Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-07 City CouncilTO: Manager’s City of Palo Alto Summary Repor, HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL I FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planningand Community Environment AGENDA DATE: February 7, 1996 CMR:129:96 SUBJECT:Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Programs - Identification of Inconsistencies, Conflicts and Gaps REQUEST This report forwards to Council an analysis by staff of Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs adopted by the Council for the following draft elements: Community Design, Transportation, Housing, Natural Environment, Community Services and Facilities, and Business and Economics. These sections, containing the goals, policies and programs the Council has indicated should be in the Draft Plan (Category A items), plus the Category B items that are to be retained in some fashion, were distributed in the January 25, 1996 City Council packet. Staff has reviewed the goals, policies and programs for inconsistencies, conflicts and gaps. The relevant issues are discussed in the attached long form City Manager Report (CMR). The sections of the Draft Plan material have been re-ordered since the City Council initially reviewed them. For this "wrap-up" discussion, they are organized to coincide with the order they will appear in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan will contain six elements: 1) Land Use and Community Design; 2) Transportation; 3) Housing; 4) Natural Environment; 5) Community Facilities and Services; 6) Business and Economics. It will also contain an introduction, land use and circulation maps, other map exhibits, a chapter describing implementation, a glossary and an index. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Council review the information in this report, make desired changes to the goals, policies and programs, and provide direction to staff regarding the content of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. CMR:129:96 Page 1 of 22 POLICY IMPLICATIONS The CPAC, Board and Commission and staff recommendations contain numerous City policy implications. The attached in-depth report and the previous City Manager Reports related to the Comprehensive Plan provide information on the policy changes. Additional information on policy implications will be provided when the draft Comprehensive Plan returns for Board, Commission and Council review in Phase IV of the update process. The goals, policies and programs listed in this CMR are identified in order to facilitate consistency within the Draft Comprehensive Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In reviewing the goals, policies and programs that the Council has reviewed and tentatively recommended for inclusion in the Draft Plan, staff utilized two general guidelines: No redundancies were removed from any of the Elements; they will be removed as part of the editing process during the writing of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. 2.No editing or modifying of the current language is included but will be done later. In addition, there are very likely to be additional conflicts and gaps that become apparent when the goals, policies and programs are re-organized into the Draft Plan. Staff, including the City Attorney’s Office, will address issues that emerge during preparation of the Draft Plan, with substantive additions and modifications highlighted for the public, Board, Commission and Council review that will constitute Phase IV of the Comprehensive Plan update process. The Community Design, Transportation, Housing, Natural Environment, Community Services and Facilities, and Business and Economics sections previously reviewed by the Council and revised to include only those goals, policies and programs intended by the Council for inclusion in the Draft Plan (Category A items) or to be retained in some fashion (Category B items) were forwarded to Council in their January 25, 1996 City Council packet. Decisions regarding placement of Category B items (e.g., text, appendices) in the Draft Plan will be made as staff develops the draft document. Assessment of Governance issues will be provided after Council has completed review of that element. The Council will also review Land Use Map items starting with a public hearing at a special February 21, 1996 City Council meeting. In general, staff found very minimal inconsistencies, conflicts and gaps. Staff’s editorial concerns can be corrected during writing and editing of the document. However, some key points were found and they include: CMR: 129:96 Page 2 of 22 A major planning policy issue in the 1976 Plan, the 1981 Plan and the 1989 Citywide Study was the tradeoffs between allowing some additional development and the related negative impacts of increased traffic, noise and other environmental concerns. City policy has sought to limit growth, and especially growth in employment, while recognizing that some growth and change is unavoidable and often desirable. The sum total of the goals, policies and programs identified by the Council for inclusion in the Draft Plan continues in this policy direction. The goal, policy and program documents call for limited nonresidential and residential growth in selected infill locations and increased transportation altematives and programs to mitigate some of the effects of traffic. In Community Design, a clarification is required related to mixed use and residential uses in Neighborhood Centers, including Midtown. Residential uses are currently prohibited in the Neighborhood Commercial-zoned areas of Palo Alto. In the Transportation Element, staff is recommending that Council revisit the issue of future light rail to Palo Alto to allow for planning opportunities that might take place in the 15-year life of the document. An inconsistency- was found in the organization of the Housing Element in that the goals, policies and programs were not equally identified for both market rate and affordable housing. Based on the Housing Section’s approved Vision Statement, staff believes that the intent was to include both. Unless directed otherwise, staff will make organizational and editing changes in the Housing Element, but will retain the policies and programs grouped under the primary goals of 1) maintaining existing housing, 2) encouraging additional housing and 3) fostering affordable housing. In the Transportation Element, staff concludes that the Policy TR-3.C., "Reduce traffic congestion without widening streets or intersections" with a list of exceptions from the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, is not realistic. As recognized in the 1976 and 1981 Comprehensive Plans and the 1989 Citywide Study, traffic congestion is likely to continue to worsen in Palo Alto. Current Comprehensive Plan policy to "avoid major increases in street capacities but to undertake critically needed intersection improvements connected with severe traffic congestion or neighborhood traffic intrusion problems or both" and "make operational and intersection improvements to ease traffic flow on major streets," as well as "make effective use of the traffic carrying ability ofPalo Alto’s network of major streets," recognizes the need to make limited improvements at selective locations on the major streets in order to make the system work better. The thrust CMR: 129:96 Page 3 of 22 of the draft transportation goals, policies, and programs in the forthcoming Comprehensive Plan will be to put additional emphasis on bicycle, pedestrian, and transit opportunities in order to further slow the growth in traffic and have alternatives to the automobile be strongly encouraged and facilitated. Recommended revisions to the existing policy statements include: Avoid major intersection increases in street capacities, but undertake critically needed intersection improvements connected with severe traffic congestion or neighborhood traffic problems or both, while balancing the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists with those of vehicles in the design of identified intersection improvements. 2.Make operational and intersection improvements to ease the flow of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians on or across major City streets. Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s network of major streets, without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists to co-exist with vehicles on the same street system. ¯Staff has identified three areas where there may be a deficiency in the programs and policies based on State Planning Guidelines. They are: 1) Housing, 2) Noise, and 3) Emergency Preparedness. Staff will solve these deficiencies, and any others identified during preparation of the Draft Plan, and forward any resulting recommendations to Council at the time the Draft Plan is released for public review. FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan will result in potentially significant impacts on City expenditures and revenues. The attached material identifies some fiscal impacts, and fiLrther fiscal impact analysis will be conducted during the preparation of the draft plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An Environmental Impact Report will be prepared on the draft plan that is prepared based on the goal, policy and program direction given by the City Council. PREPARED BY:Jim Gilliland, Nancy Lytle, Marvin Overway, Carl Stoffel, Virginia Warheit and Ken Schreiber CMR: 129:96 Page 4 of 22 DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R, SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: City Manager CMR: 129:96 Page 5 of 22 CMR: 129:96 Page 6 of 22 City of Palo Alto Manager’s Repor SUBJECT:Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Programs - Identification of Inconsistency, Conflicts and Gaps RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Council review the information in this report and the goals, policies and programs transmitted in the January 25 City Council packet, make desired changes to the goals, policies and programs, and provide direction to staff regarding the content of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND Over the past 15 months, the Council has reviewed and tentatively approved for incorporation into a Draft Plan the goals, policies and programs for six elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Governance section is still under review by the Council at the time this staff report was prepared. Staff provided the Council with a January 17, 1996 staff report (CMR: 119:96) that addressed revisions and omissions to the Community Facilities goals, policies and programs. Prior to the beginning of writing the Draft Comprehensive Plan document, staff has reviewed the adopted language in order to identify any inconsistencies, gaps or conflicts that need Council clarification. These are the subject of this report. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The CPAC, Board, Commission and staff recommendations contain numerous City policy implications. This and the previous City Manager Reports related to the Comprehensive Plan provide information on the policy changes. Additional information on policy implications will be provided when the draft Comprehensive Plan returns for Board, Commission and Council review. The goals, policies and programs listed in this CMR are specifically intended to eliminate any discrepancies. A major planning policy issue in the 1976 Plan, the 1981 Plan and the 1989 Citywide Study was the tradeoffs between allowing some additional development and the related negative impacts of increased traffic, noise and other environmental concerns. City policy has sought to limit growth, and especially growth in employment, while recognizing that some growth and change is unavoidable and often desirable. The sum total of the goals, policies and programs identified by the Council for inclusion in the Draft Plan continues in this policy CMR:129:96 Page 7 of 22 direction. The goal, policy and program documents call for limited nonresidential and residential growth in selected infill locations and increased transportation altematives and programs to mitigate some of the effects of traffic and auto-related environmental impacts. DISCUSSION Issues that staff believes need further Council direction are identified in the following section, which is organized by the Comprehensive Plan Elements. Community. Design In general, a clarification is required in the Community Design Element related to residential and mixed-uses in the neighborhood centers and, in particular, a clarification for the intent for Midtown, since it was classified as a Neighborhood Center. The pertinent sections are as follows: Page 18, Definition of Neighborhood Centers: Neighborhood-serving shopping areas within Residential Districts. Typically focused on a grocery store/supermarket, these centers also include a variety of smaller retail shops and office uses oriented toward meeting the everyday needs of surrounding residents. Housing may also be part of this type of center. Plazas and parks provide public gathering spaces and nodes around which retail uses are clustered. A local transit/jitney system provides connections to other centers within the city. Selected streets provide walking and biking connections from adjacent neighborhoods. Planned Neighborhood Center: Midtown, Charleston, Edgewood, and Alma. Page 33, CD-18: The Council has re-categorized Midtown from Multi-Neighborhood Center to Neighborhood Center. DISCUSSION: The definition of Neighborhood Centers states that "housing may also be a part of this type of center". Also, the All Centers section includes program CD-11.A2, page 20, permitting Mixed-Use residential located over retail. However, the section that discusses Neighborhood Centers in more detail (CD-19, page 36) is silent on the issue of residential uses. Under current zoning, residential uses are not allowed in neighborhood centers. The CN zone specifically excludes residential uses in Charleston Center and Midtown, and Alma Center and Edgewood Plaza are PC zones that do not allow residential uses. Alma, Charleston and Edgewood Centers are small enough so that adding residential, while possible, would be difficult. Alma and Charleston do have some multiple-family housing opportunities on adjacent parcels. Midtown is larger and a more complex set of parcels-than the three other centers. Staff finds that Midtown, the most pedestrian-oriented neighborhood center listed, could have opportunities for mixed-use housing with ground floor retail. CMR: 129:96 Page 8 of 22 A related clarification is whether Council intends that permitting Mixed Use with residential in Midtown, as provided in CD-18.E2, page 34, would continue to apply with Midtown redefined as a Neighborhood Center. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that CD-18.E2 be retained and the definition of Neighborhood Centers modified to reflect the possibility of some mixed- use residential on the commercial zoned parcels in Midtown. Page 7, CD-4.EI: The Program to Actively search for and develop a park, school site or plaza site in those Residential Districts which lack them needs clarification. DISCUSSION: ~s Program raises a question regarding whether or not this program raises expectations that cannot be fulfilled? Does the city expect to pay the future capital and maintenance costs to implement this program? If it cannot be feasibly done, should the language be modified to delete the word "actively"? RECOMMENDATION: Change Program CD-4.E1 to delete "Actively" and clarify in the Plan text that park or plaza sites can include open space on private property provided as part of a public-private partnership. Page 8, CD-4.G2: The Program to Provide flexible standards and incentives, such as flexible floor area ratios, modified setbacks, redueed parking standards, and streamline permitting for those willing to retrofit their houses with features that activate the street, such as porches, visible entries, and street-facing windows where compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood needs clarification. DISCUSSION: Staff understands that it is Council’s intent to modify the R-1 regulations to allow features that activate the street to be allowed in front yard setbacks and beyond FAR limits without the need for a Home Improvement Exception (HIE). Staff questions whether there will be community support for reduced parking standards in R-1 zones except through a discretionary review process. Zoning was already relaxed in the late 1980s to allow tandem parking. Further relaxation would be to allow only one space per unit or count on-street parking. RECOMMENDATION: Clarify Program CD-4.G2 to have it remove reference to on-site parking reductions for single-family homes, except through a Home Improvement Exception. Page 9, CD-4.H1, H2: Program H1 - Zone boundaries should be placed at mid-block locations wherever possible, rather than along streets so that buildings facing each other are CMR: 129:96 Page 9 of 22 compatible and transitions between uses are gradual; and, Program H2 - Review and change as necessary zoning designations in areas located at the edges of Residential Districts to ensure that adjacent land uses provide a gradual density and floor area ratio transition need clarification as to what kind of action Council is expecting and the timing of any changes. DISCUSSION: In applying these programs, the existing development pattem needs to be taken into consideration on a case-by-case basis. Staff does not interpret the programs to mean that the city would initiate a wholesale adjustment of zone boundaries throughout town, but would use these programs as a general guide whenever land use changes are being considered. RECOMMENDATION: Modify Programs CD-4.H1 and H2 to clarify that they apply to future larger scale (e.g., area plan) zone changes and the specific application will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Pages 14 to 17 of Community Design - Cal-Ventura Study DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: City Council has indicated a desire fo~: conducting a Cal-Ventura coordinated area plan while the Draft Plan is under ¯ preparation and review. The Council is tentatively scheduled to review potential planning parameters of an area plan on February 20. Staff would intend to treat the Cal-Ventura area in the Draft Plan consistent with Council direction regarding the area plan with the recognition that refinements and other Plan amendments will be necessary at the conclusion of the area plan. Page 20, CD-11.C: This policy to Encourage rehabilitation of aging retail areas to keep them economically healthy may be perceived to be in conflict with housing goals. DISCUSSION: In cases where the rehabilitated commercial use does not include a residential component and occupies a site that might otherwise be suitable for housing, the Policy could be argued to be in conflict or could send mixed signals unless mixed-use commercial and residential development is one possible result. RECOMMENDATION: Unless specifically excluded (e.g., Charleston Center), the City’s commercial zones should continue to have residential permitted uses and the Plan should indicate that residential use of commercial land is permitted. Page 33, CD-18.A1, B1, C, CI: These programs and a portion of Policy C regarding the revitalization of Midtown were continued by Council pending results of the current Midtown Study. CMR: 129:96 Page 10 of 22 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Direction is needed regarding how the Draft Plan should treat Midtown. It is recommended that whatever Midtown issues are resolved in the next several months be incorporated into the Draft Plan. Other than that, the Draft Plan would contain general neighborhood center policies for Midtown with further changes in the final Plan upon Council adoption. Page 43, CD’26.A3: The Program which states In Residential Districts with rolled curbs, explore ways to add street trees to increase shade and reduce the apparent width of wide streets, where desired by residents needs a clarification. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff interprets the phrase "with rolled curbs" to refer to areas with an integral curb and sidewalk with no intervening planting strip, whether the curb is rolled or vertical. An example would be Park Boulevard where the sidewalk and vertical curb are a single unit and there is no planting strip and no street trees, and where the addition of planting strip and street trees would help accomplish the aims of this program. Staff recommends that Program CD-26.A3 be expanded to apply to areas with either rolled or vertical curbs that have no planting strip and no street trees between the sidewalk and street. Transportation Page 6, TR-1.JI: The Program to Evaluate extension of light rail line from Mountain View through Palo Alto to Menlo Park along El Camino Real was moved out of the Comprehensive Plan program category and is now in Category B. Considering the current effort to extend light rail to Mountain View, this is a significant decision that warrants reconsideration. DISCUSSION: TR-1.J1 (Page 6) "Evaluate extension of light rail from Mountain View through Palo Alto to Menlo Park along E1 Camino Real" was moved to Category B, due primarily to considerations of high cost, limited potential for funding, and likely long-term nature (beyond 20 years). However, if light rail is envisioned as a possibility, even in the long-term future, supportive planning steps are required within the next 10 to 20 years. In particular, the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency will be undertaking expanded transportation and land use planning in. the next several years that will likely provide substantial longer term direction for the County’s light rail system. The current Comprehensive Plan gives strong support and emphasis to improved and expanded regional rail transit service to Palo Alto, as well as throughout the Bay Area. While the current draft Transportation goals, policies and programs continue that tradition through strong support for an enhanced Caltrain or BART type service, CMR:129:96 Page 11 of 22 they do not include the possible addition of light rail. Rail improvements/additions represent the only serious major opportunities for travel capacity increases that could occur under existing and proposed City policies. While it is not at all certain, based upon cost-benefit analyses, that new rail services can be reasonably justified, it is very likely that such ideas will not be pursued without a significant and sustained level of leadership and resource commitment from Palo Alto. During the next year or two, it is anticipated that a major new planning effort will be undertaken to develop an integrated land use and transportation plan for Santa Clara County. While this would be an appropriate time to look at the conceptual feasibility of light rail serving Palo Alto, lack of any policies regarding light rail in the Comprehensive Plan would preclude the City advocating such a possibility. RECOMMENDATION: Reinstate the Category A designation of Program TR-1.J1. Page 9, Program TR-3~B 1: Consideration of the Program to Extend Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real was continued. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The Sand Hill Corridor EIR is very likely to be reviewed and acted upon by the Council after publication, but before Council action on the Draft Plan. The existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows Sand Hill Road with a planned extension from Arboretum to E1 Camino Real. Unless directed otherwise, staff will incorporate the Sand Hill Road extension (and related proposed roadway improvements) into the Draft Plan and evaluate no extension of Sand Hill Road and no other related roadway improvements as an Alternative in the Plan’s Draft EIR. The Draft Plan can then be modified to reflect Council actions on Sand Hill Road and related roadways that occur after publication of the Draft Plan. Page 9, TR-3.C: The Policy is to Reduce traffic congestion without widening streets or intersections, except at the following intersections (approximate construction costs in parenthesis): (a) Foothill/Page Mill ($1 million, being designed), (b) Foothill/Hillview/ Arastradero/Miranda ($2.8 million), (c) Page Mill/Hanover ($0.8 million), (d) Page Mill/ El Camino Real ($2. 5 million), and (e) Oregon/Middlefield ($0. 6 million). The programs cited for inclusion are CI: Provide more dedicated turn lanes or pullouts where curb cuts cannot be eliminated and D l: Implement computerized traffic management systems to improve traff!c flow when feasible. DISCUSSION: Several problems are present in the policy and programs: CMR: 129:96 Page 12 of 22 The policy to "reduce traffic congestion without widening streets or intersections..." is not realistic, even if the City notably increases bicycle, pedestrian and transit opportunities. The 1976 Plan, 1981 Plan and 1989 Citywide Study each recognized that traffic congestion would worsen in the future but concluded that building more roadway capacity should not be the City’s prime emphasis. In the time frame of the next Comprehensive Plan, it is not realistic to expect the City to have either the regulatory control or the financial resources necessary to bring about a notable drop in traffic levels. The thrust of the draft transportation goals, policies and programs in the forthcoming Comprehensive Plan will be to put additional emphasis on bicycle, pedestrian and transit opportunities in order to further slow the growth in traffic and have alternatives to the automobile be strongly encouraged and facilitated. Program C1 is more likely to conflict with rather than support the policy statement. A listing of exceptions tends to limit future options. The existing exceptions reflect current city policy from the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study. The intersection of San Antonio and Charleston is one existing possibility that is excluded; others are likely to surface over time. As a general note, staff would intend to delete references to dollar figures, other than in implementation-related text, given the 15-year life span of the document. Current Comprehensive Plan policy to "avoid major increases in street capacities but to undertake critically needed intersection improvements connected with severe traffic congestion or neighborhood traffic intrusion problems or both" and "make operational and intersection improvements to ease traffic flow on major streets," as well as "make effective use of the traffic carrying ability ofPalo Alto’s network of major streets," recognizes the need to make limited improvements at selective locations on the major streets in order to make the system work better. CPAC and the Planning Commission recommended revisions to existing policies because the policies were perceived as being too auto-dominant. Staff concludes that existing policies should be modified to incorporate the CPAC and Planning Commission emphasis. RECOMMENDATION: Incorporate into the Draft Plan the following policy statements: 1.Avoid major intersection increases in street capacities, but undertake critically needed intersection improvements connected with severe traffic congestion or CMR:129:96 Page 13 of 22 neighborhood traffic problems or both, while balancing the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists with those of vehicles in the design of identified intersection improvements. 2.Make operational and intersection improvements to ease the flow of vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians on or across major City streets. Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s network of major streets, without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists to co- exist with vehicles on the same street system. Convert Policy TR-3.C into a program, widen arterial streets and intersections to address unacceptable levels of congestion, with the Plan text identifying the Citywide Study intersections and the need to balance pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle needs. Delete Program C 1, Provide more dedicated turn lanes or pullouts where curb cuts cannot be eliminated. Retain Program D 1, Implement computerized traffic management systems to improve traff!c flow whenever feasible. Page 11, TR-4.AI: The Program to Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety over vehicle level-of-service (LOS) at intersections may conflict with Congestion Management Program requirements. DISCUSSION: The resolution of demonstrated unsafe conditions, whether for pedestrians, bicyclists or autos, will and must be prioritized over vehicle level of service at all intersections. There can be substantial conflicts, however, between design for vehicle LOS and design that encourages other transportation modes. As intersections are expanded with additional turn lanes for automobiles to improve traffic movements, the design becomes more "pedestrian hostile" in the public perception. A conflict exists for space within the intersection. Landscaped medians for pedestrians and bicyclists to use as crossing shelter can be lost in retrofitting the intersection for additional vehicle movement. Intersection widenings create additional time needed for pedestrians to cross from curb to curb. With enough space, all modes can be accommodated, but there is generally not sufficient space to design for the "ideal." All modes of transportation should be considered in intersection design, and the needs of automobiles, pedestrians and bicycles should be accommodated and balanced within the space available and consistent with regional requirements. CMR:129:96 Page 14 of 22 RECOMMENDATION: Amend page 11, TR-4.A1 to read: Intersection design will accommodate the needs of all modes of transportation, and will not be based solely on automobile level-of-service. Page 18a, Suggested Goals, Policies and Programs for Airport. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The Transportation section reviewed by Council did not contain any airport-related information. It is recommended that the following goal, policy and programs be incorporated into the Draft Plan. Goal TR-11: The City will retain the existing airport as a general aviation facility providing locally-oriented services. Policy-A: Support the continued vitality and effectiveness of the Palo Alto airport without increasing the intensity of airport use or intruding into designated open space areas: PROGRAMS: AI: A2: A3: The airport will be limited to a single runway. Provide a strip of planting adjacent to Embarcadero Road consistent with the open space character of the Baylands and including a pedestrian/bike path. Relocate site of terminal building away from Runway 31 clear zone and allow for construction of a new terminal Housing As a general statement, the Housing Element should address both market rate and affordable housing, as evidenced by Council’s inclusion in the Vision Statement of a request of staffto broaden to include a balance in housing types. The proposed goals, policies and programs are focused almost entirely on affordable housing. Staff believes that to meet both Council’s intent for more balance and State Guidelines will require significant reorganization and modification to the Housing Element goals, policies and programs. DISCUSSION: The following goals, policies and programs specifically apply to the inconsistencies in the need for market rate and affordable housing: Page 1, The Vision includes market rate housing, but there are no goals specifically for increasing the supply of market-rate housing. CMR:129:96 Page 15 of 22 Page 2, The new goal, "to maintain the existing housing stock" would seem to apply to all housing. Page 13, Goal HS-4. Encourage and assist property owners to maintain their homes, properties and adjacent public right-of-ways, seems to include all housing. All other goals specify affordable housing only. Page 2, HS-1.AI: The Program to Allow for increased density for housing in the immediate areas surrounding neighborhood commercial and transit centers speaks to housing in general, not just affordable, but is under a goal which calls for "affordability". Page 5, HS-1.D.3.: By merging the program to Encourage development of more rental and owned multiple-family units and townhouses with 2 and 3 bedrooms with a Policy to Encourage and foster the development of new and existing housing units affordable to very low-, low-, moderate- and middle-income households, especially those households with children, the program then relates only to low/moderate housing, which staff does not believe was the intent or appropriate. Page 5, HS-1.D9.: The program to Permit smaller sized residential lots and smaller units on those lots when compatible with surrounding neighborhood. Allow development of smaller units on lots of less than 6, 000 square feet is not consistent with recent approval of the Times Tribune site and other project(s) in process, which allowed moderately large houses on small lots. Program HS-1.D9 fails under Policy D that pertains to low-, moderate- and middle-income housing, but is an example of a program that should not be limited to certain income groups. RECOMMENDATION: The Draft Plan’s housing element should reflect the value of all economic segments of the housing market, including both market rate and affordable housing. Re-organization of the element to accomplish this will be undertaken by staff unless directed otherwise by the Council. The element will be organized according to the three existing headings -- to maintain existing housing, to support increased housing and to foster affordable housing. Page 2, HS-1.A3: The Program to Develop a Planned Development process without requirement for a public benefit finding for denser uses that encourage the construction of affordable smaller lot single-family and multiple-family housing units needs clarification in several areas: CMR:129:96 Page 16 of 22 DISCUSSION: First, the term "affordable" is probably misused in this Program. Use of the word "affordable" in the context of housing is related to income, unit size, location, household size and other factors. "Affordable" would generally be applied to households of "very low" and "low" incomes. Units on small lots may cost less relative to the same size unit on a 6,000 square foot lot; however, the small lot unit should not be defined as "affordable". Second, staff needs direction on the use of the term "denser." Does "denser" mean denser relative to standard single family or relative to the underlying zoning? Currently, most of the residential development applications that the City processes seek residential densities of no more than about 15-units per acre regardless of underlying higher density zoning. However, the 15-unit per acre product uses the floor area originally intended for densities of 30 or more units per acre. In the absence of a minimum density requirement, the objective of providing additional housing at higher densities at appropriate locations will not be achieved under current market conditions either through a PD zone or conventional multiple-family zoning. Staff believes that CPAC was trying to encourage new housing forms as a way of providing more housing and less expensive housing, in particular new "denser" but architecturally compatible forms to fill the gap between R-1 and RM-15, such as duplexes, courtyard housing, smaller lot single-family, cottages, etc. In program HS- 1.D.9. which is specifically about small lot single-family housing, it is clear that the recommendation was that house size should decrease relative to the lot size. One approach would be to require adensity threshold, such as 75 percent of allowed density if including RM-30 or RM-40 and commercially designated sites. With sites for higher density housing in short supply, and existing multiple,family zoning mostly located near transit and commercial uses, it would be inconsistent with housing supply and affordability goals and transit goals to give up these sites to substantially lower density, more expensive house forms. RECOMMENDATION: Text in the Draft Plan should clarify the intent as staff understands it from CPAC and incorporate a minimum density requirement (to be determined during development of the PD zone) when the PD zone is applied to land with the two highest multiple-family residential densities. Staff would not apply minimum density for PD zones on sites where the PD zone replaces lower density residential zoning or on sites replacing nonresidential zoning. Staff also recommends that the RM-30 and RM-40 districts be modified to include minimum densities. Page 5, H5-1, D4: The Below Market Rate (BMR) program language makes no mention of requiring higher than 10 percent BMR on sites over 5 acres, which is currently City policy CMR:129:96 Page 17 of 22 as reflected in the text of the Housing Element. The Housing Subcommittee of CPAC deleted the greater than 10 percent requirement. There may be reasons to not differentiate between sites less than or greater than five acres. Staff will evaluate and address this issue as part of the new Draft Plan. Page 6, HS-1.D6.: A gap exists in that the Program to Encourage the development of programs such as Co-Housing Projects was changed to a "B" priority. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: State housing guidelines indicated a need for policies and programs for special needs housing, including market rate, such as co-housing, elderly, etc. Program HS- 1.DG should be a Program and not just text. Page 6, HS-1, D.7.: The Program to Provide zoningflexibility to encourage the development of smaller units affordable to very low-, low- and moderate-income persons needs to be clarified as to what kind of zoning flexibility is intended. DISCUSSION: Is the intent that the zoning flexibility is only for low/moderate units? What about zoning flexibility that would accommodate special needs housing that is not affordable? Or market rate smaller units which are less expensive than larger units, thus providing a housing benefit? The best way to assume smaller units is through minimum density requirements. Minimum density requirements are considered "restrictive" rather than "flexible." If additional restrictions were required to assure that small units are "affordable," such as placement in the BMR program, would that be included in zoning flexibility? Providing "zoning flexibility" as used in Program HS-1.D.7 can probably only be achieved through a PC or PD rezoning that ensures the affordability intent of the Program. RECOMMENDATION: Modify Program HS-1.D7 to "Facilitate the use of Planned Community and Planned Developed zoning to encourage the development of smaller units affordable to very low-, low- and moderate-income persons and the development of special needs housing." Page 12, HS-3.A.5.: The new Program to Consider changing zoning ordinances to facilitate conducting a business out of one’s home needs clarification. DISCUSSION: Facilitating conducting a business out of the home may conflict with the goal to maintain the existing housing stock. The potential exists to use residences for office uses. This may also cause a conflict with maintaining the single-family character of the community. Clarification is needed regarding what kinds of zoning changes are intended and if they are to increase current restrictions on home occupations, which limit home occupations to no employees other than residents of CMR: 129:96 Page 18 of 22 the house, no signs, no increase in vehicular traffic and occupancy limited to less than 5 percent or 500 square feet of living space. RECOMMENDATION: Deletion of Program HS-3.A5 is recommended based on no clear reason to reduce the current home occupation restrictions. Natural Environment Page 6, NE- 1.F 1: The program, which was deleted, was to Evaluate recommendations of the Tree Task Force and incorporate appropriate measures into tree protection ordinance. Now that the Council has taken some action towards implementation of Tree Task Force recommendations, policies and programs should be included in theComprehensive Plan. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Unless directed otherwise, staff will translate most recent Council actions into the Draft Comprehensive Plan, and will include them as specific goals, policies or programs. Page 14, NE-5.B1 becomes NE-5.B.: The Policy to Review proposed projects to reduce negative air quality impacts needs to be reviewed in consideration of recent legislation. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The City Attomey’s Office is reviewing recently adopted legislation that limits the City’s ability to require Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and how this might affect this Policy and Page 15, NE-5.B4: Because of State Legislation, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) employer-based trip reduction rule no longer exists. Staff will prepare the Draft Plan to be consistent with State Law. Page 24, NE-10.A2: Staff comments in the Natural Environment section indicate that Program NE-10.A2 should be re-worded. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: To more accurately reflect the current City philosophy on setting rate structures, staff recommends the wording be changed as follows: Evaluate rate structures that are competitive and will encourage efficient conservation especially of electricity. Set rates to achieve a balance between cost of service, meeting competition, encouraging conservation and efficient use. CMR: 129:96 Page 19 of 22 Community. Services and Facilities Community Services and Facilities issues, other than school items, were addressed in a January 17, 1996 staff report (CMR:119:96) and considered and acted upon by the Council on January 17. Business and Economics Page 3, BE-1.C: The policy to create zoning and permit regulations which encourage rehabilitation of aging retail areas to promote economic vitality has a potential conflict with goals and policies relating to adding housing and to limiting impacts on adjacent residential areas. See Discussion and Recommendation for Community Design Policy CD-11.C, page 10 of this staff report. Page 8, BE-7, Policy A: The Policy to Streamline City administrative and regulatory processes could be in conflict with proposals for additional regulations and implementation procedures such as the recent discussions regarding a Tree Ordinance. It is also unknown how regulatory burdens in non-land use regulations such as the Water Quality Control Plant, Utilities, and other City permits will be eased. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the text of the Plan note that some new regulations may be desirable in light of clearly identified community needs; some new regulations may be necessary because of regional, State or Federal requirements; and in developing new regulations, the City will evaluate ways of having them be implemented in a streamlined manner. Page 10, BE-9: Goal BE-9 is Maintain the limits of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study with a notation that "Staff is to bring back modifications to the Study necessary to have a consistent Comprehensive Plan." DISCUSSION: For most nonresidential areas, the proposed Draft Plan’s goals, policies and programs are consistent with the 1989 Citywide Study’s nonresidential floor area limits. Modifications to the Citywide Study could occur with area and large site plans (e.g., Cal-Ventura, Midtown, Stanford Medical Center) and a few other site and!or use specific changes (e.g., conference hotel at Page Mill Road and E1 Camino Real, Stanford Shopping Center). Staffwould not expect the overall Citywide limits contained in the Citywide Study to be exceeded in the life of the next Comprehensive Plan and probably for years beyond that. CMR: 129:96 Page 20 of 22 RECOMMENDATION: Goal BE-9 should be modified to reflect that the 1989 Citywide Study floor area ratios are not considered to be site specific limits. The Economic Balance vision statement on page 10 could become a goal with a related policy addressing the 1989 Study. GOAL: Assure a balance between supporting businesses, maintaining residential character and preserving the environment. POLICY: In evaluating potential increases in nonresidential growth limits, consider the objectives of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study. Page 12, BE-11.B to be merged with Page 7, BE-5.B: The Policies state that Ensure that Stanford Research Park has the flexibility to respond to changing market conditions (BE- 11.B) and Ensure that polieies affecting Stanford Research Park do not unnecessarily impede its ability to be responsive to changing business and market conditions (BE-5.B). Program BE-5.B 1 is consider Floor Area Ration (FAR) increases within Stanford Research Park. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: In consideration of the Community Design section, the Council removed references to expanding FARs in the Research Park except through Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) within the Park. In light of that discussion, Program BE-5.B 1 should be deleted. Page 15, BE-14.B 1: To require that business area parking be contained in the business area can be in conflict with the fact that some incursion of parking into neighborhoods is often unavoidable. If on-street parking cannot be utilized in mixed-use areas, the pedestrian scale urban design objectives called for in the plan will be somewhat compromised with a preponderance of surface parking lots. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Conflicts can exist, particularly for reuse of old buildings because reuse is often more intense without being required to provide additional parking. The Program appears to apply to all business areas which may not be practical. The program should be modified to add "to the extent possible." FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan will result in potentially significant impacts on the City expenditures and revenues. The attached material identifies some fiscal impacts, and further fiscal impact analysis will be conducted ruing the preparation of the draft plan. CMR: 129:96 Page 21 of 22 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An Environmental Impact Report will be prepared on the draft plan that emerges from the public review and subsequent goal, policy and program direction given by the City Council. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Staffwill begin preparation of the draft Comprehensive Plan and will return to Council, if clarifications are required, but anticipate that public review of the draft document will begin in Fall 1996. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS None. Co:Planning Commission CPAC CMR: 129:96 Page 22 of 22