,2,3,4 X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are 1,2,3,4 X
c)
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? C"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)?
Does the project have environmental effects 1,2,3,4 X
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto, with its various developed and open space areas, provides habitat for a broad range of
wildlife and pllnts, including some designated as protected or sensitive either by the State of California or
through Federal designation. All development projects are subject to design review in addition to the
environmental review (CEQA) to ensure an environmentally sensitive project is approved. The proposed
Ordinance will not create any additional biological impacts.
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 19 Negative Declaration
The proposed amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code are not anticipated to degrade the quality of the
environment or create environmental effects that would adversely impact human beings. The proposed Ordinance
is not anticipated to have cumulatively considerable impacts.
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 (aPR) is in the .process of developing CEQA guidelines "for the mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions." aPR 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 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. .
Although greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) generated by future development projects in the Open Space district,
as allowed under the Comprehensive Plan, would cumulatively contribute to global climate change, the City's
regulations supports development while preserving and conserving natural areas. In addition, the City has adopted
green building regulations that apply to all development projects, residential and otherwise, which further
facilitates the reduction of the GHG emissions of all projects. The proposed Ordinance would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions. All
individual proposed projects in the will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for its potential impacts.
( ;
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 20 Negative Declaration
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Project Planner's knowledge of the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning) & Title 21 (Subdivisions)
4. Proposed Draft Ordinance
5. Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload
6. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
7. City of Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan, http://www.cityofpaJoalto.org/civicalfilebanklblobdload.asp?BlobID-9986
8. Green Building Regulations, PAMC 18.44
9. Tree Preservation Ordinance, PAMC 8.10
10. City of Palo Alto, Historic Inventory List
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Ordinance
B. City Manager's Report #335:09, July 27, 2009
r I
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 21 Negative Declaration
DETERMINA TION
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. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will 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 MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MA Y 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 IMPACT 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 DE CLARA TION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARA TION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Project Planner
r ;
Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets
D:1) -'7(0 -Dq
Date
Page 22 Negative Declaration