The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-01-17 City CouncilTO: City of Palo Alto Manager’s Summary Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: January. 17, 1996 CMR:119:96 SUBJECT:Policies and Program Recommendations Related to Community Facilities and Services for the Comprehensive Plan REQUEST Staff has noted that changes have occurred in the characteristics of the population of Palo Alto since the last review of the Comprehensive Plan in the early 1980s. Staff discussions identified eight trends that describe these changes. Recommendations to add three goals, ten policies and nine programs to the Draft Comprehensive Plan are presented and explained in the attached in-depth CMR. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City,.’ Council consider adding a Community,., Facilities Element to the Comprehensive Plan. This new element would replace the existing "Schools and Parks Element" in the current Comprehensive Plan. Goals, policies and programs recommended in this report, as well as any of those related to community facilities from the document titled "Governance and Community Services" which Council is also considering, would be combined into a single Draft Community Facilities Element that will return to Council in Phase IV of the Comprehensive Plan process. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Some of the policies and programs recommended in this report are included in the current Schools and Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Policies C and E, and Program 2). Some are an extension or formalization of current City policy and direction, (Policy A, B, D, F, Program 1, 3, 6, 8, 9). However, the remaining are new policies and programs raised in this report. The reason for recommending changes in policy are explained in the report as being due to changes in the population characteristics of Palo Alto through time and the aging of the City’s community facility infrastructure. CMR:119:96 Page 1 of 13 The reason for recommending changes in policy are explained in the report as being due to changes in the population characteristics of Palo Alto through time and the aging of the City’s community facility infrastructure. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In November 0f 1995, when staff forwarded our comments on the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) and Planning Commission recommendations to the City Council, it was noted that there were some "gaps" in the document pertaining to community facilities, parks, schools, open space, and emergency preparedness. Since the time of that report, Community Services and Planning staff have jointly reviewed the current Comprehensive Plan and CPAC recommendations and prepared Several goal, policy and program recommendations for Council consideration to address the gaps. Goals, policies and programs contained in this report came from that staff-initiated effort to cover subject areas, recommended in the General Plan Guidelines, but largely missing from the CPAC material. These staff recommendations compliment, overlap, and are consistent with those originated by CPAC and recommended by the Planning Commission. These recommenda- tions cover some topics that were not completely addressed by those groups. Staff also met with the City/School Liaison Committee to suggest that the School District prepare further recommendations for the new Comprehensive Plan. It is anticipated that PAUSD will be forwarding those recommended additions. A memo to the City/School Liaison Committee, dated October 24, 1995, is attached, which outlines the issues staff raised with the District. FISCAL IMPACT The recommendations in this report have potential to cause a significant fiscal impact. It is anticipated that the policies and programs for Community Facilities will be implemented over a long-range time frame. Implementation tools and financing options will need to be explored. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The environmental impacts of all goals, policies and programs will be the subject of a Master Environmental Report in Phase III oft he Comprehensive Plan Process. PREPARED BY: Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: PAUL THILTGEN Director of Community Services CMR:119:96 Page 2 of 13 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: JUNE FLEMING City Manager CMR:119:96 Page 3 of 13 CMR: 119:96 Page 4 of 13 City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report SUBJECT:Policies and Program Recommendations Related to Community Facilities and Services for the Comprehensive Plan RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the City Council consider adding a Community Facilities Element to the Comprehensive Plan. This new element would replace the existing "Schools and Parks Element" in the current Comprehensive Plan. Goals, policies and programs recommended in this report, as well as any of those related to community, facilities from the document titled "Governance and Community Services" which Council retains, would be combined into a single Draft Community Facilities Element that will return to Council in Phase IV of the Comprehensive Plan process. This element would also include goals, policies and programs related to safety and emergency preparedness, as required by State Law, to be drafted in Phase III, and any additional policies and programs dealing with schools in Palo Alto. Recommendations related to school facility planning and City/School partnerships are being developed by the Palo Alto Unified School District and forwarded under separate cover. BACKGROUND: In November of 1995, when staff forwarded our comments on the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) and Planning Commission recommendations to the City Council, it was noted that there were some "gaps" in the document pertaining to community facilities, parks, schools, open space, and emergency preparedness. Since the time of that report, Community Services and Planning staff have jointly reviewed the current Comprehensive Plan and CPAC recommendations and prepared several goal, policy and program recommendations for Council consideration to address the gaps. Goals, policies and programs contained in this report came from that staff-initiated effort to cover subject areas, recommended in the General Plan Guidelines, but largely missing from the CPAC material. These staff recommendations compliment, overlap, and are consistent with those originated by CPAC and recommended by the Planning Commission. These recommenda- tions cover some topics that were not completely addressed by those groups. Staff also met with the City/School Liaison Committee to suggest that the School District prepare further recommendations for the new Comprehensive Plan. It is anticipated that PAUSD will be forwarding those recommended additions. A memo to the City/School Liaison Committee, dated October 24, 1995, is attached, which outlines the issues staff raised with the District. CMR:119:96 Page 5 of 13 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Some of the policies and programs recommended in this report are included in the current Schools and Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Policies C and E, and Pro~am 2). Some are an extension or formalization of current City policy and direction, (Policy A, B, D, F, Program 1, 3, 6, 8, 9). However, the remaining are new policies and programs raised in this report. The reasons for recommending changes in policy are explained in the report as being due to changes in the population characteristics of Palo Alto through time and the aging of the City’s community facility infrastructure. DISCUSSION Changes in the 1990’s and Future Trends or Projections Staff has noted that much has changed in the characteristics of the population of Palo Alto since the last review of the Comprehensive Plan in the early 1980s. Staff discussions identified eight trends that describe this change. While people continue to have traditional values, they lack time for traditional activities. Some combination of two-income families, longer commutes, longer working hours and/or other phenomena is cutting into time formerly available for people. People are in a hurry more than they used to be. This trend has created a demand for spanning services into non-traditional hours, i.e., lunch hours and before and after work at the workplace, and weekends and later into the evenings than ever before. This translates into demand for use of park, field, recreational, child care and library facilities at more extended evening and weekend hours than formerly experienced and a demand bv local employees that is higher than ever before. California’s expanding multi-culturalism is being reflected in Palo Alto. Today, community facility staff have requests for material, such as facility brochures and library collection materials, in more languages than ever before. More language interpreters are needed to communicate with people using City programs than in the 1980s. Census data from 1990 indicates that persons identifying themselves with "’non-white" racial groups increased from 7 percent to 15 percent of Palo Alto’s population in the decade between t980 and 1990. The role of women in society has changed, and with it has come additional and different demands for community services. For example, women’s and girls’ sports programs and opportunities have yielded higher demand for community facilities than in the past, when males dominated sports and athletics. The increase of women in the workplace and more single-parent families has caused a CMR:119:96 Page 6 of 13 proportionate need for local and high quality child care, from infant and pre-school through middle school youth programs. This same phenomenon has indirectly created additional demand for extension of operating hours, aimed at accommodating families where parents work outside the home. o The Americans With Disabilities Act has had a profound influence on community programs and facilities. The responsibility to accommodate persons of all abilities with community services and programs has caused a redesign of most aspects of community service provision. Many physical changes and program adjustments have resulted and will continue to result through the next decade, o The "electronic age" has changed the public’s perception, involvement and and expectations. Telecommuting and home offices have created new employment locations in what have traditionally been considered residential enclaves. The Palo Alto public is accustomed to electronic communication in their homes and schools and expect the convenience and power of electronic services from their City. While electronic access is an emerging and growing option, there remains a segment of the community for which this option will not be viable. Demographic trends have shifted. The senior popuiation continues to increase in new geographic areas of the City, and the population of infant, pre-school and school age children are all trending upward. These age groups require distinctive programs to meet their needs, and community facilities should be physically designed to accommodate them. Growth in regional population and the increased mobility of that population have had an effect on Palo Alto community facilities. As Santa Clara County. population continues to grow and facilities in our neighboring cities become more crowded, the use of Palo Alto facilities increases. Regional growth provides opportunity for shared services with neighboring communities, allowing Palo Altans a richer array of programs than City residents alone could justify. On the other hand, increase in demand for resources and facility use, coupled with a decrease in the ongoing and deferred maintenance of parks and other facilities since the adoption of Proposition 13, has led to an uncomfortable public impression that "non-residents" are causing wear, tear, and impact to Palo Alto community spaces. Social problems have increased. For example, people without permanent shelter are increasing in Santa Clara County. Social issues associated with economically disadvantaged populations have for some time been very apparent elsewhere in California, and have more recently emerged in Palo Alto. The past decade has provided no answers to the social problems, and the trends at the federal level are to CMR:119:96 Page 7 of 13 delegate the problems and problem-solving to the states. The states, likewise, are turning to the local level. These trends will continue to develop and will require response from the City. Community. Service Needs The following goals, policies and programs are recommended to be added to the Plan: Community Facilities In general, the pressure to use our community facilities in more varied and intensive ways will be felt throughout the next decade. Longer operating hours, more diverse programs and uses, and more things happening on one site at the same time will be requested. Accommodating this need means better coordination, facility modifications and expansions to allow more users, program modifications to allow more selection of programs, flexibility in spaces, and higher janitorial service and maintenance. The ability to consolidate some services, while expanding others is expected, particularly through interagency coordination. New community-facilities may be needed. The following applies to all community facilities: Goal 1: Palo Alto is endowed with a variety of community facilities, parks, centers, libraries, and civic spaces. They will be treasured, protected and enhanced for current and future generations. Policy A: Community facilities will meet the changing needs of the community. Policy B: Reinvestment in aging facilities will be required through time to enhance their function and attractiveness for the community. Program 1: Prepare a plan or plans for enrichment and improvement of community facilities through time. Parks and Open Space Most of our parks and open space are experiencing heavy usage. Parks have become popular in California lifestyle, whereas they were not as popular a decade ago. Use by employees and neighbors in the region has increased. The sigmas of increased use and deferred maintenance are becoming apparent. The cost to "clean-up" is on the increase, and maintenance has not kept pace with higher-use. CMR:I t9:96 Page 8 of 13 Aside from increased use, the parks were originally constructed many years ago and are due for revitalization. Landscaping is showing neglect and is in need ofreinvestment. Trees and shrubs are in need of care, replanting, and improved irrigation. Much of the furniture at indoor park facilities is often worn and in need of replacement. As infill development continues, the population pressure on the same park facilities will increase with it. The current Comprehensive Plan contains standards for evaluating the need for new parks, in acreage per number of residents served, and these standards are appropriate goals. In calculating these standards, the City has traditionally included school fields in the ratios. School fields are diminishing in acreage, through the redevelopment or reuse of some sites, addition of portable classrooms and child care programs, and the fields are not always available to the general public. Policy C: Maintain and/or enhance all existing park facilities, and seek opportunities to develop new parks to meet the growing needs of residents and employees of Palo Alto. Policy D: Preserve all open spaces and make improvements only to those preserves that are consistent with the goals of conservation and protection of the natural environment. Program 2: Use standards of the National Recreation and Parks Association to determine where new park facilities are to be recommended. The standards are to be applied as guidelines and are as follows: Neighborhood parks: Neighborhood parks should be at least two acres in size, although sites as small as half an acre may be needed as supplementary facilities. The standard used will be to have a maximum service area radius of one-half mile, and two acres of park for each 1,000people. District parks: District parks will be at least five acres in size. The standard used will be to have a maximum service area radius of one mile, and two acres of park for each 1,000 people. Policy E: Provide park facilities within suitable walking distance for residents and employees within the urban portion of Palo Alto. Program 3: Study and recommend methods of financing improved park maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction of new parks where needed, including both public and private financing. Program 4: Incorporate consideration of potential park sites, where needed, in Coordinated Area Plans. CMR:119:96 Page 9 of 13 Civic, Communit).’, and Cultural Centers and Libraries A. Existing Facilities In addition to the general need for facility expansion and modernization, facilities need to feel welcoming to the public. Many of our public buildings were not originally designed to have a "sense of place". They work well for those who arrive with a specific purpose, but do not function well as impromptu gathering space for the community. Just as the Civic Center Plaza and lobby were recently rearranged to provide more welcoming community space, other community facilities would benefit from landscaping and interior lobby improvements. It is envisioned that "centers" will be retrofitted to include community spaces through time as they are subject to remodeling and maintenance. One such remodeling has already occurred through public/private partnership with the Children’s Theater expansion program. In post-Prop 13 California, schools are increasingly cutting back on non-scholastic programs. As they do, the need for these activities through other channels increases. As school age children with single- or two-income families move upward into middle and high schools, there is more and more need for supervision and programming at the older youth level. Electronic communication and mobile outreach should be part of the rethinking of all community services and facilities. Changing demands are likely to include the need for centers for electronic communication for segments of the community otherwise unable to have this access. This is true at all community facilities, but will be particularly true for libraries. For libraries, facili~ planning efforts should occur in conjunction and partnership with the PAUSD library system and neighboring cities in order to avoid duplication and to enhance the services. The current need for additional parking at many facilities is noted by staff. This need may be eased through the use of local shuttle (refer to policies related to Transportation, Local Shuttle). A shuttle system would also respond well to the needs of seniors and youths. Walking and biking can be improved through re-landscaping for improved circulation and connections. There are instances where additional parking may prove to be necessary. B. Cultural, Child Care and Other Social Service Concepts There are emerging service concepts, responding to contemporary issues, which may or may not be possible within existing facilities. State and County sources continue to warn cities that services traditionally provided at their level are being reduced and!or eliminated. Local discussions about a "Family Resource Center" as an opportunity for service providers to consolidate information and referral in one location, is one idea responding to social service needs. The "Teen Center" has provided a safe community space for Palo Alto young people. CMR:119:96 Page 10 of 13 As young people gain independence and mobility earlier, this type of space is likely to be needed in other places throughout Palo Alto. The need for a homeless service center in the North County area has been long documented. With current trends continuing, there will be more and more people living without permanent shelter in Palo Alto and Santa Clara/San Mateo counties as the next decade unfolds. Many are in need of services, and the City should participate in a regional effort to address this issue. At the same time, the City should advocate for mental health and substance abuse programs and facilities at the County and State level. A Performing Arts Center and/or gallery space have been the subject of discussion as both economic and cultural programs for Palo Alto. The City’ lacks a center which meets modem performing arts requirements, and the historic facilities now used are difficult to retrofit to meet those contemporary requirements. The need for child care is high in Palo Alto, with long waiting lists documented at all of the available centers. As the number of adults of child-bearing age, infants, pre-school children, and school age children trend upward, the demand for convenient and quality local facilities increases. The market is competitive, institutional sites are competed for by many other higher profit uses in Palo Alto, and the ability, keep pace with demand is apparently not occurring. Large new development projects and the cumulative effect of changing demographics and infill housing redevelopment will continue to create need for these facilities. Goal 2: Community facilities and services in Palo Alto will meet present and emerging needs. Policy F: Facilities should allow for more flexible use of civic, community and library space. Program 5: In planning community facilities, consider the needs for flexibility and adaptability to changing community demands and regional cooperation and efficiencies. Program 6: In planning community facilities, the City’s historic structures and sites will be inventoried and preserved. Changes to them will be considerate of the need to preserve them as historic landmarks, to modify them for contemporary use, but always within the standards of historic preservation adopted by the City Council. Program 7: While planning community facilities and in Coordinated Area Plans, multi- modal access to community facilities and parks will be evaluated and, wherever possible, facilitated. CMR:119:96 Page 11 of 13 Policy G: Maintain a coordinated approach to families, children, youth and senior services in concert with private and non-profit sectors. Program 8: Support and promote the provision and coordination of comprehensive child care and family services. Program 9: Support and promote the provision and coordination of comprehensive senior services. Goal 3: Facilitate the maintenance of an adequate supply of child care services in Palo Alto. Coordinate with PA USD in achieving this goal Policy H: The City will consider including a comprehensive assessment of the impact on the supply of child care services from proposed housing and nonresidential development in the planning and development approval process. Policy I: City staff will use the Child Care Master Plan as a set of guiding principles in evaluating the impacts of new development and redevelopment projects on the supply and demand of child care in Palo Alto. This plan will be amended and updated to include standards for evaluating impacts. Policy J: The City will coordinate a regional approach in addressing issues of homelessnesso ALTERNATIVES As an alternative to accepting the staff recommended goals, policies and programs in this report, the Council can 1) partially accept them, deleting or modifying those that are not desirable, and!or 2) provide direction to staff and request revisions and/or new goals, policies and programs. FISCAL IMPACT The recommendations in this report have potential to cause a significant fiscal impact. It is anticipated that the policies and programs for Community Facilities will be implemented over a long-range time frame. Implementation tools and financing options will need to be explored. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The environmental impacts of all goals, policies and programs will be the subject of a Master Environmental Report in Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Process. CMR:119:96 Page 12 of 13 STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Any goals, policies or programs recommended by the City Council for inclusion in the draft plan will be included in the Draft Comprehensive Plan, Phase II! of the process for preparing a new plan. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Memo to the City School Liaison Committee, dated October 24, 1995 Maps (Council Members only) Historic Resources Board Human Resources Commission Planning Commission Child Care Advisory. Committee CPAC Cultural Center Guild Friends of the Chitdrens Theatre Friends of the Libraw Palo Alto Unified School District CMR:119:96 Page 13 of 13 PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum Date:October 24, 1995 To:City/School Liaison Committee ~.1, 7From:Nancy Lytle, Chief Plallll~. g Official. /’ --’"~..~-" Subject:Policies and Programs Related to City/School Partnership To be Included in the Draft Comprehensive Plan The purpose of this memo is to instigate discussion of future policies for the Draft Comprehensive Plan. On November 16, 1995, the City Council is expected to re-initiate their review of the Governance and Community Services chapter of the Program and Policies document for the Draft Comprehensive Plan, 1995 to 2010. In reference to this review, the City received a letter from PAUSD dated July 5, 1995 (Attachment A), in which it was requested that this chapter of the Comprehensive Plan was lacking references to specific modern parmership relationships between the two entities. In t_his letter it was requested that the new plan include references to: 1) the City/School Liaison Committee; 2) the Lease-Covenant Agreement; 3) health and human relations; 4) youth safety and summer activities; 5) libraries; and 6) field maintenance, among any others that might have been overlooked. While staff agrees that these parmership opportunities and relationships should be added to the Draft Plan as programs, staff is concerned that the broader policy issues which should guide joint agency planning into the next 15 to 20 years have also not been adequately characterized. City/School Liaison Committee 10/24/95 Page 2 Review of Current ,Comprehensive Plan ,Policy Framework To aid the City/School Liaison Committee in understanding the derivation of staff’s concern, we have attached a copy of the current Comprehensive Plan Element on Parks and Schools (Attachment B). In reviewing the current plan and comparing it to the draft Policy and Program document (Attachment C), staff has concluded that PAUSD may wish to go further in making recommendations on the Policy and Program document than it did in the July 5, 1995 letter. One theme for the future which has emerged from a variety of directions is that of "integrated land use, transportation and school facility planning’. This Schools and Parks Chapter (Attachment B), written over a decade ago, describes a different situation than exists today. It states that the District is going to experience continually declining enrollments throughout the 1980’s, which are projected to level off in the 1990’s. It describes a situation where the District is closing school sites. It makes no mention of the impacts of new housing development on district facilities. This description of the School District status must be updated in the new Comprehensive Plan, and the current Policy and Program document (Attachment C) does not accomplish that updated policy framework. PAUSD should participate in drafting policy and program language to update the framework for the Draft Comprehensive Plmn. Enrollment Projections From PAUSD reports, enrollment figures have not leveled off in the 1990’s, but have increased modestly each year and have returned to 1982 levels. Is district enrollment anticipated to continue to increase at the same modest rate it has throughout the early and mid-1990’s, or is it now anticipated to level off at current levels ? Recognizing the increases in the 1990’s, what does PAUSD now expect will happen with enrollment into the 15-year time frame of the new Comprehensive Plan? (Refer to Attachment D, Table 6 "History of 1 lth Day Enrollment by Grade, 1981-95) Impacts of New Residential Development Two relatively significant residential infill projects are currently undergoing public review: the Hyatt Cabana residential redevelopment and the Sand Hill corridor project. The District has indicated in correspondence to the City that these projects, and other smaller infill projects, will impact the schools. PAUSD is now following, per memo dated October 2, 1995, Attachment E, "Developer Fee Study," a policy of negotiating with individual developers through the EIR process to obtain relief from the impacts of their projects on district facilities and staffing. However, there are no current policies in the City’s Comprehensive Plan to support the District in this approach. Furthermore, relying on the EIR process has not been upheld by the courts. The District might.want City/School Liaison Committee 10/24/95 Page 3 to ask the City to draft policy language to address the socio-economic impacts of residential development on schools to be included in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. (Refer to Attachment F, article titled "Special Report: School Mitigation," and Attachment G, "McCutchen Update, Court Limits CEQA Requirements.") Through the CEQA process and public scoping sessions, staff is finding that new infill residential development will have an effect on enrollment projections. The two projects now in entitlement process, will contribute another approximately 350 students, more than what the district has been experiencing in annual enrollment increase. One other infill project of this magnitude is anticipated in the next decade, should the Palo Alto Medical Foundation move to Urban Lane. The City’s commitment to construction of new housing for families has been recently reaffu’med by the Council. This policy is likely to produce other smaller infill redevelopment projects which will have a cumulative effect of increasing district enrollment. The Comprehensive Plan background report, titled "City Profile" revealed that two segments of the Palo Alto population, indicators of rising school enrollment, increased in the 1990 census -- preschool children and persons of childbearing age. The cumulative effects of all housing anticipated will be the subject of an Environrnental Impact Report during Phase III of the Comp Plan effort, to be initiated in early 1996. Concurrent with EIR preparation, the District should evaluate and ask "What will be the impact of all new housing construction and demographic changes envisioned to 2010 have on the District enrollment projections and advanced planning’? School Facilities and Crowding The current Comprehensive Plan characterizes the main issues of future City/School cooperation to be related to the closure of school sites and re-use of those sites. This language appears to be outdated and in need of re-examination. If current facilities are being impacted by increasing enrollments, will new sites need to be re-opened in the future ? Are current facilities at maximum capacity ? What are the options ? Adding portable classrooms at existing sites may be a preferred option due to flexibility. If so, how do additional classrooms and needed transportation of children from beyond immediate neighborhood boundaries impact traffic safety at those campuses where portables are added? (Refer to letter, Attachment H, PTA, Cathy Kroymann, February 25, 1995) City/School Liaison Committee 10/24/95 Page 4 Bond Measure The community recently supported the School District by overwhelming passage of a bond measure to retrofit and improve facilities. Does this bond measure necessitate any future support from the City in terms of policies and programs? It is not necessary that these sample issues and policy questions, or others raised by the Committee, be resolved prior to the November 16, 1995 Council meeting. However, City staff recommend that the policy-makers raise the relevant issues and questions, either those above, or any others that might be prompted by the above discussion. If additional policy language needs to be added to frame the programs in the Draft Comprehensive Plan, now would be an appropriate time to recommend those policies. At minimum, it is desirable to raise issues and questions so that they can be responded to jointly by City and School District staff with draft policy language during Phase III of the Comp Plan preparation, at the direction of the City Council. Attachments June Fleming Bernie Strojny Ken Schreiber Ariel Calorme Debbie Cauble Jim Brown Walter Friedman P:\SHAREWIEMOCITY.WPD ~p PALO ALTO ~’ IFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTACHMENT A .25 CHURCHILl AVENUE ¯ PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 9430~Telephone: 1415) ~29-3737 ¯ FAX: [415) 329-3803 ~BOA R,.D.~OF’EDUCATIO~........... _,, __ ........." J uly 5, 1995 City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Council Members: Shortly the City Council will be reviewing the Governance section of the Comprehensive’Plan. On behalf of the Board of Education, I’m urging you to revise this section so that it reflects the high value all of us place on City/school distric~ cooperation. The Council’s representatives on the CitylSchool Liaison Committee asked that we write a letter of this nature. The Committee itself, the Lease-Covenant Agreement, health and human relations, youth safety and summer activities, libraries, and field maintenance are just a few examples of the close ties between the City and the school district. As we look to ways to ensure that government agencies work together in a cooperative manner to provide services and control expenditures wherever possible, it seems important to us that the Comprehensive Plan feature our partnership in positive and affirming ways. Examples include the introductory vision statement and more prominent attention to specific cooperative ventures in various subparts of the document. Since I know we agree on the value of our partnership, all that is needed are stron9references in the Governance section to specific partnership activities. Sincerely, DON WAY // President Board of Education SCHOOLS AND PARKS 5 Schools and Parks ATTACHMENT B 37 Schools and parks are combined into one section of the Comprehensive Plan because their natures and uses are closely related. The City’s 1969 Parks and Recreation Policy Study recognized the use of school facilities for recreational and leisure activities. It designated elementary school playgrounds as. neighborhood parks, and junior and senior high school play fields as district parks. School grounds are an essential and intrinsic part of the City’s total park system. The importance of this relationship became_more evi- dent during the late 1970s when the school district closed eight schools in Palo Alto. School sites provide special facil- ities not available in parks, including baseball diamonds, tennis courts, track and field facilities, swimming pools, and gymnasiums. During this same period, patterns of use have changed. Because of a revived interest in physical fitness, more adults are Using facilities individua!ly and through organized athletic leagues. Palo Alto residents also seem to be choosing recreational facilities closer to home to save fuel. Thus, while schools have closed, the demand on their special facilities has increased, presenting the following problem for the school district and the City: Declining enrollment and budget restrictions have caused the school district to look to surplus school properties to fund educa- tional programs. These surplus sites could be leased or sold for residential, commercial, or other private uses if they are not leased or sold to a public entity. Lease or sale will make recreational lands and facilities less available and residential development would increase the demand for recreational uses. Finding a solution to this conflict which serves the best interests of the total community will be a City priority in the 1980s. Schools The Palo Alto Unified School District includes the Palo Alto planning area and a portion of Los Altos Hills. In the 1980-81 school year, the district operated 14 elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high schools. In the previous three years, the district had closed one-third of its schools at each level. The school district’s buildings were constructed to han- dle a much larger number of students than is projected for the 1980s. The district’s peak enrolIment was 15,375 students in the 1967-68 school year. Enrollment had declined to 9442 students by September, 1980. The district forecasts a continued decline during the 1980s to fewer than 7000 students by 1990, after which enrollment is ex- pected to level off. The decline results from national trends toward smaller families, relatively little new residential development in the district, an aging population, and very high-priced housing which encourages households with two wage-earners and fewer children. With declining enrollment, it is likely more schools will be closed after 1980. Palo Alto’s Charter provides for the election, member- ship, and term of office of the members of the Board of Education and for the appointment of the Superintendent of Schools. The district, however, is an independent entity that levies a property tax. Until the passage of the Jarvis- Gann Initiative in June, 1978, local revenue generated by that property tax met most of the district budget needs. In 1979-80, 60 per cent of the school budget was met by state revenue and 35 per cent by local revenue. As a result of Jarvis-Gann, the district is unable to seek more local tax revenue. All public school sites in Palo Alto are zoned Public Facilities. This zoning district allows governmental, educa- tional, and hospital uses. The school district may lease school sites for other uses such as community centers and day care centers when a use permit is granted by the zoning administrator. Wit" few exceptions, the sale or tong-term PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT 69-70 70-7t 7%72 72-73 73-74 74-75 75 -76 76-77 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-8~ 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-88 85-86 86 -87 87-88 88"89 89-90 NUMBER OF STUDENTS I " I 1 " " 1~3.os3 ..... !1 ....1 12.686 ..... : .......I t " -1~2.s09 " 1 I t "l ;I 7.949 : :I I ..16.~87 ~ 6.707 ~ 6,440 ....... I I. I ~.3o6 ,. GRADES GRADES 7-8 GRADES 9-12 Declining school enrollments can be attributed to two major factors: declining family size and lack of significant expansion of family housing. 38 ATTACHMENT B COMPREHENSIVE PLAN lease of those sites for housing, for example, wi!l require a change in zoning, which is a City responsibility. The closing of eight schools since 1976 has had, and future closings will have, an immediate effect on residents with children in the school system and a general impact upon the City. The City must take a different approach to school closings from the district’s. The school district is attempting to respond to enrollment and. budget realities wh~e assuring a high-quality educational program. The City must look at the effects upon outdoor and indoor services and programs it offers at school sites, the potentia! uses of the sites of closed schools, and the possible effects on the neighborhoods, traffic, and safety. The objective of the Schools section is that re.use of a school site be compatible with the neighborhood and with the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1 : Cooperate and actively develop with the school district a long-range plan that identifies school sites or portions of sites to be preserved for community ownership or use. Program 1: Establish a process with the school district to decide on and implement the re-use of specific closed school sites. This process should have full citizen participation through- out. Policy 2: Give priority to affordable housing, parks, com- munit.v facilities, and existing community uses in consider- ing the future of closed school sites. Program 2: Evaluate school sites for affordable housing and park, cultural, and recreational facilities. Program 3: Cooperate with the school district to find ways to maintain public use of closed school sites where appropriate and feasible. Under a 1981 law, school districts may sell or lease, and other public agencies may buy or lease, up to 30 per cent of surplus schod! sites at costs substantiaily below market for recreation and open space use. The City should take full advantage of the new law to acquire surplus school properties. A decision by the school district as to whether a site should be sold or leased is an important factor in evaluating potential uses. The district might want to keep some school sites for future educational use in case school enrollment rises. For retained sites, the length of leases will be an im- portant factor in determining the practical uses. The most practical and acceptable potential uses for closed school sites include housing, parks, and community facilities. The City’s recreation, cultural, and leisure services depend on many of the school district’s special facilities including athletic fields, swimming pools, gymnasiums, tennis courts, and theaters. The City provides playground and sports programs at many school grounds and buildings. As the district closes schools and reduces services, the finan- cial burden for the City is increased. More pressure is placed on City facilities such as the libraries, community centers, CultUral Center, Children’s Theater, Community Theater, and Junior Museum. These are now nearing capacity use during afternoon and evening hours. In addition to these organized activities, some school sites, especially those far from a City park and those with special facilities, provide’ key open space and recreation land for the neighborhood and the City. They also serve an important social identity function for their neighborhoods. Parts of the Cubberley, Terman, Ventura, Ortega, and Gar- land sites have high open space and recreational priority, based on City and community use of closed school sites and policies of the 1969 Parks and Recreation Policy Study. The City has made some decisions toward acquiring at least some of the land at these sites for open space and community facilities and should similarly consider other sites scheduled for re-use. Closed school sites also provide an opportunity to meet some of the critical need for housing. Use of school sites for housing is not expected to overcrowd the remaining schools, given the declining enrollment of the district and the smaller families who would reside in the new housing. On many sites, it may be possible to provide both housing and open space and community facilities. To accomplish this, trade-offs between public and private ownership should be explored at each site considered for re-use. goal in !97 ective is based on the parks and recreation Open Space Element, which was adopted amended in 1973. park facilities conveniently located and to serve the needs of all residents anity. Existing Facilities The 1969 Parks an, recreation facilities parks, which also includes grounds; district parks, high school playfields, and related facilities such as the Museum. The study established req and district parks: Neighborhood parks: At least two acres, as small as half an acre may be needed as facilities. Maximum service area radius of one. two acres for each 1000 people. :creation Policy Study grouped ree categories: neighborhood !ini-parks and school play- includes middle and C’ft.v-wide parks and Center and Junior 9r nei~borhood sites :mentary If mile, District parks: At least five acres, maximum serv radius of one mile, two acres for each 1000 Parks should serve the active and passive recreation needs of residents, rather than simply meet arbitrary size, SCHOOLS AND PARKS . I I~ I I ATTACHMENT B ~9 00! & <<<<~<<<< ~ E ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT E BOARD OF EDUCA’i-iON Attachment: i~formation PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date:10/2/95 TO: FROM: James R. Brown, Superintendent Walter Freeman, Business Manager SUBJECT:Developer Fee Study BACKGROUND The consultant’s draft report, which was presented earlier, dern-on~trates that the District is entitled to collect a fee on new commercial and residential development and expansion as one funding source to accommodate the District’s enrollment growth. If enrollment growth continues at the rate which we have experienced in recent years, the recently approved bonds funds will not provide sufficient space. Other funding alternatives must be considered. Developer fees is one of several financing options identified by the Fiscal Policy Team and the Schools for the 21st Century Committee. The Fiscal Policy Team recently reviewed the concept of the developer fee and reaffirmed its recommendation that the option be given serous consideration because of the revenue it would generate when applied to large developments, ir~ particular, and, to a lesser degree, when applied to smaller projects. At recent meetings the Board members discussed the consultant’s draft report and identified a number of considerations about implementing the fee and, if implemented, within what parameters. It appears that the Board’s focus is likely to be on larger commercial and residential develcpments rather than on smaller, individual residential or commercial projects and remodels. ~’~e Board will continue to participate actively in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process through which larger developments are approved and is receptive to negotiating agreements with developers of such projects as an altemative to the statutory developer fees. It is also clear that,, the Board believes it is important to take whatever length of time may be necessary to make a full/ L~nforrned ~decision regarding the developer fee. " " i have asked the consultant to update the study, incorporating the most current enrollment projection which is being revised by the District’s demographer. Total enrollment is up by more than 100 students over the projection made in the spring. A number of other districts in the area also report that their enrollments are higher than anticipated. NEXT STEP Until the final report is available recommendations cannot be developed. Given the complexities and the need to assess a number of alternatives, further Board discussions will be necessary. This report is presented for information. No Board discussion is necessary at this time. 1 SPE.Ca~ Pvgd~K~. SCHOOL California’s Iucal er,’nnenLs -- lncludJn~ counties at~d somecities -- are thean,: ,Jr land-use plannh~2 T,n.% zealousl: guard pc;~er t, regulate use~ becau>_, i:s t?,...+ p.u’ae,-’.’,;i toe! t,’-.e.? t~:eir d:x;.’+ +,,;:! ATTACHMENT F :..-_I2 For the past decade, the qu~tion of school mitigation In Calltor. nia h~,s sought a pre.cafious balance among s~hool districts, cities and countit~, devcloper~, and the state government. Se~ead times. state legMation has sought to "fix" the problem. Because o1" dizz). ing changt~ in law, finance, ~d demographics, floweret, the school mkigation problem ires not remained "fixed." Indeed, the whole issue ~eem~ just as clouded todd" as It did a decade LLke many curr~.nt issues In local ~:ommunkies throughout Calf tocnia, {he school miUgation problem has iLB nmLs in the. o~ Propositiun 13. ~he 1978 initiative that, c~t, property taxes t ~ o-thirds. It;, [h~ wake of Proposition 13. citie~ and counuc’s around xuJte scrambled ~or funds ~ especialiy ~unds ~nr ¢ommuniB’ in~as- tnlctu~ ~ where,at t.h~, cauld find them. This sean:h for l’~nda led naturally {u real estate developers, aver whom local Bovcrn- ment.s had considerable leverage through the planning process. Thus. local ~(}ver’nmentG throuN]oul, the state embarked on ,,{’,e exaction programs, im;osing de:oh:preen: lees cn nc’a 1eeL5 fur e,,~rytmn~ tronl ruadh tu sewers and park, t,: I: ~asnt long berur~ Calilornias sclmol di:sUlCIS alSO iooldn~ ta de’,elopc,"s fur lw.lp in financing ,1~ sch~ml ,bc~col disLrkts ,a, ere rlot Spccl~calt:, ,autho~Zed b.v Statc lay, b~ !.~,.L .such tees. but man) .l~.g,’,g workln~ ~ith (~l:es and count:as :’.,,..-.!opment pralcL£ when it v, as apprmcd. ~ClX×;I dibtrlck5 also took ad\;lnbage O~ OthC’." lil.dLtgR~ L:s.7,.~ Trle Mc!h~-R(m.,~ /a,a. ," Itch permitted th, uT.-~or.t cecal:c:: ;, infrastructure taxing disL.ct.s, was passed in 15£2 and man: -vc2~cl di.qtruts helped dc~c!oper.~ .set up Melio-Reos .M.ir;., CRlC$ alld ~. ountle5 a1_~c took the M,,-’tlH-RnnS rour.e to road-:. :25,~ bea,nning in 1982. til~" au~te estabhshed a bu=;d.;~ pr,~ram 7~’,lde State aid for school constructmn. uu~ tees 0n IR:~ development remained a lmpular source o[ con- st:m lion radarS. Feal’in~ thai the) would IN’COllie lhe r:,ancie."s :ast t’t.’sort [ur new school construction, the state’s homehuildt-ra ,~en~ to the Legislature for help. The result Bus the 19.88 scho,.’.l tee 3’a. The l;pa expressly auttmrized school districts to lex~ fees -.;rectl.v on dc\elupem. (Government t’..de .~5’c~(ib’.H ! [~gt the 2So ~xtncted school tees to Sl.:St~ per sfluarc loot Ip;us ’,lEg incrcasL.sl nn resident:.’.! protects a,d 25 cents per square. -,,. ,m commercial and imh:strial pr0iccts. IFm;e:mn,-’nt ~550c.’5./ The tees were e\pected tn raise about 30< of L’, published nlunthl.~ h\ l’(~r: ,~/llIon Assu~iab,b 1275 Sunn) crest :\~cnue ~rmuru. CA 93003-1212 005 6 12- 7~K~q V, illinm FUll 0n. Editor & Fuhlism.r Morris .Se.~ In,re. 5"chirr Edi{o;" NEWS(:;)ntr;buting Eu’im~ I~SX kn. ATTACHMENT F \Vllson announced [hal R planned to discourage the use of state bond i~ues for all kinds of infr-aat~’ucture projccks, including school construction, In 1992. bo~ Wil~n and ~he ~lsla~are supponcd a /ion~ amendmen~ to pe~l[ pa~ge nf l~al ~hool bond~ with a simple maiori~ vo~, ra~her than a ~’~hi~s vote. ~at pmpo~l. ACA 6, went on ~e ballot ~ Novem~r 1993 as ~oposifion l?0. On the ~a~ d~" of the IB92 l~Blatlve ~ion..hnwever. another. relat~ bl~ was pa~ed. SB 1287 ~c~ lhc mxOmum ~chool fee ~om $1.65 to $2.65 ~r squa~ toot for residentia! and al~ appendS’ ~l~ ~e Mira/Ha~/Murrie~ llne of ca~s. It went Into effect at the ~nin~ of 1993 but confined language smtinf that it would ~ ~al~ if PruposRlon 170 [ailed. Many critics complained that SB 1287 was con~sing and poorly drafted. In December of 1992. the L~slmive Counsel issued e~:’.~n skating that /l~c bill did ~ot ~:al [i~e Mira/N¢~rt/$[urrit’~ [me of cases, as manF of ius supponc~ had claimed. ~us. it ~en~ into e~ec~ in 1993 amld a cloud of ccmfusion. Ma~,’ school c~l,~ted the $2.65 and al~u sued. claiming that they Stdl coul~ pursue additional mitl~aUon. ~er a cunfasin~ year. SB 12~7 repealed in November I~3 when ~oposition 170 ~:~s ovc~he!m- m~iv dcf~ by the State’s Meanwhile. a~cr yea~ of declinin~ ~tcr approval, a Sl billion s’~:e sch~m! ~ond w~s na~’~l~ flefcated m Juno I~94. Thc Lc~.~- ldtxre fl~d ~ov. %i~..,m subsequently chesv nu[ t~ place another .~.....,l ~on~ -- or. indcc~, an/. pr~pose~ bond lssu~ ~, 199~ ba!loL ~us. nine yea~ aRer the School Facd~t~ Ac! ~as fl~t pa~d t~.c s~le has ~anuall} no school bond mun~> available ~or hw,d d:i,- ti~aever, a fe~ si~s Of ~luIion a~ ap~nng. M,,~ and more Ie~ d,~put~ a~ ~m~ ~ttl~ out of court ¯ the ~c of S3.Y~-S4 r~r ~ua~ fool [~ml sch~l ~st~c~ a~ wor~n~ ~th mc~ cloth on I~ ~nd ~u~. and as a ~uk [he lcx~! ~hool ~nds is ~sing. ~d m~y ~hool dLs~c~ and loca! ~- c:~men~ ~ using MelI~R~ ~st~c~s morn ~uently l~cause ef a lg~I C~lifomia Sup~me Court ~lin~ (G~ [)e~e]upmcnr ,qu~erior Coup, 4 Cal.4;h. 911 (1991)1, ~hich spect~caI~ M.~Roos ~x~ nm net "sNclN ~x~" under ~posit~on an:h all ~ s~ of ch~,.., ho~~ver. ~e ~hool mih~atien 1978: Pa~ag~ of ~c-~sh~cn la 1982: Mello-Rfx3s law p~.~es, perm~ng ~ diat#~ and local governments t~ ~et up spe~ ~,"~ distr:,c-~ to finar, ca infrastruct’,jr e. First mate school t:x~nd appears on ~ baJIot, passing with 50.5% of tha vote. 1986: Legislature passes au*J’,ori.zes sch<~ dm"a",c’ts to impe..ae_ de~k>pment lees direc~ Ixrt tim&s those fees to $1.50 per square foot ~ius ccst-~f-lMng ,tames) for single-fami- ly homes. S.tate promises to be "~ir, ancier of ~ast resort,." Many school districts sue irnmedia~y. 1988: 1989: 1990: 1991" 1992: 1994: In Ju~, ~Rers re~ s~ schoc4 N’,~ ~,a~ ~ ~ ~ t~. Legislature dod’~n~s ,’~ ~ r,m~’~,¢ .~-x4 ~-~x~. ATTACHMENT F Let& [ace i~.: Sch~fl dismct.s are tram Mare. lor.ai RovemmenLs are tram Venus. Most at the time the" don’l, tmdem’tand each other and ’ don’[, ~2~2II1 [al ~,~[ ~,3. ’l’llat’S one ~$~n ~,h~ ~2hOo[ rntt!~tmnl~as been such a tough i~ue In California over the I~St 10 yeats. Y~ ~ and Venus are hal; ,so [a~ apart a!ter at1. Sehc~l officials mad l~al ~avemment planne~ have a lot in comznon. ’rne~ are ,sawed cor~’ between state law and local political pre~su.~e~. would mu~ rather ~It d(m-a in advance at the stall leve! and be, an woddng tl’gngs out ,so the}’ are not btindslded nt @ public h~. here are a le’v," tips on bt~. each sldc sees ~e other. ~me tips wcrc pmpar,~d by V411iam Ful~n. editar and pub~’~,r at Callfom1~ tl/22~ 6 L)~’eloDtnen~ Report. and Rob C~ri~’, a Schc~l bciliUe{; consul- I.~v. in Ventuna. \t"ha[ ~hool l’&vtr’iG.S Need_ to Know A~ut 1.Land-Use Planning Is Their Game, Not Yours l,a~-use decisi(ms have a pmf(mnd e~c-c: un fla~.re school enm~- n~cnt But like it or noL it’s a proce-=-~ that LS COntmllee by dues cour.ues ~ n,t by ~hool d~smcks. In [act. la:d us? LS pnRxabb smgl.- most Icah)usl.:. guided pr’e,.rrgat:;c u.r ~::t:~ and counues. saaF,,.~ U:e future or local commu.nJtiaq: it dem."rp_,nm m~ fi~ Uab~- t:..f t~e l~aJ ,vernments Lhemselves; at:d iL5 Ihe OGC til.lIl~ that hasnt bee,: dittltod or taken away [rum t~em b> S,~rmmemo. Toe ca::L ex’cect U~cm m listen to you if you du,:t rm~.-’,ect the fact "~’.".d-usc_ p~:,"ar.g is the;.- game. no;. ycum.. 2. There’s More to Life Than Schods C12~ and C0t.Lqti,L’s have te deal ~ith a ’,ast am, J’, n[ Co~!" ,,::::’., P:’:;blems ~;d bomeho’a, halance thettl ali ~,,g, a.,:.._, e-,rn ctl~e." -- ’,:,lee:: a cib cr count;, ~uses a l~a-a; Genera! Ran. tts usuaL: t-’cau~ or e.x~ma~ press ,ure or becau~ ~Q- arc b.aving tmubte t~ew o~ problems ~ ~pedalb. road.~..,,ewem, and otller£r’."rastructu~ that o~n competez v, ith schools i~r lmuted struction and miI4gatlon dullars. P.~cause these concen~s are thor legal re.yponsibihl,v, thcF’re likely Io p!ace t:.i~,hest pr!urit? 3. ~,a.qne.’s Don’t Uke C<ses; That’s Why They’re Pia~,ne.~ Mo~t r:,t:h~x~i o~cia!s kmow that a t~e=,te,’j .public hKanng iS not place m make demands and e_’wegt to ~t what you ~allt. Emnncr.s .:2c re~ultLqg d~isicn mas’ be contusing. ~a~e. or lust plain P.:e s,.-m~c is true b~ the l~at pluming a~. W~en a city or county appro~t~ a ne~ sutxh~i~icn, that ’.:-:u~y i’oUo\vs a ~,, ot plarming pollci~ {:ontam~ ill t.he Oenera~t~:Jt have taken ye~’s m develop. The best ~a.~ to ~t ~imt )nu want io pmtmipate iu the plamt£ng pnx’css [ram the b~ynning, rather than s,h,)v, iaN up at the end and 4. Feed the Information Monster Rcmemb,:r U:at information is power. In most ca.’.;~., the hxal. gin. eminent ~’dt htm an outside pl~m>g consulamt to do the t~hrdcN ~:;~ ax~iat~ ~th the ~neml Plan. "l~t~au,g5 let mIonuauon a~mt the ~tentl~ ~mNct ASDcci~ll} because t~ey often prepare tile plan’s cn~ir.nmentat :n~rt ~,~ as ~ell}. ~-my ~ueutb ~stra~ t~au~ ...nt~t s a~ slmv or unresponsive in pt’t~i0tna hfformation lhe) >here th~ ~L~tl. CtvC them the ~ot~natio~ U/~ n~. ~qd lhc ~on- A wTips 0n Get gA10r g sulm.t.s pa~, more artenUon ua you and yOLE" 5. Know What You Want 70 got what you want you have to know ~nat you ’aanL Thi~ require~ thinkir,,.g Ixg’ond just mi#gation arno~ts to r,’,.e qu~tbn how rniti~atton qu~.hm.s should be apprrx~ch~ ~,iu~,Lr. tt:.e c~ntex’: raome~xty oil’s plan~ p~. For example..you nay sLmply a do/1ar amounL Bur, tile lo~al planners re,D prefer a set of potici~.: tha.t slx~i!7 the preparaUon ot mltlgatlon plans [mm (~tt~er triers ~ltlli.n their jmi~ctlon and lay out the standar’Js ar.d Rr’aphJc aSSILIIptloIL~ Ix) be followed Lq pmp, ar’:4 ~.qse p!ans, g.n.ow a~.anoc v..I,,tt tu ~xp,ml. ~u:d v, tu,t you can Uve 51~,at l,o:al Officials Shotdd Know About. ~h~! Distrk~ 1. Schools Are Their Life ~hoel d.istnO.s have broad conm:u::it:, ")Dcn’t ="."-~"’ Miracle_~ "~YSLL"IlC tb..3: ~h~.w:l 9l~c’:~S -- <,-, :~’: 3.’2 7-"..:_~. -- 2 : : . :-, pldeb- unders~’:d )o~ notny~ p~rsnncd. D:..e’.."~ up ar:rl pm~bp.. \~o,ft take tte tLmu tc m;,s:er t::.e pL,’.~’2 ~’r:, .~.,’, :7~ V,3’, ’,uu ~(Ju’.d ’d.ke. Iz [has ,~a;. tRY. r’c got .~’ "’""~’" ","~ an;r’.,. e~,:."’"u- m,-~.: or: the o[.~e:’ 3. Overreaching to a Perceived Cns;s is Gccc :~ too oRen. ,,a-hoel o~cta!s amt ~act ~ a ~C~ or, sis..M that ~U;:. line ~ic~ -- like. {or ex~pl~, i~m~;n~ doll’[ put it i~. ~e ~t ~ay u~ a~e{d.~ ~:g :{, ::a~:.’a::~= :~. :.: 4. t:s Okay to Be Cannibals Bec, a,,.,se We’re A.I 1.,~.. the star.c has ripped Og City. and ccu:’.~, r’e.:’e2t:.>_ :o bail thcsta~e’s s~hoel Obb.2aL~unx ~e:s. the clues .,,:d c~:u.-.:;.~c :,:s.’. scr.....’. thing. But undt, rsumd that the ,~’l:~x~ls d:r!..n’t v,’c,=..~..a,.~" ...... -- ~" " tlllle la:~ ~t past ~s L, ksue and stop bla2;:mg each other/or ’~:a: hap pens in ,qacramento. Them a~ markv t~ues ~r.a: hx:,t governments and ~hools need u~ work on tog.",ether -- no ms:’2: aha: happens a’. tM 5. There’s No Free Lunch From Sacrame."tc The Slate has created a mess but can", e;e2 t\ 25 C’a:: ;,mnL,:.’r.5 so don’t assume that 11 can ~1~ e .~ourstou.r clb’ atu,me) may c!~11 that .~,~u den’: .’-.a~,, a: :, :eg:a ,.’.k,%:- [it}~l la~ rP.’.tigatc .gch,×,l capac!~ p~,fl,, ..... beca.:_~ at ~ a;! :~. st,]::? s re-spunsib~hb.. But doll’t !trek Dr an.} si-’,’,,t, tL\,-’s b:::: ’,~’e t:.q,it,.l~mra.mcnto vdll never be able U, come up ~ith m.cr:,,.’3 t,." ."::Ida[! t’.:,. ~hoels in the state. And that n:c..m.,, the .’,,-h~l dls:nCL~ am ::,,: go:::_." to Stop lx~thrring }0U about .vhool n,2~au,:,, r:e m..a::e: ~Rat .~,,u. city altorn,.’3’ sa)s. ~ (",’D’ . ATTACHMENT F 5 School DL~az’ICLs Need_ to Know About L44,~ P~-- 1. Land-Use Planning Is Their Game, Net Yours land-use d~:isions have a profound e~cvt un hit ,ure ~hool e:tr~;U- n!t:it. But Ikke it or not. it’s a prvx:e-~ that ks controlled by cities a~:d coundes m o,Jt by school dJstncts. In fact, lan.d u.~ g pmbabb the single most Icalousty gua..,’dcd pmrv,4atlve or dtim and count:~. snaF,c.~ U:e flZule of local com.mtmltiu’-4: it determ.,nm the l=i,v’aJ’.:..f the lc<aI ¢,vemmenks themselves; and tts the one flung hasnt been ditu~d or token away {rum them by SJrramemo. "fct: ca~:L e..~ tilcm tn listen to >uu if you dul1"t rt~p~t the{act fund-use pluming ~s the? game. not youm. 2. There’s More to Life Than Schocls ;~<nadon. tr~c c(m~tion, de:n(~prdc ~>en a ci~’ or county ~us~ a hmal General Plan. ~ts :~gau~ ot ~x~m~ p~ or ~au~ [h~ am ~vi,~ trouble ~a ~eg o~ problems ~ m~i~ ma~. ~’em. and other ca ~t~ctum ~at ,~n comk*~ ~i~ ~hools for ~nut~ st~ction and mitigation dulla~. ~cause these ~oncen~s are thor d:mct l~al m~nsibili~}’, they’~ likely I0 plac~ ~ighest prtudb them. 3.F1anners Don’t Uke Crises; That’s Why They’re Mc~!. ra,ch~H ol~,cials kmow that a heated punic hearing is r, ct t!,.~ ;’!ace m m~e demands and ~xpeg~ to #t ~,hat you ~,all[. Em(.H~or, s mn high; l~.e b~,-u~l B uncler a Lot ol’ prv~,~u~ and tu~ia attention: and :,".e r~ult~lg de~:ision nlay h~ con.tusin& ~:.],.-~e. or iust plain ~’~ 2:e same L,~ true In the local pla~ming alena. \\’h,~.n a ci5 or county approw~ a ne~, sul×lJ;~sion, that :su~y follo~vs a .’~t of phmning pollcie~ con~¢d in Lhe (.~ncr31 Plan :hat have ~).ken .vein’s u} develop. The best aa.~ to ~t ~hat )m~ want Is :e pat~d~te hi ~e ~u~g p~x~ [ram the ~nni~{. rather thnn ~a,)~ uD at ~e end ~d -:’ Feed the Informatbn Monster Rcmemb,2r that i.n[ormatJoll is power. In most ca.,~:s, the k<al :mment ~i.!1 him an outside plam~g consultant to do the te-,’hnJcat ¯ ~)~ ax-.a’~-iau.~J ~ith the G4menl! Plan. ’|’P, esc ctmsultants are. ah~a)s :uHgm. Dr inlonnation ab~mt the ~tentiaJ impact e{ me Central Pl,m "spcciall.~ because the3 often prepare the plan’s en~ir,nmcntal ;::p~rt m~rt as ~ell), The mr freque, ttb- frustrated Ix’cau~ :;:encies are Sit)\\" Or unre.sponsi~e in prmiding hffdrmation tl~c.~ -.here th, e:,.- ~o2d. (.;lye them the info,~n:,tion theT need. and th,: con- sultant.5 pa~’ mole attenUon u~ you and )’our concern.% 5. Know What You Want To get what you want you have to know w,hat you wan,’.. 1ha5 reqtti~es ~inkirg beyond just ndogation amoants to ~e qumtlon ~H’ how rrdtigatlon qu~o~m shoed ~ app~ch~ ~i~ me ~ntex~ c[ ~me~ ~’s p~ p~. For t~ple, you m). S~nply ~-dn: a do~w ~uunL But ~e I~ plann~m m~ pm~er a ~ ot ~cim; thOt S~" ~e p~Uon or ~Uon pl&qs from oU;er &-~rml ~> I~c~ ~t~ theg j~ctlon ~d l<v out the 8~s ~qd dcm(:- ~mphic a~pUo~ ~ ~ toUo~ ~ p~-~ ~ ptan5. ~OW ~: $~kat l,(w’,d O~cia]s Shottld Know About Scheml Dis! 1. Schools Are Their L~e ~"~OO1 dJSt.’:CL5 }lip,e broad ccnunu~:ity con,:ems, bu: u~ am .~in~e-kmcUcn a.ee.,(::~ v41,~ a na.m~’a a~nda, just I~Kt d~st~ct, an a:: ~2stRct. or an en’qmn,T, en:..~ aae::,,b T:e!r ;c3 :s :.. 2. Don’t E~F.~,~’_t M~racles p!,::eb unders~",d }eta, pm<e’J".L’-~. ThW sh,au!d, tat ’~"s.. ecr. :. ,: -. not~ ~rsnncd. I"neym up u~ tr.ew ears Lq a~:d pmbab6 \~oHt kate ~e tLq:t: t~ master [,he pla.r.ra.~ v,a:, .~,,u ~ould ~e. In tbas v,:"0. tt:.% ,"c not ~: eLse you m,~.: on the other .side of ’.Le pl£’.ZL,:.?. 3.Overreaching to a PerceivL~I Cns;s is Gcod :’el.!~ to~ oI~.n. ,,~hecl ol~,cla!s ~:,,t un:d ~t is too la,,e react to a ~rvel~ed e~i.sLs. At that ~iat. thm."re Ek,~,~,’ to li~,e \ic~, -- like. for example, i~:~ting [hat a Ge,:e."a~ P’4:n ,:r a.’:. £:7 must coiaka.u1 $ch~a)l mitL~atlon la,,~ua~ and ",’= ""’ .....h...{L._.= ".t: --:" ’f ’, ":;: do,f[ put i~ in. ~e brat v, ay u, axoid t,’~as kind d r,n.,-c...:’a:::: :5 :.. talk to each othe: be;ore the c,-a~ Or.~p.i~.g ,’O~.,".:’:’aca:.,,:: ,:7.R mZ .- ,~. k’s Okay to Be Cannibals Because We’re ~m. the sate has np~ off Ci~ and count: the s~’s ~h~l obUgaUunx. Y~. lhe cIUm ~et U~e ~m.e am.unt of mon~ ~m the su~te r,c mat~: ~ns ~ ~c~mento, ~c~ am ma~ I~uL~ and ~h~Is n~ u~ ~o~ on t~lher ~ ~o mat~r ~hat 5.There’s No Free Lunch From Sacrame,~tc Frle 5tab2 has c,,’t’ated a meg.s but cant don’t assume that It can mHse ’lout rib’ ata~me). m~ cl~l that r~b~nsibH~. But doll’t )tx~k lot ~5 ~c~Cllto ~L r,e~er ~ able u~ come ~h~ls in the ~tc..~d that mc,~ the s~p ~tl~efing )ou a~ut ~heol ATTACHi’IENT G Los Angeles Walnut Creek \tcn!o Park u a:,hington, D.C. ..r v 2 2 -’.2 Taipei October 2, 1995 COLTRT IIMITS CEQA REQUIREtVIENTS R.ELATED TO PUBLIC SERVICES The California Environmental Qualib’ Act is often used to identifT the impac,.s of development projects on public services, and to require mitigation for those impacts¯ A recent appellate court decision. Goleta Union School District v. The Regents of tbe University of Califon~ia, may change that practice. The Analysis of Impacts on Public Services In UCSB’s EIR. The EIR for the University of California at Santa Barbara long range plan found that expanding the University would increase enrollment in the local school district by almost 200 students. The EIR suggested several options for addressing the increased enrollment, including larger class sizes, year-round schools, and new classrooms. but concluded that mitigation was the school district’s responsibility.’. The school district sued, claiming the EIR should have found that classroom overcrowding is a significant environmenta! impact and that the Universitv was obligated to fund construction of new c!assrccms. The court disagreed, hoiding tea: ¯ increased student enrollment is a socio-econcrnic impact, net an environmental impact, and that mitigation could not be required under CEQA. The Relevance of Social And Economic Effects Under CEQA. CEQA oniv applies to activities that will cause a physica! change in the environment, A projects social and economic effec~ can be relevant to an EIR’s analysis, howeve:, if the;- will lead to physical impacts. Social and economic effects can alse be re!evant ",’hen used to gauge the significance of an environmental change. In response to the claim that increased student enrollment is a sig,~icant enviromnental impact, the court noted that in prior court decisions it was the need for construction of new schools, not increased enrollment or potential overcrowding, that triggered detailed CEQA review. Student overcrowding, standing alone, is not a change in physical conditions, and cannot be treated as an impact on the environment. Increased enrollment can cause a significant environmental impact under CEQA only where a change in physical conditions, such as classroom construction, will necessarily result. One of the CEQA Guidelines (Guideline ~ 15064(f)) describes overcrowding of public facilities as a significant environmental impact. But the court interpreted this Guideline as applying-only where severe overcrowding wouid necessarily lead to the construction of new facilities. Limits On The Duty To Mitigate Under CEQA. Because increased enrollment is not an environmental impact, the court held the University had no duty under CEQA to commit funds to mitigate student overcrowding. The EIR described a range of options for responding to increased student enrollment. It also reviewed environmental impacts that might result from implementation of those options. Recognizing that the school district would decide which solution to implement, the court concluded that CEQA did not require that the University fund the solution the district ultimately selected. Effect Of The Decision. The decision in Goleta has important implications for the treatment of a project’s demand on public services and facilities and the funding of mitigation measures. An increased demand for use of public services or facilities from a new projec:. standing alone, should not be treated as an environmental impact. An impac: analysis under CEQA should focus on any changes to the environment that might <’,~ CEQA may not require a lengthy discussion of impacts on public sen’ices i:-. a.", EIR. The CEQA Guidelines provide that an EIR need only contain a brief state,~..e.-.: why an environmenta! impact is not significant. If increased demand for use of oublic se.~cices or facilities creates only social or economic effects, then a brief explanation suffice. CEQA does not ordinarily require mitigation of socio-economic impacts. To requ;,re mitigation for a development project’s impacts on public services or facilities, an agency approving a project may need to base the requirement on legal autkoritv other than CEQA. Selecting the method for responding to increased demands on public services or facilities is the responsibility- of the public agency provid~.ng the sen’ice or fac,qi:v. If new construction is required to meet the increased needs, responsibility" for mitigating resulting physical impacts may also fall on that public agencT. Goleta Union School District v. The Regents of the D~it’ersity of Califor~ia, 36 Cal. App. 4th 1121 (!995) Prepared in Walnut Creek by Stephen L. Kostka, Brandt Andersson and Marie Cooper, ’ALO ALTO COUNCIL OF PAREN ATT/~CP*~ENT H EACHEI{ ASSOCIATIONS 25 Churchill Avenue Pa}o Alto, California 94306 (415) 326-0?02 Mayor Joe Simitian City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 COUNCIL Placed before Received at meetin Dear Mayor Simitian, The following resolution has be~n passed by the Palo Alto Council of PTAs and by each cf the fifteen individual school units: We urge the Palo Alto City Council and the PAUSD Board of Education to give higher priority to the safety of children on their way to and from school in all .planning, policy, and budget decisions related to transportation and traffic safety. Past decisions by both bodies have resulted in more PAUSD families facing longer and/or ~u.=ier school commute routes. Traffic congestion around PAUSD school sites has visibly iP.cre=_s£2 a~ a result of these decisions (along with wider societal trends that encourage reliance on the private automobile). This congestion poses increasing risks to all children, but es.meciaii7 t: pedestrians and cyclists. We believe that now is the time for a comprehensive, coordinated, and creative effort, to ensure a safer school commute for all PAUSD students. While the traditional approaches (enforcement of traffic laws, crossing guards, and improvements) should still be used when appropriate, these "scluticns~ are only temTorr-~, f.~--_~ in the context of rising traffic volumes. Efforts to improve traffic safety at or near school sites will a!so have little impact unless tb, e the school district, and the parents combine forces in innovative and effective programs tc encourage school commute alternatives other than the private automobile. Other important elements of such a comprehensive effort include: o Better integration of school commuting needs into the local transit system. For exam..-:e. local transit shuttle proposed in the draft CPAC could relieve school site congestion if and schedules linked schools and students appropriately. ¯Continuation of recent collaboration between the city, the school district, and the FTAs "- develop an improved program of traffic safety education for both children and parer, is. Despite tight budgets, this must be a vital component of the responsible promotion cf walking, biking, or other commute alternatives. In the past, our community has responded to tt:agedies with action. Now, we urge you t: make choices proactively to reduce the risks our children face in their school commutes as we al~ move toward the 21st century. Sincerely, Cathy Kroymann,