Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-09 City Council/ City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Attention:Policy and Services Committee FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: April 9, 1996 CMR:221:96 SUBJECT:Policies and Programs Related to the Governance Section of the Draft Comprehensive Plan, GV- 9 and GV-10 REQUEST: The Policy and Services Committee is requested to continue to review the Governance section of the Policy and Program document, the subsection titled "Planning," pages 7 and 8, GV-9 and GV-10. This item was continued from the Policy and Services Committee meeting of February 6, 1996. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the attached modified text be included in the Draft Comprehensive Plan, replacing the draft language in the original CPAC-recommended document. The staff modified language attempts to capture the spirit of the CPAC recommendation, but updates the document to reflect current Council discussion and directions. It also reflects staff recommendations on Coordinated Area Plans and other potential processes and procedures for improving community planning. BACKGROUND On November 27, 1996, the City Council referred the Governance Section, Goals GV-1 through GV-10, to the Policy and Services Committee. On February 6, 1996, the Policy and Services Committee reviewed and made recommendations on the majority of the Policy and Program recommendations related to "Governance," GV- 1 through GV-8. The Committee continued their discussion of pages 7 and 8, the subsection titled "Planning," GV-9 and GV- 10, to allow staff to present some modified text to replace the CPAC language. The CPAC CMR:221:96 Page 1 of 4 recommendations were originally very conceptual and envisioned further exploration of the concepts raised prior to inclusion in the Draft Plan. POLICY IMPLICATIONS These pages contain two new goals, two new policies and seven ongoing or new programs for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The recommendations are considered to be extensions of current City policies. The policies and programs embellish a long tradition of community involvement and open governmental planning processes. They also encourage excellence and quality in urban design and architecture, but with better advanced communication to the development community and public about the expected outcome of zoning regulations. The Governance Section, recommended to be included in the Comprehensive Plan by the Policy and Services Committee on February 6, 1996, is a new non-mandatory section of the Comprehensive Plan and represents a new area of land use planning practice for Palo Alto. The Policy and Services Committee recommended at that meeting that the Governance Element be included in the Plan. They requested that the City Attorney closely review and recommend wording in the draft plan, to diminish concerns regarding the consistency requirement for later land use approvals under the new plan. Should Council accept the recommendation of the Policy and Services Committee, it is anticipated that this legal analysis would occur and recommended language be incorporated into the Draft Plan during Phase III. DISCUSSION The Policy and Services Committee reviewed the first eight goals in this section; and staff will forward their actions, summarized in the minutes (included in the April 4, 1996 Council packet), to City Council at a future meeting to be scheduled. The Committee continued consideration of pages 7 and 8 to allow staffto update and consolidate the recommendations of CPAC, Planning Commission and staff into one useful report. Since the time that CPAC drafted their original recommendations in 1994, the Council has adopted a Preliminary Project Review (Prescreening) Ordinance. Staff and the City Council have further explored the use of Coordinated Area Plans; and staff is currently drafting an ordinance framework for Council consideration of this planning process, an outcome of Council’s direction for the CaliVentura Area. Council has also directed a study of the Midtown Area, for purposes of economic revitalization and improvement. Likewise, the Planning Commission has appointed a subcommittee to examine new zoning tools, such as "Form Code," which they hope might someday be more helpful in articulating community expectations than traditional zoning ordinances. Staff has updated the policy and program recommendations in this "Planning" subsection to reflect these more recent discussions, actions and ideas. CMR:221:96 Page 2 of 4 Also attached, for comparison, are the original Draft IV, Policies and Programs recommendations, with staffmargin comments and Planning Commission recommendations reflected. ALTERNATIVES As an alternative to accepting the staff-recommended goals, policies and programs in this report, the Policy and Services Committee 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 fiscal impact. It is anticipated that the policies and programs 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. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Any goals, policies or programs recommended by the City Council will be included in the Draft Comprehensive Plan, incorporated during Phase III of the process. ATTACHMENTS Staff-Recommended Revised Pages 7 and 8, GV-9 and GV-10, with Related Policies and Programs Draft IV, Governance, Policies and Programs CC:CPAC Planning Commission Architectural Review Board Historic Resources Board Public Arts Commission PREPARED BY:Nancy Maddox Lytle KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:221:96 Page 3 of 4 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: City CMR:221:96 Page 4 of 4 This document contains Governance Goals GV-1 through GV-10, referred to Policy and Services Committee at the City Council Meeting of November 27, 1995. Governance and Community Services City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Draft IV November 3, 1994 NOTE:Contains Planning Commission Action, and Boards and Commissions’ Comments GOVERNANCE and COMMUNITY SERVICES KEY TO CODES Codes have been written after each goal, policy and program on the following pages, indicating the following characteristics: ECP --An existing Comp Plan policy or program (with Element Program or Policy number). RCP --A revised existing Comp Plan policy or program (with Element Program or Policy number). EPNCP --An existing city policy, but not in the current Comp Plan. NPP --A new policy or program. PLANNING COMMISSION CODES." --Shaded items are recommended to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. --Ideas recommended to be preserved in some manner (e.g. text, implementation section, appendix, separate document). C -- Items recommended to be deleted for a lack of priority. D -- Items recommended to be deleted/disagree with policy/program. BOARD AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMENTS Human Relations Commission The great amount of citizen participation this process has included is appreciated. Recognize, appreciate, and encourage the diversity aspect of Palo Al(o more. Promote "reglonallsm" wherever possible. Document should address Neighborhood Association potential linkages with the Human Relations Commission. Policies and Programs Draft IV (September 8, I994)rage Vision Statement ( a picture 20 years hence) Palo Alto has a participatory political and decision making process which contributes to building community. Residents, council, business, commissions, staff, neighborhoods and other organizations work as allies in collaborative efforts. The hallmarks of those efforts are participation, responsibility, communication, commitment, information access, change management and appropriate delegation. Palo Alto is a leading regional citizen participating actively in development of regional, state and national policies which affect Palo Alto. Palo Alto works with neighboring communities to better understand and deal with our common interests and concerns by sharing resources, restructuring services and expanding cooperation. Mention of Palo Alto evokes a positive civic image. Palo Alto’s excellent planning process gains strength from regular expanded participation in the early consideration of development plans. Every member of the Palo Alto community has full access to a diverse range of responsive, high quality community services and fa.eilities. Residents and applicants feel like valued customers of Palo Alto. Palo Alto will be responsive to changing demographics and social conditions in providing services. STAFF COMMENTS Participation Staff feels that the vision statement regarding delegation exaggerates that potential. Staff and the Planning Commission have briefly reviewed types of decisions which might be delegated from the Council to the Commission, and have explored this concept with the City Council. Those applications identified would not include zone changes, PC zone changes, Site and Design other than single-family, EIR’s or Comprehensive Plan amendments. Potential delegable items included appeals of Zoning Administrator and ARB decisions, subdivision maps, single-family site and design approvals, and applicant initiated non- conforming use extensions. In reviewing records for 1993, the Council reviewed 25 Planning projects, 11 or 44% of which would fall into the potentially delegable category. Out of the 11 items, the Planning Commission made a recommendation on only 8 because they are not now involved in the ARB appeal process. Of the 8 items, the Council reversed one Planning Commission action. Of the 11 potentially delegable items, it is staff’s opinion that 3 or 4 of them would have been appealed on to the City Council due to controversy. If our estimate is correct, the net reduction and organizational efficiency for the City Council and their support personnel in 1993 would be at most 28 to 32 percent fewer planning applications. For applicants, the net amount of ¯process reduction would likely benefit 24% or fewer of the applicants to Council. Policies and Programs Draft IV (September 8, 1994)Page 2 Participation Palo Alto is well served by a strong manager/council form government. Many residents are interested in being more effectively engaged in and connected to the civic affairs Q.f.~e!~ ~ommunity. First, the charter should be changed to delega{~ :~|~d use decisions to the Planning Commission. Many land use decisions now require both Planning Commission and Council hearings. Delegation, subject to appeal to the Council, would streamline...... ¯ ~;~, ..........)~Councilmost decisions. Both apphcants and the Council would be reheved of numerous proceedmgs~ .....................The -,hould also create more advisory commissions where th.ere.is a ~9~itted constituenc~~.~,!~: Second, Palo Alto should ~.,~h~ orgamzatton and operation of neighborhood orgamzat~ons. Many tnd~qldu~ls fin~ tt eas and more compelling to be engaged in their immediate neighborhood than in city wide activities. Community wide objectives such as communications, emergency preparedness, beautification, recreation, gardening and planning projects could be enhanced and localized by neighborhood groups. STAFF COMMENTS Staff would also recommend that the Council consider a combined Community Services Commission a step toward the CPAC vision statement on "Participation." We advocate one commission versus several separate commissions for such services as Libraries, Parks, and Recreation as an attempt to encourage collaboration among various constituencies for cooperative allocation of a sparse city budget. Additionally, the cost of staft’mg independent commissions for various community service constituencies grows with the number of independent commissions and individuals to be supported. The etm’ent "Friends off organizations would continue to function as they traditionally have. The Palo Alto City council will delegate A. more decision making ~o tiie Planning Commission to simplify processes for most applicants and reduce the number of public hearings for non-controversial projects. The Council makes all policy decisions such as ado pting the budget and ordinances. Co The Planning Commission applies city polio) in specified cases. Ix/P p GV-1.C1 - The appeal to Council should receive more emphasis in this program. Note: BOLD text indicates changes from Draft lll to Draft IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on Draft IlL Underline~d text indicates recommended policies and programs which are currently contained in the Comprehensive Plan, with current references in parenthesis. Facilitate increased and effective opportunities for citizen participation in govern anc~-m~hqmg~’~ B.Organizations and knowledgeable individual~ will be invited to comment early in the process on development or revision of city policy, bl P P A. Easily accessible information lind electronle. ,, .,.meata wut De ’at,0d to ermance communication with the COtincil and among orgfinizations and resideni~ [q ~ p c0mrnissi0n~ and the~ di~er~ petiodieaily for need and clarity ofr0ie. NPP ~t3.The Council periodically reviews the need "_for vossible new commissions; e.~, ~ A4.~ t~u~’~ ~v t~s o~ry~o ~’missions in ~analyzing issues and putting them in the ~context of city policy, law and history to assist them in their work as provided for in the City budget. ~F’I:" AI~Employ a pr0~ 0f~it~Ineighbortio0d liaisons, eleetroiiie i~0~iinication and print commtmieaiio~t6 ~f~ tla~ t~idenls of oming iss,~ ~d !~itfi~!!itate their -- STAFF COMMENTS GV-2. and 2.A - This Goal should be changed to a policy substituting for those to be eliminated under GV-1. 2A then becomes redundant. "Clarify issues" should be changed to "provide input to Council." GV-2.A - Delete, now merged into GV-2. GV-2.AI through A4 - Staff acknowledges the benefits of these program recommendations and feels the need to advise the Council as to the costs. Support for volunteers can only be effective ff they are linked to the City organization through resource allocation. The costs in staff time, mailing, agendas, minutes, etc. have been the source of recent significant controversy (e.g., costs related to the interim CPAC process or the current controversy with the ~ as to whether they should receive a budget for minutes rather than preparing them themselves) The benefits in lever’aged volunteer hours are manyfold, but are achieved with notable public costs. Private costs are also felt. The more volunteer involvement, the more bureaucratic and less "streamlined" the decision or policy-making process. The disadvantages of additional bureaucracy may overshadow the benefits. Consideration should be given to making citizen groups advisory to the City Manager, in appropriate instances, as well as to Council. Advisory groups should also review service levels, in addition to policy issues. GV-2.A2 - This program should include a provision to "sunset" those " committees and commissions which have fulfilled their identified function or task and are no longer needed. GV-2.B - Staff questions the intended use of the term "knowledgeable individuals." Note: BOLD text indicates changes from Draft III to Draft IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on Draft Ill. Underlined text indicates recommended policies and programs ~hich are currently contained in the Comprehensive Plan, with current references in parenthesis. ,City oJ I’alo Alto C’~m~prehensive t%m I.:pdate Policies and Programs Draft IV (September 8, 1994)Page 4 LAS.M~e codnci~ ~d c~i~sion ~d~ ~d digitized mate~al relev~h~ to items of b~ad interest available elecwonieaily and accept resident’s commen~ elecwonically. ~p ~ A6.Sponsor an annual opportunity for all public and non-profit organizations serving Palo Alto to provide information about themselves and recruit participation in deliv,e~/of and use of their services. A7.prNovFi(~le opportunities for everyone in Palo Alto to use advanced communications at City libraries. NI~’P (2 Di#agree, 3 Agree W/changes) AS.Pilot, as permitted, electronic communications to the Council on matters ~ before the Council. /q ~’P STAFF COMMENTS GV-3.A1 and A8 -These program recommendations have created significant public controversy and debate as they have evolved through the CPAC process. In part the controversy stems from concern that an electronic communication technique from individuals to the Council on matters coming before the Council could evolve to a real-time electorate poll prior to or immediately after Council decisions. This technological capability challenges fundamental principles of American representative democracy. Some have said it challenges the ability of elected officials to lead. Others f’md it the ultimate in "nimbyimn." Grave concerns " regarding fair accessibility to such a system for all individuals would be difficult or impossible to achieve due to the "techno-gap." Staff has questioned whether the emphasis on electronic access will be perceived as somewhat elitist and exclusionary. Staff has also raised questions regarding the impracticality of achieving compliance with the Brown Act, which does not envision electronic means of public input. In some ways, FAX, internet, e.mail and the media have already begun to augment or challenge traditional political process and work environments in ways that we could never have imagined years ago and that we are continually adjusting to. These programs raise many thought-provoking ¯ issues and debates which staff feels largely unqualified to respond to but we raise a few of them here to further the public and policy-maker discussion. GV-3.A3 and A6 - Delete. These are good ideas, but they sliould not be in the Comprehensive Plan. GV-3.A7 - What does this mean? This is true now. Note: BoLD text indicates changes from Drat~ 111 to Draft IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on Draft 11I. U__qndedined text indicates recommended policies and programs which are currently conlained in the Comprehensive Plan, with current references in parenthesis. Policies ond Programs Draft IV (Septem’ber 8, 1994)Page 5 community citizens m~d their neighborhoOd org~i~iOns arc strong and contribute to a ~enSe of community. ~ p p A2. D Enhance citizen acceS~ t6 information and ~ervices by ommunl~a~|ng neighborhOOd organ~fiOn~ Where ~vaiiable. N P ~ Encourage formation of a private ¯ council of neighborhoods comprised of neighborhood leaders to help foster quality neighborhood organizations, including participation in leadership programs. /~ to p’ (I 0 Disagree, I Agree w/changes) Upon request of the neighborhood group, designate one existing city staff member from any department to act as a liaison between the city and any multi-purpose neighborhood organization which meets regularly and has significant membership from a self-def’med area in the city to facilitate two-way communication and understanding. /~ F’P (7 Disagree, 3 Agree w/changes) E~O~g~ i~identtal and business Note: BOLD text indicates changes from Draft III to Draft IV, Balic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on Draft 111. Underline___~d text indicates recommended policies ~nd programs which are currently contained in the Comprehensive PI.an, with current references in parenthesis, STAFF COMMENTS GV-4.A2 - Delete. This action could be undertaken by those private organizations without City support. It would be the best use of City resources to commit first to developing stronger cohesiveness in the individual organizations through other programs identified by CPAC, (i.e., a handbook, neighborhood emergency preparedness program, and/or other neighborhood liaison programs). GV-4.A3 - Staff acknowledges the benefit of a program of staff liaison from City departments to neighborhood associations. The benefit of staff to citizen communication regarding any number of subjects is immeasurable in terms of building public trust in government and building customer responsiveness and understanding among public employees. Similar programs are ongoing in many departments currently, notably the Police Department and their participation with organizations on Neighborhood Watch. It. is, however, a policy shift for other departments and would require public resource expenditure, reducing the staff hours now devoted elsewhere. Some staff do not have background and training in this type of liaison function, nor do certain professions include this type of training. How much of the necessary staff commitment is offset through avoidance of future conflicts which come up through lack of advanced communication is difficult to measure. It is known that there are insufficient staff to "designate one staff person’ to each neighborhood group. An alternative might be to have a program where staff can be made available to neighborhood groups for communicating on issues which concern them, upon request. A pool of staff from all departments can be utilized by the City Manager to respond to neighborhood requests. Within the pool, certain employees can be encouraged to develop on- going relationships with specitle neighborhood groups. Any liaison program should be fashioned after the existing "Neighborhood Watch" program, where single neighborhood members are identified as lead liaisons to interact with City staff and to assume a leadership role for their neighborhood. This builds community leaders and reduces the amount of staff time needed to respond to numerous requests from individual members within the same neighborhood. BOARD AND COMMISSION COMMENTS. Human Relations Commission: GV-4. - Concvrn that the un~n str~gths of various neighborhoods which don’t have an association will be kept out of the loop and will not receive adequate attention in comparison to well-organized sections of town. Those poorer neighborhoods need to be included in this. GV-4.A. - City should facilitate linking up disvnfranchised neighborhoods with existing bona fide neighborhood associations. GV-V4.A1. - The Neighborhood Directory is a good organizing tool, but the Directory needs to be bi-lingual. GV-4-A_3. - Council should hold regular Town Men,rigs throughout the City in ~very neighborhood to include all areas. Policies qnd Programs Draft IV (September 8, 1994,)Page 6 GV-5.Palo Alto will be an active regional A. citizen. ~ p l~ GV-6. Encourage regular and spontaneous A. events to reinforce the sense of community city wide and neighborhoods, lip P G V-7.Encourage volunteerism. GV-8.A.Recognize individuals, groups and businesses that contribute to the community. C.Encourage neighborhood organizations to ~ address and meet their own needs. ~ p~ City ie~tders and staffwitl e0ntinue to participiite in regional agencies to seek mutually beneficial solutions to problems affecting Palo Alto and its enVirOns. /~1~1~ The Cii-y will enthusiastically support events with use Of ~’aciiities and in-kind tiontrtbutlotis if they contribut6 to the communi_ty identity and servicess ~ p p citizen volunteers, including youth and seniors, will be given appr0priatetesponsible roles where they can serve to leverage city staff resources, iq~ P In large and Small ways, individuals groups and businesses who contribUte to community building public or private serviee~ in Palo Alto will be recognized by the City. i~l~P AI. .l~d,~_support~l" the annual University/City parade and at least one other celebration, community building and reeognitiofi event in various parts of town. NF P AI. (5 Disagree, 5 Agree w/changes) Erthanee city use of volunteers. A2.Facilitate communication about volunteer opportUnities in Palo Alto. /~ I~ ~ A i. A range of Options from letters of thanks to commendatiotis at public events will be systematically carried 0~t. /q p ~ STAFF COMMENTS GV-4.C3 - Needs further explanation. GV-6.A and AI - This policy and program is already being accomplished for "City Sponsored" events, but the mechanism for pdoritizing and brokering facilities beyond the current ongoing use is not within the current budget. With broader encouragement of facility use this function will become an additional resource commitment, for both program administration and facility maintenance, and policies and procedures for priorifizing events and organizations Will be needed. Likewise, Police, Public Works and Fire Department resources are needed for advance planning, coordinating, crowd control, clean-up etc., of large or multiple-small community events. These functions now require significant City resources, and expansion beyond current levels will create additional need. GV-6.AI - The mandate to budget for events such as parades does not belong in the Comprehensive Plan. City management needs flexibility to adjust finances. GV-7 - Refer to staff comments GV-2, A1 through A4. Effective use of volunteers requires staff resources to administer, coordinate and support the citizen efforts. Without proper management these efforts can be counterproductive. There are no staff resources for expanded City volunteer efforts beyond the many opportunities which already exist. This program and others cause concern because the City’s Financial resources are not expanding sufficiently tu account for increases in current service levels. There should be more consistency in the document between areas of increased cost and increased opportunities for revenue generation. Note: BOLD text indicates changes from Draft III to Draft IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on Draft I!1. Underlined text indicates recommended policies and programs which are currently contained in the Comprehensive Plan, with current references in parenthesis. L ~0" ~ t’~Ji,~ A !to ("omUr chcns~ve l’i~m t Fd~[c Policies and programs Draft IV (September 8. 1994) Oovernance ann L ommuo~O’Page 7 Planning ILack of information, early opportunities to participate and understanding of economic or civic priorities often lead to misunderstanding among developers, residents and city representatives. Present mechanisms for planning flexibility have been disappointing to many. Palo Alto presently has no mechanism for working collaboratively with developers, o..w~..~ers and neighbors on projects with significant impacts on a neighborhood. A change N ~ I~f "i~mph~Ize ~i pr6aeilv~ ahd i~ollsborallve interested resioe . ~ p¯ - ""/exchank~ o~ Ideas between devei0persl ¯may be an appropriate approaeh/~pr the /netglrh~rs~iid the City. Dtiring e~aa~ in,eeA¢ design workshop may p~lovtde nn ¯’CPAC will. .."gag ¯-"the City*s pres t de~eiopment project .N ~P’hun es ~pre-~ereenin o " anee ann commumty ’¯ _. . r _ _ ~ AJ~thr~0~’approael~Stoplannlngmaybe ~,’,c.~ l~n~ ,,e,~.rt’~.Se~, -t ~needed~e~r’~e~neededt~iddi:eSsmajoi" aplansSUchiis .. __ ~ I.t i.~" dpait ~d clarify . STAFF COMMENTS GV-9.A - Staff recommends modifying and clarifying this policy r~commendatinn. We understand CPAC to be recommending a hierarchy of processes which would allow for or require e~-lier collaborative idea exchange between property owners, neighbors and the City for certain controversial and significant "change"proposals. We understand the frustration being expressed about current processes, which require public hearings prior to any planning entitlement, (especially before the recently adopted prescreening process, which has yet to be used) but after project design investment. From a citizen perspective a reactive process is laden with inherent conflict since the physical changes are publicly discussed with the neighborhood after the design investment has been made. The developer enters this public discussion or hearing with "buy in" into his proposal, literally and figm’ativeiy. The developer may turn to staff for advice about the community concerns or to the ARB, Planning C6mmission and City Council for advice, but it is a rare and sophisticated developer who actually enters into a meaningful, professional design dialogue with surrounding neighbors and stakeholders in advance of the project design development, in a community where property rights and individual investment are highly valued and respected, the traditional process "feels" to some members of the public and CPAC like it is weighted against positive neighborhood or citizen input from those members of the community with significant, stake in the outcome of the proposed physical change and in the best position to provide local knowledge to the professional designer to improve the product. Note: BOLD text indicates changes from Draft III to Draft IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on ~ II1. ~ text indicates recommended policies and programs which are currently contained in the Comprehensive Plan, with current references in parenthesis. STAFF COMMENTS On the other hand, from the perspective of the typical property owner or developer, the individuals with the most to gain or lose, the concept of additional process beyond that now required by local ordinance is very undesirable. The current process is considered cumbersome and costly, and a severe economic disincentive. Public participation in the traditional manner is considered to raise the risk of outcome and the risk of investment. "Nimbyisrn" is feared to be encouraged through additional process. The goal CPAC is articulating is to invent new ways to streamline the final process product for both developer and community by investing earlier in proactive planning or design development. Some criticize this goal as unrealistic, and the examples of successful processes of this type are rare. The CPAC goal is to increase the predictability of outcome for both the applicant and the public, reduce the litigious community culture through improved communication between all stakeholders through earlier dialogue and interactive design. The hope is that everyone can win, both public and private interests. The hierarchy of potential processes they wish to explore, perhaps through a joint weekend workshop (within current budget constraints) with Council members, Commissioners, developers, invited experts and the public in Phase III is as follows: Coordinated Area Plans - This term is being applied to a humber of planning tools (e.g., Specific Plans, precise Plans, Area Plans, etc...) for planning areas in the city under multiple ownership and which are judged to need proactive public intervention. The areas identified by CPAC that staff concurs would be atrpt~riate for this type of tool are: Midtown, SOFA, El Camino Real, Cal/Ventura, the "Dream Team" area and East Meadow Circle Area. (Refer to staff comments CD pp. 3a). ’STAFF COMMENTS Preliminary Screening - The City Council has adopted a public presereening process available for certain projects and the CPAC believes this new process may provide opportunity for community input in the design of these projects prior to property owners committing money toward design development. Since this process requires public notice, it may satisfy this CPAC identified need, although they have not studied it sufficiently and it has not yet been tested practically. It is ¢mrently only initiated at the applieant/property owners request. Preliminary ARB - This process allows for earlier ARB and community input into the design of individual projects which require ARB approval. It too is available at the applicants PC Z~ne Changes - This process allows individual applications to exceed the parameters of the zoning ordinance under certain circumstances. It has a built-in requirement for conceptual public and Planning Commission review prior to detailed specific plans being completed. Other Planned District process - The issue of whether Palo Alto has, by limiting our tools for zoning fleXibility to the PC process, limited our success with development products has been raised by the Commission and Council, particularly for housing. The PC process is very long and requires a public benefit finding. Staff has long felt the need for a planned development process that does not require a public benefit finding, particularly for housing projects. Staff recommends that these processes be restricted to projects with physical, rather than use and/or economic changes. (Refer to staff comments regarding CD-2.CI.4a. ’ Policies and Programs Draft IV (September 8, 1994)Page 8 GV-9, A3.For specific development proposals, a variation of the Palo Alto Development Project pre-screening approach may be appropriate where: r~ P~ (i) the project requires a comprehensive plan change; (ii) there is a risk of strong conflict between the developer, neighbors and the City; (iii) the conflict might be allayed by facilitated woi’kshgop/conflict resolution types sessions involving all interest; or (iv) the project is at an early stage where changes area easily incorporated. (4 Disagree, 4 Agree w/changes) Note: BOLD text indicates changes from Draft 111 to Draft IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on Draft 111. Underlined text indicates recommended policies and programs which are currently contained in the Comprehensive Plan, with current references in parenthesis. Policies and Programs Draft IV (September 8, 1994)Page 9 GV-10. Applicants ~d re~id~.~ ab!~ toI Note: BOLD text indicates changes fTom Draft II1 to Draft IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on Draft !I1. ~ text indicates ~commended policies and programs which are currently contained in the Comprehensive Plan, with current references in parenthesis.