HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 372-09City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 CMR: 372:09
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of Negative Declaration and Adoption of a Budget Amendment
Ordinance in the Amount of $202,639, and Adoption of an Ordinance
Amending Title 10 by RepeaJing Chapter 10.46 (Residential Permit Parking)
of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code In Its
Entirety and Enacting a New Chapter 10.46 (College Terrace Residential
Parking Permit Program) (RPPP)
. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt the attached project's Negative Declaration (Attachment C); and
2. Approve and adopt the Ordinance for the Residential Parking Pennit Program in College
T~rrace (Attachnient A); and
3. Approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment B) in the amount of $202,639
to provide funding for the implementation of the College Terrace Residential Parking
Pennit Program; and
4. Direct Staff to evaluate the residential parking pennit program's effectiveness '90 days
after program implementation and work with the neighborhood on whether additional
parking limitations need to be added to the program and report back to Council.
". i
BACKGROUND
On July 6,2009, Council approved the elements of an Ordinance to be included in a Residential
Parking Pennit Program in College Terrace as outlined in Attachment D. Also incorporated into
CMR:372:09 Page 1 of 5
the motion was direction that Staff attempt to expedite the process so the program is in place
prior to the start of 2009 Stanford fall quarter and accept additional parking program petitions
from College Terrace.
DISCUSSION
The Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) allows vehicles displaying a resident permit,
guest permit, or day permit 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. Additional details of the program are described further and outlined in the project
ordinance in Attachment A.
Staff has been working closely with the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) members of the
College Terrace neighborhood to help with the outreach efforts for this program, in order to
accept additional petitions from additional residential blocks that would like to opt into the
RPPP. To date, approximately 90% of the resident blocks have opted into the program (see
Attachment E). In order to participate in the RPPP, the requirements called for 51 % of the
number of houses on a street block to sign a petition requesting that their street block be added to
the RPPP. With over 50 percent of the neighborhood blocks now opting into the program, the
cost of the permits has been reduced to $15. As supported by Council in July, the cost of
citations has also been raised from $40 to $50 to better recover program costs.
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.
Staff from Transportation, Revenue Collections, and Police has been working towards
implementation of the program. The process for hiring a contractor for the sign installation and
temporary staff for Revenue Collections has started. An information letter and application has
been prepared to be sent out to all households who have requested to be included in the program.
Staff from Revenue Collections will also set up a location in the neighborhood once the program
is underway in order to process the applications for obtaining the residential parking permits.
Facebook Parking
On May 14, 2009, Facebook moved 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
concems for residents in the upper College Terrace neighborhood since many Facebook
employees are parking in the neighborhood streets. This has resulted in concerns expressed that
the propo~d residential parking permit program's 2-hour parking allowance would not address
the empldyees who are currently parking on the nearby streets; as they may move their cars
every 2 hours in order to avoid getting citations.
CMR:372:09 Page 2 of5
The residential parking pernlit program that was developed did not address the recent move of
Facebook into the neighborhood. Staff feels that the proposed 2-hour parking limitation, which
requires cars to move to another block after 2-hours, will improve the parking situation in the
neighborhood. Staff has, however, also included language in the proposed ordinance to allow
revisions to the program if the Director determines that the current parking problems are not
substantially addressed by the RPPP. The Ordinance provides for:
a. Staff monitoring parking prior to implementation and then subsequent to implementation,
likely on a twice weekly basis. .
b. Monthly updates to the neighborhood residents, and an informational report to Council
90 days after implementation.
c. Recommendation by the Director for changes, if deemed necessary, to be included in the
informational report, and to be presented to residents. Revisions could include, but are
not limited to, restricting re-parking throughout the College Terrace neighborhood or in
some subarea of the neighborhood.
d. Implementation within 30 days after the report, unless 25 percent or more of the RPPP
participants provide written objections, in which case the Council would review the
program changes at a public meeting at the earliest possible date.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Program Start-Up Costs
With almost the entire College Terrace neighborhood opting into the Residential Parking Permit
Program (RPPP), start-up costs total nearly $250,000. These funds are needed for the design and
installation of street signs, the hiring of temporary personnel and purchase of office equipment in
the Revenue Collections Department, and vehicle and equipment for the Police Department.
Other initial costs include the hiring of a consultant to assess the program, the purchase of the
pernlits, preparation of educational brochures, office supplies and equipment. Staff is proposing
to use the initial General Use Permit deposit of $1 00,000 contributed by Stanford University and
interest of $36,839, which has been accumulating since 2001, to help fund the initial start up
costs. The remaining startup costs will be offset by the revenues generated through permit fees
and citation fees, with the intention of full cost recovery.
The assessment of the College Terrace RPPP was funded by the $100,000 from the Stanford
University General Use Permit; of which $46,200 was used for consultant fees for the
development of the RPPP. The balance of the deposit, $53,800, the interest earned of $36,839,
and a projected $112,000 in revenues generated by permit and citation fees will be used for the
implementation of the College Terrace RPPP. Based on current cost estimates and revenue
projections, below is a summary of program costs to implement the College Terrace RPPP in
year one.
r
SummariofProjected Cost and Revenue to Implement
Start up Costs
. Stanford Deposit
CMR:372:09
$248,839
($100,000)
Page 3 of5
Interest on Deposit
Projected Permit Fee Revenue
Projected Citation Fee Revenue
($36,839)
($27,000)
($85,000)
Of the total start up costs totaling $248,839, $46,200 was previously spent in January 2008 for
the transportation consultants, therefore leaving a remaining balance of $202,639 for
implementation.
The College Terrace RPPP has been established as Special Revenue Fund with the intent of
capturing and segregating future revenues and costs within this program and maintaining
neutrality to the General Fund. After the first year of implementation, full cost allocations will
be applied to the program, which is likely to increase permit fees.
It is 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. Although the Police Department has stated that it could staff
this current program in College Terrace without the necessity to hire another officer, 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.
Revenue projections for this type of 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 revenue estimated to be generated by the program is based on historical
citation rates evaluated in the City of Palo Alto and compared with other cities with similar
residential parking permit programs. 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
Preliminary work involving the design and purchase of permits and necessary equipment,
including hiring of temporary staff to help with the application process, has taken place.
A 31-day enactment period is required after the second reading of the ordinance, scheduled for
October 5,2009, with implementation and enforcement beginning on November 5,2009.
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 A)
for approval by the City Council. The draft Negative Declaration was available for review on
June 12,2009.
CMR:372:09 Page 4 of5
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
J~
SHAHLA YAZDY
Transportation Engineer
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
A. Residential Parking Permit Program Ordinance
B. Budget Amendment Ordinance
C. Negative Declaration
D. Program Outline
E. Resident Participation
COURTESY COPIES:
College Terrace Resident's Association Board
College Terrace Project Advisory Committee
Jean Mc Cown, Stanford University
r
I
CMR:372:09 Page 5 of5
(
". )
ATTACHMENT A
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. ---Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Title 10 by Repealing Chapter 10.46 (Residential Pennit
Parking) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code in Its Entirety and Enacting a New Chapter
10.46 (College Terrace Residential ParkingPennit Program)
(RPPP)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Legislative Purpose. The ordinance codified in this chapter is
enacted in response to the serious adverse effects caused in the College Terrace neighborhood of
Palo Alto by motor vehicle congestion, particularly the long-term parking of motor vehicles on
the streets and neighborhood by nonresidents thereof. As set forth in more specific detail in
Section 2, such long-term parking by nonresidents threatens the health, safety and welfare of
residents of College Terrace. In order t6 protect and promote the integrity of the neighborhood,
it is necessary to enact parking regulations restricting unlimited parking by nonresidents therein,
while providing the opportunity for residents to park near their homes. Uniform parking
regulations restricting residents and nonresidents alike do not serve the public interests, rather
such regulations contribute to neighborhood decline. For the reasons set forth in this chapter, a
system of residential permit parking is enacted for the College Terrace Neighborhood.
SECTION 2. Legislative Findings.
(a) General Findings. The City Council fmds, as a result of evidence generated
by professional studies and derived from other sources, which the continued vitality of Palo Alto
depends on the preservation of safe, healthy and attractive neighborhoods and other residential
areas therein. The Council further finds that one factor that has detracted from the safety, health
and attractiveness of Palo Alto is the excessive and burdensome practice of nonresidents parking
their motor vehicles for extended periods of time in the College Terrace neighborhood. Since at
anyone time there is in College Terrace a surplus of motor vehicles over available on-and off-
street parking spaces, this condition detracts from ahealthy and complete urban environment. A
system of residential permit parking will serve to reduce a number of strains on residents of the
neighborhood and thus promote the general public welfare.
(b) Specific Findings. The following specific legislative findings for the City
Council in support of residential permit parking are set forth as illustrations only and do not
exhaust the subject of the factual basis supporting its adoption:
i
(1) The safety, health and welfare of the residents of Palo Alto can be
greatly enhanced by maintenance of the attractiveness and livability of its neighborhoods and
other residential areas.
1
090917 syn 0120406
NOT YET APPROVED
(2) A large portion of Palo Alto residents possess automobiles and as a
result are daily faced with the need to store these automobiles in or near their residences.
(3) The College Terrace neighborhood is burdened by influxes of motor
vehicles owned by nonresidents which compete for the available on-street parking spaces.
(4) There further exist certain parking "attractors" near College Terrace
including, but not limited to, Stanford University, Stanford Research Park, and EI Camino Real
commercial uses which further exacerbate neighborhood parking problems.
(5) College Terrace does not have sufficient on-or off-street space to
accommodate the convenient parkinK of motor vehicles by residents thereof in the vicinity of
their homes with the addition of nonresident parking. To the extent that such facilities do exist,
the program set forth herein is designed to encourage the maximum feasible utilization of
parking facilities by neighborhood residents.
(6) Unnecessary vehicle miles, noise, pollution, and strains on
interpersonal relationships, caused by the conditions set forth herein, work unacceptable
hardships on residents of the neighborhood by causing the deterioration of air quality, safety,
tranquility and other values available in an urban residential environment.
(7) If allowed to continue unchecked, these adverse effects on the citizens
of Palo Alto will contribute to a further decline of the living conditions therein, a reduction in the
attractiveness of residing within Palo Alto and consequent injury to the general public welfare.
(8) The system of residential permit parking, as enacted by the ordinance
codified in this chapter, will serve to promote the safety, health and welfare of the citizens of
College Terrace by (a) reducing unnecessary personal motor vehicle travel, noise, and pollution;
and (b) promoting improvements in air quality and the convenience and attractiveness of urban
residential living, now and in the future.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
r i
090917 syn 0120406
2
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 3. Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by
repealing in its entirety Chapter 10.46 (Residential Permit Parking) and enacting a new Chapter
10.46 to read as follows:
Sections:
10.28.010
10.28.020
10.28.030
10.28.040
10.28.050
10.28.060
10.28.070
10.28.080
10.28.090
10.28.100
10.28.110
10.28.120
10.28.010
Chapter 10.46
COLLEGE TERRACE RESIDENTIAL
PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM (RPPP)
Definitions.
Permit parking exemption.
Designation of initial residential permit parking area.
Designation of additional residential permit parking area.
Withdrawal as a residential permit parking area.
Issuance of residential parking permits.
Guest permits.
Parking permit fees.
Residential parking area.
Revocation of permit.
Violation--Penalty.
Chapter interpretation.
Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
(a) "Address" means and includes any residential address. Each dwelling unit within
an apartment building that is distinguished by an apartment number shall be considered an
address.
(b) "Block" means any street segment intersected by two other streets. Blocks
include the following:
North-South Blocks
1) Yale Street from Stanford Avenue to Oxford Avenue
2) Yale Street from Oxford Avenue to College Avenue
3) Yale Street from College A venue to Cambridge Avenue
4) Yale Street from Cambridge Avenue to California Avenue
5) Williams Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue
6) Williams Street from College A venue to California Avenue
7) Wellesley Street from Stanford Avenue to Oxford Avenue
3
090917 syn 0120406
NOT YET APPROVED
8) Wellesley Street from Oxford Avenue to College Avenue
9) Wellesley Street from College Avenue to Library
10) Wellesley Street from Library to California A venue
11) Cornell Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue
12) Cornell Street from College Avenue to California Avenue
13) Princeton Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue
14) Princeton Street from College A venue to California Avenue
15) Oberlin Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue
16) Oberlin Street from College Avenue to California Avenue
17) Harvard Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue
18) Harvard Street from College Avenue to California Avenue
19) Hanover Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue
20) Hanover Street from College Avenue to California Avenue
21) Dartmouth Street from Stanford Avenue to Werry Park
22) Dartmouth Street from Werry Park to College Avenue
23) Dartmouth Street from College Avenue to Weisshaar Park
24) Dartmouth Street from Weisshaar Park to California Avenue
25) Columbia Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue
26) Columbia Street from College A venue to California Avenue
27) Bowdoin Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue
28) Bowdoin Street from College A venue to California Avenue
29) . Amherst Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue
30) Amherst Street from College Avenue to California Avenue
31) Staunton Court from Oxford Avenue to College Avenue
East-West Blocks
1) Stanford Avenue from El Camino Real to Yale Street
2) Stanford Avenue from Yale Street to Williams Street
3) Stanford Avenue from Williams Street to Wellesley Street
4) Stanford Avenue from Wellesley Street to Cornell Street
5) Stanford A venue from Cornell Street to Princeton Street
6) Stanford Avenue from Princeton Street to Oberlin Street
7) Stanford Avenue from Oberlin Street to Harvard Street
8) Stanford A venue from Harvard Street to Escondido Street
9) Stanford Avenue from Escondido Street to Hanover Street
10) Stanford Avenue from Hanover Street to Dartmouth Street
11) Stanford Avenue from Dartmouth Street to Columbia Street
12) Stanford Avenue from Columbia Street to Bowdoin Street
13) Stanford Avenue from Bowdoin Street to Amherst Street
14) College Avenue from Yale Street to Williams Street
15) CS'5llege Avenue from Williams Street to Wellesley Street
16) College Avenue from Wellesley Street to Cornell Street
17) College A venue from Cornell Street to Princeton Street
18) College Avenue from Princeton Street to Oberlin Street
19) College Avenue from Oberlin Street to Harvard Street
20) College Avenue from Harvard Street to Hanover Street
4
090917 syn 0120406
NOT YET APPROVED
21) College Avenue from Hanover Street to Dartmouth Street
22) College Avenue from Dartmouth Street to Columbia Street
23) College Avenue from Columbia Street to Bowdoin Street
24) College Avenue from Bowdoin Street to Amherst Street
25) California A venue from Yale Street to Williams Street
26) California Avenue from Williams Street to Wellesley Street
27) California A venue from Wellesley Street to Cornell Street
28) California A venue from Cornell Street to Princeton Street
29) California A venue from Princeton Street to Oberlin Street
30) California A venue from Oberlin Street to Harvard Street
31) California Avenue from Harvard Street to Hanover Street
32) California A venue from Hanover Street to Dartmouth Street
33) California Avenue from Dartmouth Street to Columbia Street
34) California A venue from Columbia Street to Bowdoin Street
35) California Avenue from Bowdoin Street to Amherst Street
36) Oxford Avenue from Stanton Court to Yale Street
37) Cambridge Avenue from EI Camino Real to Yale Street
(c) "College Terrace" means the area bounded by EI Camino Real on the east,
Amherst Street on the west, California A venue on the south, and Stanford A venue on the north.
The residential portion of the CN zone on the east side of Yale Street, the north side of
Cambridge A venue, the west side of Stanton Court and Oxford A venue from Staunton Court to
Yale, is also included in the boundary of College Terrace. Areas, including block faces on the
north side of Stanford Avenue and on the south side of California A venue are excluded.
(d) "Day care center" means and includes any state-licensed day care center with five
or more employees.
(e) "Designated residential parking area," sometimes referred to as "residential
permit parking area," means any block upon which the Council imposes parking limitations
pursuant to the authority granted by this chapter.
(f) "Guest parking permit" means a parking permit issued pursuant to this chapter or
an ordinance or resolution enacted pursuant to authority granted herein, which when displayed
upon a motor vehicle, as described herein, shall exempt the motor vehicle from parking time
restrictions established pursuant to this chapter.
(g) "Guest" means an individual who calls upon a resident in the designated
residential permit parking area with specific intent to spend time in or about that resident's
residence for the purpose of social intercourse or to provide a service.
r i
(h) "Motor vehicle" means and includes automobile, truck, motorcycle or other motor
driven form of transportation.
(i) "Neighborhood-serving establishment" means all libraries, schools, day care
centers, and nonprofit public service organizations.
5
090917 syn 0120406
NOT YET APPROVED
0) "Nonresident vehicle" means a motor vehicle not eligible to be issued a
residential parking permit, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this chapter, for the specific
area in which it is parked.
(k) "One-day guest parking permit" means a parking permit issued pursuant to this
chapter which when displayed upon a motor vehicle, as described herein, shall exempt the motor
vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter or an ordinance or
resolution enacted pursuant to authority granted herein, for the date indicated upon the face of
said permit.
(1) "Residential parking permit" means a permit issued under this chapter which,
when displayed upon a motor vehicle, as described herein, shall exempt said motor vehicle from
parking time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter.
(m) "Residence" means a legal residential address and shall exclude business
addresses.
(n) "Resident" means any person sixteen (16) years of age or older whose legal
residential address is in the designated residential permit parking area.
(0) "RPPP" means residential parking permit program.
(P) "RPPP year" means and includes the days between September 1 and August 31 of
the following year.
(q) "School" means and includes any state-licensed preschool, elementary, middle,
junior high, or high school with five or more employees.
10.28.020 Permit parking exemption.
(a) A motor vehicle displaying a valid residential parking permit issued pursuant to
the terms of this Chapter shall be permitted to stand or be parked in the residential permit
parking area for which the permit has been issued, without being limited by time restrictions
established pursuant to this chapter. Any motor vehicle that does not display a valid residential
parking permit shall be subject to the time restrictions and consequent penalties in effect for the
residential permit parking area.
(b) A residential parking permit shall not guarantee or reserve to the holder thereof an
on-street parking space within the designated residential permit parking area.
r
I
(c) This chapter shall not exempt the permit parking holder from other traffic controls
and regulations existing in the designated residential permit parking area.
(d) This chapter shall not permit the permit parking holder to leave standing his or her
vehicle for more than seventy-two (72) hours.
6
090917 syn 0120406
NOT YET APPROVED
10.28.030 Designation of initial residential permit parking area.
The initial residential permit parking area is identified in the Updated College Terrace
Residential Parking Permit Program map, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this
reference.
10.28.040 Designation of additional residential permit parking area.
(a) City staff shall consider for designation any proposed block in College Terrace for
which a petition has been submitted which meets and satisfies the following requirements:
(1) The petition shall contain a description or a map showing the proposed
residential permit parking area.
(2) Said description or map shall be followed in the petition by the following
statement:
"We~ the undersigned, are residents in the proposed residential permit parking
area described in this petition. We understand that, if this area is designated as a
residential permit parking area, certain restrictions will be placed upon on-street
parking within the designated area; that subject to the regulations and restrictions
established by the City Council, guests to residences will be eligible to use
permits exempting them from such parking restrictions; that the annual fee for a
residential parking permit will be as set forth in the City of Palo Alto Municipal
Fee Schedule; that a residential parking permit may be issued to a resident of a
residential address and/or to each additional resident of the same address; that no
more than one residential parking permit shall be issued to each motor vehicle
owned or leased for which application is made; that fees for guest parking permits
(either one-day or annual guest parking permits) are as set forth in the City
Municipal Fee Schedule. We the undersigned hereby request that the Council of
the City of Palo Alto consider this petition for establishment of the above
described areas as a residential permit parking area."
(3) The aforementioned statement shall be followed by a signature, printed
name~ address, and date of signing of the petition by residents representing at least fifty-one (51)
percent of the addresses within each proposed block. In addition, the petition sponsor must
certify that a reasonable means of inquiry was undertaken to assure the validity of petition
signatures. Receipt of a petition representing at least fifty-one (51) percent of the addresses
within a proposed area will initiate the residential permit parking review process. Subsequent
counter petitions received from residents within a proposed block will be reviewed, but they will
in no waX" invalidate the initial petition requesting establishment of residential permit parking or
terminate the review process.
(4) Both sides of a street must be included in each block area unless
determined by the City Manager or his or her designee to be impractical or undesirable.
7
090917 syn 0120406
NOT YET APPROVED
(b) Upon receipt by City staff of a petition as described in subsection (a) of this
section, City staff shall:
(1) Undertake or cause to be undertaken such surveys or studies deemed
necessary;
(2) Conduct an official voting ballot of the blocks requesting participation in
the RPPP. The ballot shall allow each residence to vote in favor or against the RPPP and their
block to be included in the program. All blocks with at least fifty-one (51) percent of the
addresses supporting the RPPP will be considered for inclusion in the program.
(3) Cause to be drafted a resolution which would establish a residential permit
parking area based upon the aforementioned petition, survey, studies and vote, including any
regulations and time restrictions as established in this chapter.
(c) The City Council may approve, reject, or modifY the resolution establishing a
residential permit parking area. The City Council must approve the resolution in order to
establish a residential permit parking area.
(d) Blocks determined to meet the established requirements set forth herein will be
included in the current RPPP year and terminating no less than one (1) year following.
10.28.050 Withdrawal as a residential permit parking area.
(a) Once a block is enrolled, there is a one year waiting period before it may
withdraw from the RPPP program. A block may withdraw from the program following
submission of a petition by the following statement:
(1) We, the undersigned, are residents in the College Terrace residential
permit parking area described in this petition. We request that the block described in this petition
be removed from the College Terrace residential parking permit program. We understand that, if
this area is removed as a residential permit parking area that nonresidents may park along the
block without time restrIctions of the RPPP but it does not exempt vehicles from other traffic
controls and regulations existing in the College Terrace neighborhood.
(2) The aforementioned statement shall be followed by a signature, printed
name, address, and date of signing of the petition by residents representing at least fifty-one (51)
percent of the addresses within each proposed block requesting removal from the program. In
addition, the petition sponsor must certifY that a reasonable means of inquiry was undertaken to
assure the validity of petition signatures. Receipt of a petition representing at least fifty-one (51)
percent of the addresses within a proposed area will initiate the residential permit parking
withdrawfll process. The city shall conduct an official vote of the blocks requesting withdrawal
in the RPPP. Results of the petition and vote will be used in determining whether the block may
be removed from the program. Removal from the RPPP shall be administered by the City
Manager or his or her designee.
8
090917 syn 0120406
NOT YET APPROVED
10.28.060 Issuance of residential parking permits.
(a) Residential parking, permits shall be issued by the Administrative Services
Department's Revenue Collections Division in accordance with requirements set forth in this
chapter. Each such permit shall be designed to state or reflect thereon the identification of the
particular residential permit parking area (Le. College Terrace) as well as the license number of
the motor vehicle for which it is issued. No more than one residential parking permit shall be
issued to each motor vehicle owned or leased for which application is made.
(b) Revenue Collections shall issue residential parking permits with a term of one
year from September 1 to August 31 regardless of when during the year a resident purchases the
parking permit, to motor vehicles which comply with the requirements set forth in this chapter.
Purchase of permits will be available starting 30 days prior to the beginning of the next RPPP
year. A grace period will be recognized from September 1 to September 30 for residents with a
permit from the previous year. Vehicles displaying a permit from the previous year will not be
cited during the grace period.
(c) Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide proof of vehicle
ownership and residency. A vehicle registration form as well as one of the following shall be
required at the time of registration showing College Terrace residency:
• Driver's license -indicating College Terrace Address
• Rental agreement with name of resident
• Current (i.e. not more than 60 days old) utility bill with street address noted
(d) One residential parking permit may be issued for each vehicle owned, leased or
any person who can demonstrate that they are currently a resident of the area for which the
permit is to be issued.
(e) A residential parking permit may be issued for any vehicle owned, leased or any
person who is employed ,by or a representative of a neighborhood-serving establishment located
within the particular residential permit parking area. Each employee or representative of a
neighborhood-serving establishment will be allowed to obtain one permit for each vehicle they
own or lease subject to the following criteria which shall be used to establish the eligibility of a
neighborhood-serving establishment and the maximum number of permits to be issued:
(1) An establishment for which there is no off-street parking and no
financially feasible way of creating adequate off-street parking on the site of the establishment;
(2) In areas where it appears that the number of permits sold per block would
exceed the number oflegal on-street parking spaces per block the initial sale would be limited to
two or possibly one permit per neighborhood-serving establishment;
(3) Distribution of permits shall be through a designated representative of the
establishment who will be responsible for allocation of the permits to employees.
9
090917 syn 0120406
NOT YET APPROVED
(f) Renewal of residential parking permits shall be subject to the same conditions
imposed on new permits.
(g) The residential parking permit shall consist of a bumper sticker that is to be
affixed to the left side of the rear bumper or on the outside of the rear window on the lower left
hand comer.
(h) Revenue Collections is authorized to issue such rules and regulations, not
inconsistent with this chapter, governing the issuance and display of residential parking permits.
(i) Any person to whom a residential parking permit has been issued pursuant to this
section shall be deemed a parking permit holder.
10.28.070 Guest permits.
(a) Revenue Collections shall issue guest parking permits in accordance with this
section. A guest parking permit shall be of limited duration, but shall otherwise grant to the
holder thereof all the rights and privileges of a regular residential parking permit. Guest parking
permit shall be of two types: .
(1) One-day guest parking permits; and
(2) Annual guest parking permits.
(b) A one-day guest parking permit shall clearly display the date upon which it
becomes effective, and shall designate the particular residential permit parking area for which it
applies (Le. College Terrace). A one-day guest parking permit shall, during the date indicated
upon the face of said permit, exempt the applicable vehicle from parking time restrictions
established pursuant to this chapter.
(c) An annual guest parking permit shall, for the period between September 1 and
August 31 of the following year exempt the applicable vehicle from parking time restrictions
established pursuant to this chapter.
(d) Guest passes shall hang from the rear view mirror and must be clearly displayed
in this fashion.
(e) Revenue Collections is authorized to establish rules and regulations, not
inconsistent with this chapter, concerning the issuance and display of guest parking permits to
permit holders.
f ;
(f) An eligible applicant for a guest parking permit shall be any person having
obtained a residential parking permit pursuant to criteria set forth in this chapter, but no more
than two annual guest parking permits per address shall be issued during a single RPPP year.
10
090917 syn 0120406
NOT YET APPROVED
(g) The total number of one-day guest permits issued will be limited to 20 permits in
a 3-month calendar quarter.
(h) The use of guest permits is restricted to visitors to the permit parking area.
Holders of residential parking permits are prohibited from displaying guest permits in the permit
parking area.
1028.080 Parking permit fees.
(a) The initial purchase of a residential parking permit for a vehicle owned or leased
of a resident and registered at a qualifYing residence in addition to vehicles owned, leased of an
owner or employee of a qualifYing neighborhood serving center shall be assessed the
corresponding fees set forth in the city Municipal Fee Schedule.
(b) Renewal of residential parking permits shall be subject to the fees set forth in the
,city Municipal Fee Schedule.
(c) Replacement of stolen, lost, or damaged residential parking permits shall be
subject to the fees set forth in the city Municipal Fee Schedule.
(d) Lost or stolen guest permits will be subjected to a higher replacement fee as set
forth in the City Municipal Fee Schedule.
(e) The fee for each guest parking permit (one-day and annual) will be as set forth in
the city Municipal Fee Schedule.
(f) Residential parking permit fees will be pro-rated for half year increments. Thus
permits applied for between September 1 and the last day of February pay full price. Permits
applied for between March 1 and August 31 pay half price.
(g) One-day guest permits pay full price.
(h) No partial'or full refund will be administered for any resident or guest permit.
(i) 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 will also required to be completed in person at the Revenue Collections
office.
10.28.090
f' ,
Time limitations.
(a) Upon the adoption by the City Council of the resolution designating a residential
permit parking area, City staff shall cause appropriate signs to be erected in the area, indicating
prominently thereon the time limitation, period of the day for its application, and conditions
under which permit parking shall be exempt therefrom.
11
090917 syn 0120406
NOT YET APPROVED
(b) Vehicles not displaying a valid residential parking permit may park up to two (2)
hours. After the two hour period, vehicles will be prohibited from re-parking within the same
block. These limits will be enforced every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and
Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except holidays. Vehicles not displaying a valid permit
during these periods and exceeding the two (2) hour maximum parking allowance may be cited
pursuant to section 1O.44.010(c) of this Code. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in
College Terrace outside of this specified enforcement period.
(c) For the first 90 days following the effective date of this Ordinance, the Director of
Planning and Community Environment shall provide monthly updates to the neighborhood and
residents of the permit parking area, outlining the parking conditions in the neighborhood as
compared to parking conditions prior to implementation. The Director shall also, not later than 3
months after implementation of the program, provide an informational report to the City Council
summarizing such information and, if deemed necessary, outlining changes to the residential
permit parking regulations. If the Director determines that parking problems are not
substantially addressed by the program. The Director may, after consultation and input from the
neighborhood, implement such changes to the time limitations described in subsection (b).
These may include, but are not limited to:
1. No re-parking after 2 hours anywhere within the neighborhood area
ii. No re-parking after 2 hours within a specific subarea of the neighborhood
If recommended by the Director, the revisions to the RPPP shall be installed not later than 30
days after presentation and notice to the neighborhood. If, during the 30 day period, a minimum
of 25% of the program participants provide written requests for Council review of the changes,
implementation shall be delayed until the Council reviews the changes at the soonest available
date."
( c) Ambulances, fire department vehicles, police vehicles or public utilities vehicles
which have an official seal or logo identifying them as such shall be exempt from the time
restrictions established in this subsection.
(d) Motor vehicles identified as used by disabled persons meeting the requirements of
Section 22511.5 of the California Vehicle Code shall be exempt from time posted time
limitations.
10.28.100 Revocation of permit.
In addition to all other remedies, the City may temporarily revoke (for a period of time
not to exceed ten working days) the residential parking permit of any person found to be in
violation of this chapter by providing written notice of the temporary revocation to the permittee.
Such wrip:en notice shall include a statement outlining the grounds for revoking the permit as
well as the date, time, and place set for a hearing before the Hearing Officer or his or her
representative to determine if the revocation shall be in effect until the expiration of the permit.
Written notice of the date, time and place of such hearing shall be served upon the permittee five
days prior to the date set for such hearing.
12
090917 syn 0120406
NOT YET APPROVED
At the hearing before the Hearing Officer or his or her representative, the permittee shall
have the right to be represented by an attorney, and/or to present evidence and a written or oral
argument, or both.
No decision shall be invalidated because of the admission into the record and the use of
any proof of any fact in dispute of any evidence not admissible under the common law or
statutory rules of evidence.
Within five working days after close of hearing, the Hearing Officer or his or her
representative shall enter his or her decision based upon the record presented and notify the
permittee in writing of such decision. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be final. Failure,
when so requested, to surrender a residential parking permit so revoked shall constitute a
violation of this chapter. Any such violation is a misdemeanor. There will be no refunds for
revoked permits.
10.28.110. Violation--Penalty.
(a) It is unlawful and shall constitute a violation of this chapter for any person to
stand or park a motor vehicle, without a current residential parking permit properly displayed, at
a curb within a residential permit parking area for a period of time exceeding the time limitation
established for such area.
(b) The following shall be unlawful:
(1) For any person to falsely represent himself or herself as eligible for a
parking permit or to furnish false information in an application therefore;
(2) For any person holding a valid parking permit issued pursuant hereto to
permit use or display of or to use or display such permit on a motor vehicle other than that for
which the permit was issued;
(3) For any person to copy, reproduce or otherwise bring into existence a
facsimile or counterfeit parking permit or permits without written authorization from Revenue
Collections; .
(4) For any person to knowingly use or display a facsimile or counterfeit
parking permit in order to evade time limitations on parking applicable in a residential parking
permit area;
r (5) For any person holding a valid parking permit issued pursuant hereto to
sell, give or exchange said permit to any other person;
(6) For any person to knowingly commit any act which is prohibited by the
terms of this chapter or any ordinance enacted by authority granted by this chapter.
13
090917 syn 0120406
NOT YET APPROVED
10.28.120 Chapter interpretation.
Staff has discretion in the implementation, and/or interpretation ofthis chapter.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA
Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Code herein
adopted will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 5.
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM,:
Assistant City Attorney
r ;
090917 syn 0120406
Thi~ ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the
14
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Planning & Community
Environment
EXHIBIT A
UPDATED COLLEGE TERRACE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM (RPPP)
Escondido
Escondido
School
Bowdoin
r I
1:
S c: <II U5
I
OJ 1: 0>
S .!!!
X (5
0 u
EI Camino Real
OJ 0> "U ~ E ro u
I I
I
ro '1: g
iii u
I
LEGEND
• RPPP enforcement area
(Represents 51 % of the number
of households on a block that voted "yes")
Hanover
r
j
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENTB
ORDINANCE NO.xxxx
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS OF $202,639 WITHIN THE
RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM FUND FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COLLEGE TERRACE RESIDENTIAL PARKING
PERMIT PROGRAM (RPPP) .
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III
of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 15,
2009 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2010; and
B. 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; and
C. These funds were specifically designated for the
consider~tion and initiation of a RPPP and were deposited with
the City in October 2001; and
D. 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
sta to initiate an assessment of a Residential Parking Permit
Program (RPPP) in ~ollege Terrace; and
E. Staff was authorized to retain outside expertise as
needed to supplement staff, using an initial contribution of
$100,000 deposited by Stanford University's General Use Permit;
and
F. In January 2008, sta retained the services of a
transportation consultant, expending $46,200 of the $100,000
Stanford University General Use Permit deposit, to initiate and
develop,a Residential Parking Permit Program in College Terrace; I and
G. 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, Revenue Collections, and consultant was formed
to work on the development of the RPPP; and
H. Sta presented to the City Council on July 6, 2009,
the results of parking occupancy study conducted by the
transportation consultant, the results of neighborhood surveys,
program options and details, and recommendations from staff, the
PAC and CTRA; and
I. Council approved the elements of an Ordinance for the
College Terrace RPPP and directed staff to attempt to expedite
the implementation process to be place prior to the start of
2009 Stanford fall quarter and accept additional parking program
petitions from College Terrace; and
J. Sta established a new Special Revenue-Residential
Parking Permit Program Fund (Fund 239) to capture and segregate
the revenues and expenses of the program; and
K. The adopted budget for fiscal year 2010 did not
incorporate revenues and expenses related to the RPPP for College
Terrace in the ,Special Revenue-Residential Parking Permit Program
Fund (Fund 239); and
L. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2010
budget of the Special Revenue-Residential Parking Permit Program
Fund (Fund 239) for College Terrace to make an additional
appropriation of Two Hundred Two Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Nine
Dollars ($202,639) in expenses ($81,715 sa ry expenses and
$ 0,924 in nonsalary expenses); and
M. City Council authoriz~tion is needed to transfer the
balance of the Stanford University's General Use Permit deposit
totaling $53,800 from the General Fund to the Special Revenue-
Resident Parking Permit Program Fund; and
N. City Council authorization is needed to trans the
interest earned on the $100,000 Stanford University's General Use
Permit deposit totaling $36,839 from the General Fund to the
Special Revenue-Residential Parking Permit Program Fund; and
SECTION 2.
by the sum
($90,639-) . As
Reserve)will be
The Budget Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased
Ninety thousand six hundred thirty nine dollars
a result of this change the Budget Stabilization
reduced from $22,225,000 to $22,134,361.
As specified in Section 2.2B.OBO(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt
this ordinance
SECTION 3. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds
that this is not a proj ect under the California Environmental
Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is
necessary.
SECTION 4. As prov~ded in Section 2.04.350 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
I' 1
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director
Services
of Administrative
f ,
I
I
ATTACHMENT C
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
California Environm.entai Quality A.ct
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLAFATION
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: June 11,2009
Project Name:
Project Location:
Applicant:
Owner:
Project Description:
College Terrace Residential Parking Permit 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 (EI Camino
Real), and is bounded by EI 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 A venue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
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 pali 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 P9les 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
r
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 I of 2
The pr,{])pose{l pil."ojec:t COULD NOT ha:v:e a significant effed on llh'e
envi;ro:nment, aino a NEGATIVE DECLARt\ 'IION as herehy adopted.
Although. th.e project, as proposed, couM hay~ a signiflze'Blnt eff.e£t on tht:
envlronment, there win not be a signHlcant -effect on the environment in this
case because mitigat.ion measures for traffic impacts have been added to th~
project and, tnerefOlr£, a IHITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is
hereby adopted.
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required
for the project.
r I
Date
Page 2 of 2
ENVJRONMENTAL CHECKLJST FORM
rtment 'Of P!
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1, PROJECT TITLE
College Terrace Residential Parlcing Permit Program
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME Al~D 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 AQDRESS
Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer
Transportation Division
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
Not applicable
6. PROJECT LOCATION
College Terrace Neighborhood
Palo Alto, CA
City of PaJQ Alto
and Commu Envkcmmerrt
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 (El Camino Real). The College Terrace
Neighbornood is bounded by E1 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 as shown on Figure 2.
College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 1
Figure 1: CityofPaio Alto
Figure 2. CoJlege Terrace Neighborhood
F i
College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 2
1. GENERo..L PLAN DESIGN.ll. TION:
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 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-I), Two Unit
Multiple-Family Residential District (RivID), Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (1'i'P), 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 61\ 2008) and a weekend day (Saturday, March lSI, 2008). On each day vehicle
occupancies were surveyed midday (roughly 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.) and in the evening (roughly 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.).
On weelCday 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 A venue. 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 Califomia A vt:TIue is Stanford Resear<:h
Park, which would tend to empty in the nIghttime hours.
Weekend midday survey shmved a high density of parking in the r::ornmercial 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 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
pennit (resident pennit, guest pennit, 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, "Pennit 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.
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 wil1likely expand into other blocks ofthe 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
r I
College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 4
ENVIRONlVIENTAL CIIECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF lIVIPACTS·
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 follO\;ving each question. [A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the r·eferenced 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 Impactll 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 EJR 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.
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 Information 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 mitigiiion measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
College Terrace Residential Parking Program Page 5
DISCUSSION OF Il\'IPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identity environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. Th.e left-hand colum.,'1 in the checklist lists rhe source(s) for the answer to esch
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
i 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
I p.rn. 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 envirorrmental 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
i
Issues and Supporting InformatBim Resources
I
Sour·ces Potentially 1 Potentially Less Tban f No
SignHitant Significant Signifitalrt I Impad
WQulrl the project; Issu~5 Unless impa~t , Mitigation
Incorporated ., Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 1 '"' I
I :( dJ ~ ,.1..
i or Farmland of Statewide Importance I I (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared ! pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
I Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-
use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9 X
I c) Involve other changes in the existing 1
environment which, due to their location or
I
a)
b)
nature, could result in conversion of X
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? I
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 of the 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
i Incornorated
Conflict with or obstruct with implementation 1 X
of the applicable air quahtyplan (1982 Bay
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute 1 X
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation indicated by the following;
i. 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 nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particul5lte matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PMlO);
11. 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 7
I ssues an dS f I f f R uppor mg • n firma lOn . es()u:r.ces s . ()UriCfS P f H {It<fn lay p t' II oten III y L Th ;ess an N 1 0
I Significant
I
Signliicant Significant I
I \Yould the pro}eet: I Issues Unless Impact I
i I I Mitigation
I , illcorporated
! demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
I
i
I 'which would be performed when a) project ,
I
I I CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
I or 100 tons per year; or b) proj ect traffic
I
I would impact intersections or roadway
li~s 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
I 10% or more)?
c) 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) ?
d) 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 10 in one million
11. Ground-level concentrations ofnon-1 X
carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
MEl
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 1 X
substantial number of people?
f) 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.
r J
Mitigation Measures: None required
College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 8
Do BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
i Issues and Supporting Information ReSOUf1:fS I Sourczs Potentially i Potentially I Less Than :'11) I S i gnifi call t Significant Significant Impact I
Would the project: I Issues I Unless
I
Impact I I I Mitigation I I Incorporated
i a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1, , X I ,
I !
I I
I
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 of Fish 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-MapNI
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-MapNI
species or with established native resident or
I migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2,5 X
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 8.1 O)?
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1,2 X
Conservation Plan, Natural Cpmmunity 1
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? i
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.
r
I
Mitigation Measures: None required
College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 9
l
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
! Issues and Supportlng :l.nformati,on Res;(}u:rees ; Sourtfs I Potentially Pot"ntially I i~ss Than I Nv in:qJ:tct I I Signifh::mt Significant Significant I I I Issues Unless Impa<:t I 'Would the project:
f
Mitigation j ! I Incornonued I
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural 1,2
I
X
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
I b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1, X
significance of an archaeological resource 2-MapL8
I pursuant to 15064.5? I
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1, X
paleontological resource or site or unique 2-MapL8
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1, X
interred outside of formal cemeteries? 2-MapL8
e) 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?
f) Eliminate important examples of major periods 1 X
of California history or prehistory? I
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 wouldhavea 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 SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan t Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated i
a) Expose people 6r structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk ofloss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a lrnown 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 bown
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and I I Geology Special Publication 42.
I ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 11 2-I
I X I MapN10 I I
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 1,2-MapNS X
including liquefaction? I
I iv) Landslides? 1,2-MapNS X I
I b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 1
I
X
I of topsoil?
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 I X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 1,2-MapNS 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-MapNS X
Table l8-l-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
f) Have soils incapable of adequately 1 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 seismica1ly 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 Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 11
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS r~JATEruALS
?.fote: Some of the threshold:; can also be dealt l"v'ith under a topic heading of Public Health and Sa(e1:1J if the primary
issues are related to a subjecI oiher them hazardous material use.
Issues and Supporting Information R.esources SO!liCeS Potentialiy Potentially I Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the prnject: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
1
1,2 X
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
I 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 oEan 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 puhlic 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 ina 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
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
flres, 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
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
DISCUSSION;
The proposed project will not create any new hazards and hazardous materials The project implementa~ion
includes improveoents entirely within the public right-of-way. Tne project not increase the exposure to
hazardous materials. The project area does not include any hazardous materials The project is not within 1/4
mile of the ru,'1way at Palo Alto airport, the only airport within Palo Alto. The project streets are not identified in
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
Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,2 X
discharge requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 1,2-X
interfere substantially with groundwater MapN2
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering ofthe 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)?
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?
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?
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? i
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? i 1,2 X
Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard 1 1,2 X
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard r Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area 12-MapN6 X
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk I
College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 13
of loss, injury or death involve flooding, I i
includi.11g flooding as a result of the failure of a 2-MapN6
I
I X
levee or dam or located witr,in a 100-year i I
flood hazard area'? i I
: j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? I 1 I j X i ! I k) Result in stream ban.!.;: instability? 1,2:-Map I I V I .1'-
r 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
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X
b) 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?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 1,2,4 X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,3,4 X
intensity of existing or planned land. use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,2,3,4 X
f)
g)
the general character ofthe surrounding area,
including density and building height?
Conflict with established residential,
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
Convert prime farmland, unique fannland, or
farmland of statewide importance (fannland) to
non-agricultural use?
r I
DISCUSSION:
1,2,3,4 X
1,2 X
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
I
Cit<;'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 Me~sures: None requked
J IVI1NERA.L RESOURCES .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
W<>uld the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I a) Result in the loss of availability of a knO\vn 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
a)
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
DI~CUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of
Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resourc'e 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 X
levels in excess of standards established in the
local 'general plan or noise ordinance, or
! applicable standards of other agencies?
I
I 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?
I d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2 X
ambient noise le-vels in the project vicinity
above levels eXIsting without the project?
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 Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 15
i
I Issues and Supportlng Information ResouTces Sour1!es PQt.entiaHy Potentially
I
' Signl:l1cant Signlfieam
7yVvuld the project: Issues Vnless
Less Than
Significant
Impact
I Mitigation
1-.~ .. ~ __________ ~ ____ ~r--____ -+ _____ -+-...:I=nc~()::.r.J::.P{);:;.;·r:.::a:.::;te::..::d=--+ _____ _+_
I excessive noise levels? I t) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1,2 Ii I I X II
I
airstrip, would the project expose people ,
residing or working in the project area to i I
~e~x~ce~s~s~iv~e~n~o~is~e~le~v~'e~ls~? __ ~~~~~~ __ +-~ ___ ~ ______ ~ _____ +-____ -+ _____ ~
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,2 X I
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an I' i
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 1,2 X 1
an existing residential area, thereby causing the 1 I '
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?! i I
I
, i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 11,2 I 1 I' X I
, existing residential area where the Ldn ,
currently exceeds 60 dB? ---t--------ii------+-----+-------il
• j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,2 I I X I
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? !
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,2
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
1) Generate construction noise exceedD.lg the
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
DISCUSSION:
1,2
x
X
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 cons1ruction 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 req'uired.
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially I Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues I Unless Impact
Mitigation
• Incorporated
I a) Induce substantial population growth in an 1,4 X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
i
new homes an<fbusinesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other i infrastructure)?
i b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 1,4 i X
I
housing, necessitating the construction of
I replacement housing elsewhere?
College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 16
Is§ues and Supporting Inf.ormatl.on Rc50urteS SOUToCes lP{)t~mtially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impan
I !
c ) D' b" I lsplace su stan@ numbers or peop e, 1 4 . ,
necessilating the construction of replacement I
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
I x I ,r
housing elsewhere? I I
d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1,2,4 X
employed residents and jobs?
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local I 1,2,4 X
population projections?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project does not encourage gro'wth and development in the district and therefore will not create any ne,v
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
Incoroorated
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
public services:
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 cOll.1d 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
I
N. RECREATION r Issues and Supporting Jnformati!m Resol.lrtes I Would the proj.d:
I a)
I
I
Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facilit would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the constru.ction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
envrronment?
DISCUSSION:
Sour:ces
1,4
1,4
Pou:ntially
Signl!1cant
issues
i Pot.:m:ial1y I Signifl.cant
I
, Unj~ss
. Mitigation
Incor orated
Less Thlln
Signifkant
Impaet
No Impn·:!
x
x
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
I Issues and Supporting Information Resources I Sources Potentially Potentially I Less Than No Impact I
Significant Significant Significant
I Would the project: I Issues Unless
I
Impact
I Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is r 1,4 X
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., !
result in a substantial increase in either the
I
! number of vehicle trips, the volume to i
I
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 1,4 I X
a level of service standard established by the i
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
I c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,4 X
including either an increase in traffic levels
! i
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially inc.rease hazards due to a 1,4 X
design feature (r!.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (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? 1,4 x
~'------~--~~-~--~~~--~------~:----------~----------+-----~.----'.---------~I~--~--~ i O·i Conflict wiTh adopted policies, plans, or X
'
I,' !:;>, • 1 ' I programs supportmg a tematlve
, transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & 1,2,3,4
I bicycle facilities)7
! b) Cause a local (City ofralo Alto) inrersection ! ~ I to deterioraTe below Level of Service (LOS) I D and cause an increase in the average
. stopped delay for the critical movements by I~I four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (VIC) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
I i) Cause a local intersection already operating at I 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
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
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
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a
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 tum lanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, andspillback queues on ramps.
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,4
n) Impede the development or function of 1,4
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,4
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1, 4
DISCUSSION:
I x
i
x
I
1 x
i
x
x
i x
I
x
I x
The proposed pJ;oject does not encourage growth and development in the district and is not anticipated to generate
transportation irhpacts. 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
I I
I
Signs installed within the project area will prevent fewer non-resident cars being parked on 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 deyelopment or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities to
the operation of a tmnsi. system and create any operational safety hazards.
l'V1itigatlon.: None requjred
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTElVIS
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 • 1,4 I X
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new 1,4 I X
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
I 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?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to 1,4 X
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or arenew or expanded
entitlements needed?
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?
f) Be served by a landfill with suffic4mt 1,4
permitted capacity to accommodate the X
project's solid waste disjJosal n~eds?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes i 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 of the proj ect? I
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 Ten-ace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 20
· , MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGN1FICANCE
::Issues and Supporting Informatic')il Resourees Sour.ces i Potentially
I Significant I Issues )'/{mld the project:
I
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
IneOrp()rllt~d --,
Less Than
Signlfkllnt
lmpa~t
Nv Impact
i i I a)
Does the project have the potential w I 1 4 I X
degrade the quality of the environment, I '
substantially reduce the habitat of a tish or I
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
I ,
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 1,4 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)? i
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 lUlderway 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 PlalUling 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 Permit Program Page 21
established standards for gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions; these standards are required to 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 a Lead Agency to trai1sbto;
issue dO'.:vn to the level of a CEQA document for a specifi:: project in a way that is meaningf.l1 to decision making
process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are whether a project creates or contributes to an environmental impac:
or is subject to impacts from the envlTDlL1J.1ent 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 due 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 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 detennine 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 detennine an impact. However, in an
effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to confonn 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.
r
I
Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 22
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Proj~ct Manager's proposed project; Shahla Yazdy,
2. Palp Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title j 8 -Zoning Ordinance
4. Technical Memo \yith Program Details
5. City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance, PiuvIC Section 8.10
( ,
..... v·""~;v Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 23
DE TERLVHNATI ON
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the prnposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a 'N"EGATlVE DECL4..RA TION will be preparf:d.
I find that although the proposed project could have a. significant effect on the
environment, there wiH 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
NEGATf'ilE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL L'VIPACT REPORT is required.
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:
i Date Transportation Engin ¢
Reviewed by:
Date
College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program
x
I
i
Page 24
ATTACHMENTD
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. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Allow residents to purchase one-day permits for a fee, in person at the Revenue
Co)lections 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 Tenace
Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) applies.
8. Allow normal construction and maintenance permits to be available for long-term
construction activities on regulated streets, consistent with cunent practice by the City.
9. 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.
Current Program Details
• 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 of the following would be
required at the time of registration showing College Terrace residency:
° Driver's License ° Rental Agreement ° 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:
° 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 Tenace neighborhood, but this date could be changed. ° Parking permits may be purchased yearly starting August 1st each year, through
September' 30th• . ° A grace period will be recognized from September 1 st to September 30th for
residents with previous year permits (i.e. 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). ° 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. ° The annual parking permit will be a different color each permit year (September 1
to August 31 st the following year).
rO New residents to College Tenace may purchase resident permits throughout a
I permit year. Parking permit fees will be pro-rated based on date of purchase. ° 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 $15 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.
r
i
/"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT E
UPDATED COLLEGE TERRACE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM (RPPP)
Escondido
Escondido
School
Bowdoin
I ,
"E .f2 s:: .lll (/)
I
I
ID "E Ol
~ .l!! (5
0 0
I I
EI Camino Real
Columbia
Bowdoin
Amherst
ID Ol "0 ~ E til 0
I I
I
Harvard
Hanover
til °E g
"iii 0
I
I
LEGEND
• RPPP enforcement area
(Represents 51 % of the number
of households on a block that voted "yes")
Hanover