HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-17 City Council (45)TO:
BUDGET 1996-98
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Summary Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE:CMR:271:96 (-REUSED)
SUBJECT:Draft Planning Division Work Program, Fiscal Years 1996/97 and
1997/98
REQUEST
The purpose of this report is to request Council review and endorsement of staff’s
pdoritization of the resources allocated in the 1996/98 Planning Division budget. The staff
prepared Work Program lists tasks, ordinance and otherwise, that have been assigned or
recommended by the City Manager, City Council, Boards, Commissions, public or staff, and
are recommended by staff, to be initiated or completed in 1996/98. It contains a description
of each task and an estimate of time and non-salary cost to complete it. There is a Summary
Table in the front of the document, and appendices describe the hours available from staff
on an annual basis. Also, this program incorporates two improvements requested by the City
Council upon endorsement of last year’s Work Program. First is the retention of contingency
hours. For 1996/97 there are ~ 573 non-committed staffhours and for 1997/98 there are
938 non-committed staff hours . Secondly, each task has been assigned a priority designation
of high, medium or low. Furthermore, the attached long-form staff report includes a list in
which the tasks are listed in recommended order of their priority within each of those
designations.
Also attached foi your review is a mid-year status report on the 1995/96 Work Program
endorsed by the Council in September of 1995.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff and the Finance Commiteexecommends that the Council review and endorse the Work
Program. TheFinanceCom~ittee addedltem22to~th~WorkProgram! ~isaddition
resi
Program.
CMR:271:96 (Revised6/17/96)Page 1 of 12
Also, staff recommends that the Council review and endorse the prioritization of tasks
reflected in list in the attached long-form staff report. As situations arise which require
adjustment, this list will guide staff in making decisions on the relative priority of
assignments and especially item(s) that, if necessary, can be delayed.
The following eight tasks can be completed only with a budget amendment:
#7, PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan;
#8, Cal-Ventura Coordinated Area Plan;
#9, South E1 Camino/Gateway CIP;
#12, HRB Ordinance;
# 13, Zoning Ordinance Update/Develop Review Recommendations (Streamlining);
#14, Zoning Ordinance Update/Regulations for New Land Use Designations;
# 15, Zoning Ordinance Update/Overhaul; and
#38 39, Update HRB Inventory/Classifications.
Council will need to direct staff to return such amendment(s) to the Council if the tasks are
to be initiated or completed in 1996/98. These tasks were not included in the recommended
budget for the following reasons. Items #7, 8, 13, 14, & 15 are Draft Comprehensive Plan
programs, and the timing and prioritization of their implementation is still pending Council
review in Phase III of the new Comprehensive Plan process. Additionally, the staff
assignment to initiate a Coordinated Area Plan for the Cal-Ventura Area is pending in FY
95/96. Because the full scope of all these assignments is pending further Council review, and
because it was uncertain in which fiscal year they would be initiated, staff recommends they
be handled through the Budget Amendment process. They are also large, one-time
expenditures, and the City has, on occasion, handled other such expenditures in this manner
in the past, e.g., the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, Item #7 is related to the recent
approval of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Campus relocation to Urban Lane. The timing
of the Coordinated Area Plan is to be coordinated with the implementation of the PAMF
relocation and is uncertain.
Item #9 was not prioritized for funding in the Capital Improvement Program process, given
other funding needs. It was hoped that funds would be derived through redevelopment of
adjacent property.
In the case of the historic assignments, Items # 12 and 3839, they were not o(igin~!ly
included in the budget because they were under consideration for Budget Amendment
Ordinance by City Council in F¥ 1995-96, as a result of a referral from Council’s review of
the 1995-96 Work Program in September of 1995 (CMR 156:96). Decisions regarding the
Historic Ordinance Update were expected by staff to be made in spring of 1996, after a
February 29, 1996 joint study session between Council and the HRB. The study session was
,,.,1,.,, ~.~ ~." ~ ~,...~.’11 ~ ~ .,1;~ ~ ..... .... .... ........subsequently delayed and the ,~,~,.,~,,~,~ ,o
CMR:271:96 (Revised 6/17/96)Page 2 of 12
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This Work Program is a tool for prioritizing and coordinating the implementation of City
policies and programs consistent with the adopted 1996-98 City budget. Future work
programs will be submitted in conjunction with the annual budget,-thus providing a greater
opportunity for Council adjustment of resources and priorities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Planning Division Work Program is a list and description of all tasks which have been
assigned, or are requested to be assigned, to the Planning Division. Assignments include
ordinance amendments, special studies or other tasks. The Work Program includes only
tasks assigned to the Advanced Planning Section of the Division. Planners in the
Development Review Section are unavailable for these assignments, because their time is
consumed in the daily processing of entitlement permits (e.g., variances, use permits, home
improvement exceptions, Architectural Review Board approvals, site and design approvals,
etc.). The main exception to this role is that major or complex entitlement applications, e.g.,
Sand Hill Corridor applications, are being processed by Advanced Planning staff. Likewise,
certain personnel in Development Review are assisting in the Division’s public information
and information systems development, (e.g., GIS, desktop-publishing), which are long-term
investments to enhance the productivity and effectiveness of both Sections. The
Organizational Chart attached to the Work Program illustrates the staff positions by Section
for the Division.
The purpose of the Work Program is to: 1) allocate Planning Division staff hours for the
fiscal year according to the priorities of the City Manager and City Council; 2) describe
Board, Commission and public requests for legislative amendments and special studies; and
3) coordinate interdepartmental work assignments.
The document is organized into Mission Driven Budget Functional Areas and is scheduled
for review by Council in coordination with the budget review.
The Work Program is not intended to be rigid, particularly as we begin prioritizing and
projecting over a two-year period. Much of that forecasting will be speculative and subject
to change in circumstances. The Work Program is intended to allow for flexibility in re-
prioritizing and adjusting to changing public demands and to improve communication about
the ramifications of new assignments on existing assignments, so that all parties impacted
by Planning, including the public and volunteer Boards and Commissions, are fully aware
of how resources are being spent.
CMR:271:96 (Revised6/17/96)Page 3 of 12
The Work Program has been circulated for review by the Public Art Commission,
Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board and the Planning Commission. Their
comments and recommendations are summarized in the attached long-form staff report.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of various Work Program items is included in the individual item descriptions.
Should staff be directed to.pursue any of the eight items shown in the Summary Table with
diagonal stripes, a budget amendment or other source of funding will be needed.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Work Program is.not a "project" under the definition of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
PREPARED BY: Nancy Maddox Lytle
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Ciby Manager
CMR:271:96 (Revised 6117/96)Page4 of 12
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
SUBJECT:Draft Planning Division Work Program 1996/97 and 1997/98
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff: Staff recommends that the Council review and endorse the Work Program. The staff-
prepared Work Program lists tasks, ordinance and otherwise, that have been assigned or
recommended by the City Manager, City Council, Boards, Commissions, public or staff, and
are recommended by staff to be initiated or completed in 1996/98. It contains a description
of each task and an estimate of time and non-salary cost to complete it. There is a Summary
Table in the front of the document, and appendices describe the hours available from staff
on an annual basis. Also, this program incorporates two improvements requested by the City
Council upon endorsement of last year’s Work Program. First is the retention of contingency
hours. For 1996/97.there are ~ 573 non-committed staff hours and for 1997/98 there are
938 non-committed staff hours. Secondly, each task has been assigned a priority designation
of high, medium or low. Furthermore, in the DISCUSSION section of this staff report (pages
8-11) the tasks are shown in recommended order of their priority within each of those
designations.
Also attached for your review is a mid-year status report on the 1995-96 Work Program
endorsed by the Council in September of 1995.
This Work Program is forwarded with the understanding that situations will arise during the
year that will cause reprioritization and adjustment.
Public Art Commission (PAC): The Commission reviewed the Work Program on April 24,
1996. They recommended that the Program be endorsed, with a modification to include art
as an important component in Items #6 through #12 and Item #16. They proposed that artists
should be included in the professional teams hired to fulfill these assignments.
Staff agrees with this recommendation as long as the inclusion of artists does not raise the
cost or delay the timing of the project. The Public Arts Commission has made a case that
artists can solve problems and save money. They provide as an example the Alma Street
Substation Site, where the inclusion of art in the fence design made the project acceptable
to the public and ARB. It was accomplished to the technical specifications of the Utilities
Department for less cost than the original engineering proposal.
CMR:271:96 (Revised 6/17/96)Page 5 of 12
Historic Resources Board The Historic Resources Board reviewed the Work Program on
April 10, 1996. They recommended that Item #12, the HRB Ordinance Update, be
prioritized for 1996/97, recommended that the title of Item #~39 be changed to "Historic
Design Guidelines" to broaden the scope of the assignment. Staff has accounted for this
assignment in our Work Program for 1996/97, and it is estimated that the additional cost of
the Historic Ordinance Update would be $47,000 for contract planning services, to include
a specialist in historic preservation.
Architectural Review Board: The Architectural Review Board reviewed the Work Program
on April 4, 1996. They recommended that the Work Program be endorsed. They added a
recommendation that art be incorporated into public projects and that this objective become
a new Work Program item. Staff finds that a separate Work Program item is unnecessary in
order to address the ARB’s desire. Currently, the Public Art Commission participates in the
ciP process and reviews and identifies opportunities for inclusion of art in public projects.
They are currently participating in several CIP projects, including the Downtown
Improvements CIP and the Downtown Parking Structure Committee, and intend to continue
to involve artists in public works projects in the future.
Planning Commission: The Planning Commission reviewed the CIP and Work Program on
April 10, 1996. They requested that the use of"illustrative tools" be added to the description
of Items # 13, # 14 and # 15, and endorsed the document and the recommended priority list.
Minutes of this Planning Commission meeting are included with this report in Council’s
May 16, 1996 packet.
BACKGROUND
Staff’s development of the Work Program has evolved over the past several years in response
to an ongoing situation of 1) having the expectations for the amount of work to be completed
exceed the resources available, and 2) having no clear mechanism for establishing the
relative priority of .various work tasks. There is great competition for Planning staff
resources, due in part to the Comprehensive Plan update commitments and in part to the age
of the City’s major regulatory ordinances and their need for revisions.
Development of the Work Program included a major effort on the part of the Planning
Division staff to refine methods used to estimate the amount of time and resources needed
to complete assignments. This two-year Work Program also coincides with, and was closely
coordinated with, the Mission Driven Budget.
Definition of the Planning Division Work Program
The Planning Division Work Program is a list of tasks, ordinance and otherwise, that have
been assigned or recommended by the City Manager, City Council, Boards, Commissions,
CMR:271:96 (Revised 6/17/96)Page 6 of 12
public or staff and are recommended by staff. It contains a description of each task and an
estimate of time and non-salary cost to complete it. There is a Summary Table in the front
of the document, and appendices describe the hours available from staff on an annual basis.
Also, this program incorporates two improvements requested by the City Council upon
endorsement of last year’s Work Program. First is the retention of contingency hours.
Secondly, each task has been assigned a priority designation of high, medium or low and a
specific priority ranking.
The Work Program includes only tasks assigned to the Advanced Planning Section of the
Division. Planners in the Development Review Section are unavailable for these
assignments, because their time is consumed in the daily processing of entitlement permits
(e.g., variances, use permits, home improvement exceptions, Architectural Review Board
approvals, site and design approvals, etc.). The main exception to this rule is that major or
complex entitlement applications, e.g., Sand Hill Corridor applications, are being processed
by Advanced Planning staff. Likewise, certain personnel in Development Review are
assisting in the Division’s public information and information systems development, (e.g.,
GIS, desktop-publishing), which are long-term investments to enhance the productivity and
effectiveness of both Sections. The attached Organizational Chart illustrates the staff
positions by Section for the Division.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Work Program is to: 1) allocate Planning Division staff hours for the
fiscal year according to the priorities of the City Manager and City Council; 2) describe
Board, Commission and public requests for legislative amendments and special studies; and
3) coordinate interdepartmental work assignments.
The document is organized into Mission Driven Budget Functional Areas. The Work
Program is now scheduled for review by the Council in coordination with the City’s budget
process on a two-year cycle.
Also included as an attachment is the semi-annual progress report for the 1995/96 Work
Program.
When considering trade-offs in Work Program items, it is important to understand certain
management constraints:
1. Hours are not necessarily interchangeable. Certain planners have talents and training
in areas that others do not. For example, the Senior Planner for Housing is a specialist in
Housing Program items and her job is focused in that area. The same is tree for the Planner
who handles GIS and Desktop-publishing Systems development. Furthermore, the positions
CMR:271:96 (Revised 6/17/96)Page 7 of 12
of Technician, Associate Planner and Senior Planner are not interchangeable in their training,
experience, and abilities.
2. Hours are not necessarily cumulative. For example, it is not possible to remove four
50-hour assignments from the Work Program and add them together to make up enough
hours to accomplish a 200-hour task, unless all of those assignments come from one Planner.
In other words, it.-is-necessary to be cognizant of who .is assigned to various jobs in
considering eliminating and recombining to allow for another higher priority assignment.
As Council makes new assignments during the year, staff will return to Council with a report
on the resources needed to accomplish the assignment and how the commitment affects the
Work Program. The new assignment will be handled by utilizing contingency hours, as long
as they are available, or by delaying other low and medium priority items once contingency
has been consumed. A Mid-Year Report on the entire Work Program progress will also be
prepared and forwarded to Council at the time the Mid-Year Budget is evaluated.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This Work Program is a tool for prioritizing and coordinating the implementation of City
policies and programs consistent with the adopted 1996/98 City budget. Future work
programs will be submitted in conjunction with the annual budget, thus providing an
opportunity for Council adjustment of resources and priorities. The Work Program will also
return to Council in conjunction with proposals for major new Planning staff assignments
and major changes in priority.
DISCUSSION
The Work Program assists in prioritizing assignments and scheduling resources for improved
management and efficiency. It is a communication tool for all participants in the Planning
process (i.e., City Council, City staff, Boards, Commissions and other members of the
public). It is designed to complement, and be coordinated with, the Mission Driven Budget.
It allows all participants in the organization to better understand: 1) the tasks that have been
assigned or requested by the City Manager and Council for that fiscal year; 2) the
assignments requested by others; and 3) the amount of staff time that is estimated to
accomplish them. It provides a framework for understanding priorities and making trade-off
decisions during the year when new, unexpected tasks arise. It allows for full accountability
of time and tasks, and will hopefully be of positive motivational assistance by allowing all
members of the Planning Organization to coordinate their efforts, regularly take stock of their
accomplishments, and examine their shortfalls constructively. Finally, the Work Program
allows for tracking deferred items into subsequent years or for eliminating work assignments
completely if they have fallen from priority.
CMR:271:96 (Revised 6/17/96)Page 8 of 12
Priorities recommended for 1996/97/98
Staff recommends that all items displayed in the white cells in the Summary be included for
the 1996/97 Work Program, and that all items displayed in the light grey cells be included
in the 1997/98 Work Program.
Like last year, the Work Program items are organized into Mission Driven Budget Functional
Areas. In addition, this year~s document also reflects a priority designation for each item per
City Council request. The categories are "H", "M", or "L" for high, medium, and low. This
designation appears in both the individual Item Descriptions and the Summary Table at the
front of the document.
The following lists items recommended for 1996/97 grouped by priority designation.
Further, the items are listed in order of their priority within each designation (item numbers
do not reflect priority).
Recommended for 96/97 - High Priority
Item #
1
2
3
4
5
L~ 23
6
gL3,24
£6 27
L~ 30
4~ 45
11
12
Item Title
Comprehensive Plan Phase III-Draft Plan
Comprehensive Plan Phase III-Draft.EIR
Comprehensive Plan Phase III-Housing
Comprehensive Plan Phase III-Edit and Publish
Comprehensive Plan Phase III-Public Review and Adoption
Stanford/Sand Hill Projects
Downtown Urban Design Improvements
Palo Alto Medical Foundation Implementation
Housing for Persons with Developmental Disabilities
725-753 Alma Street SRO
Downtown Parking Structure
Midtown Area Plan
Historic Resources Board Ordinance
8. 33
~ 36
4-546
464z
BMR Contribution from 651 Hamilton
Geographic Information System
CIP Project Review and Coordination
Coordination with Administrative Services (Real Estate)
Recommended for 96/9 7 - Medium Priority
Item #Item Title
8 Cal/Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
4-2 43 CIP Design Consultant
36 37 Permit Tracking/Condition Monitoring System
CMR:271:96 (Revised 6/17/96)Page 9 of 12
Customer Handbooks
CEQA Guidelines Handbook (Attorney’s Lead)
Revision of Housing Reserve Guidelines/Commercial in-Lieu Fee Ordinance
BMR Program Evaluation
Mortgage Credit Certificate Allocation
CDBG/Housing Capital Improvements Rehab Program
Systems Technology~ublishing Graphics
Palo Alto Stanford Intermodal Interface Area (Dream Team)
Victor Aviation Application
Recommended for 96/97 - Low Priority
Item #
~ 48
4~ 44
40 41
Item Title
Sub-Regional Interagency Review & Coordination
Los Altos Treatment Plant Study and Annexation
Regional, State, and Federal Interagency Review & Coordination
Mills Act Contract Ordinance
The following lists items recommended for 97/98 are grouped by priority designation.
Further, the items are listed in order of their priority within each designation (item numbers
from the document do not reflect priority).
Recommended for 97/98 - High Priority
Item #
5
7
6
14
15
16
~27
Item Title
Comprehensive Plan Phase III-Public Review and Adoption (cont.)
PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan
Downtown Urban Design Improvements (cont.)
Zoning Ordinance Update/Regulations for new Land Use Designations
Zoning Ordinance Update/Overhaul
Revised Sign Ordinance
Housing for Persons with Developmental Disabilities (cont.)
725-753 Alma Street SRO (cont.)
Downtown Parking Structure (cont.)
Update HRB Inventory/Classifications
BMR Contribution from 651 Hamilton (cont.)
Geographic Information System (cont.)
CIP Project Review and Coordination (cont.)
Coordination with Administrative Services (Real Estate) (cont.)
Recommended for 97/98 - Medium Priority
Item #Item Title
10 Palo Alto Stanford Intermodal Interface Area (Dream Team) (cont.)
~ 43 CIP Design Consultant (cont.)
CMR:271:96 (Revised6/17/96)Page 10 of 12
9
Permit Tracking/Condition Monitoring System (cont.)
Customer Handbooks (cont.)
Revision of Housing Reserve Guidelines/Commercial in-Lieu Fee Ordinance (cont.)
BMR Program Evaluation (cont.)
Mortgage Credit Certificate Allocation (cont.)
CDBG/Housing Capital Improvements Rehab Program (cont.)
Systems Technology~ublishing Graphics (cont.)
South E1 Camino/Gateway CIP
Recommended for 97/98 -
Item #
~31
~ 49
~-~ 28
22
Low Priority
Item Title
Sub-Regional Interagency Review & Coordination (cont.)
Los Altos Treatment Plant Study and Annexation (cont.)
HOME Grant Application
Regional, State, and Federal Interagency Review & Coordination (cont.)
Single Family Shared Housing
The following lists items are not recommended for either year; staffrecommends that these
items be considered again in 1998/99. For that reason, they have been given a priority
designation of low.
Consider again in 98/99 -
Item #
19
~7~ 38
20
21
Low Priority
Item Title
Professorville Design Guidelines
Certified Local Government Grant Application
Noise Ordinance
Hazardous Materials Storage Facility Ordinance
The following two items are recommended to be merged with Item # 15, Zoning Ordinance
Update/Overhaul. For that reason they have been given a priority designation of low;
however, Item # 15 is a high priority item.
Recommended to be merged w/Item #15 in 97/98:
Item # Item Title
17 Review Defmitions of Gross Floor Area
18 Mitigation/Condition Monitoring Ordinance
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to an adopted Work Program include working without one. Staff recommends
that this method of management is not satisfactory for Council, Boards, Commissions, staff
members, and public members who can’t understand why the Division is not more
responsive to their particular need for service. Many parties do not understand the staff time
CMR:271:96 (Revised6/17/96)Page 11 of 12
required to complete a legislative amendment or other projects. This is a time of extreme
competition for Planning resources, due in part to the Comprehensive Plan Update and in
part to the fact that many of our ordinances are twenty years old and in need of contemporary
overhaul.
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs of various Work Program items are included in-the individual item descriptions.
The costs of recommended items are included and coordinated with the 1996/98 Budget, with
the exception of Items 7, 8, ~ 13, 14, 15, 19, Lr’324 ~...~ :za ~o T,:. ~_.:~:.~,^~, ~,__~ :,~_ ,-,
Item 12 was added to the Division budget after the Finance Committee
recommendation at ~B~lget Wrap Up.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Work Program is not a "project" under the defmitions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, and no Environmental Assessment is required.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Once adopted, staff will produce final copy of the Work Program as their guide for the
remainder of the two years. Progress will be reported in six months in an informational
report. As new Council assignments are imposed, staff will use Council’s direction on
priorities to adjust the Work Program to allow for the new assignment, or return to Council
for questions of priority trade-off. A new two-year Work Program will be submitted in
conjunction with the next two-year budget cycle.
ATTACHMENTS~XHIBITS:
Mid-Year Report, 1995/96 Work Program
Excerpt Minutes of ARB Meeting
COURTESY COPIES:
Architectural Review Board
Historic Review Board
Planning Commission
Public Art Commission
CMR:271:96 (Revised6/17/96)Page 12 of 12
Division Work program
iVlid Year Report
as ofFebruary1996
Advance Planning
On time
On time ~g] tentatively scheduled for
May or June
Public hearing tentatively scheduled for June or
July 1996
See Draft 96197/98 Work Program; expected
completion date July 1996
Revised schedule See Draft 96!97198 Work Program
Revised schedule See Draft 96/97/98 Work Program
Revised schedule See Draft 96197198 Work Program
Revised schedule See Draft 96/97198 Work Program
Revised schedule See Draft 96/97/98 Work Program
On time Contract initiated in April, first public workshop
scheduled for 4/26 & 27/96
On time PVEA Grant Application applied for on March 8,
1996
On going
On time
plans complete - City Council review
expected June 1996.
Contract initiated in April,plan to be published
with Downtown Urban Design Improvements
Completed Being reviewed as part of 96/97 CDBG funding
and includes 96/97 Annual Action Plan &
Fair Housin
p:\wp956Lmidytm’.wp
Development Review
On time
Completed
Comple~d
Compl¢~d
Draft EIR under preparation; public hearings
anticipated to begin mid- to late summer.
Affordable Housing and Community Development Block
Deferred See Draft 96/97/98 Work Program; estimated
completion date is December 1997.
On time
Deferred See DraR 96/97/98 Work Program
Delayed Awaiting notification regarding tax credit
awards:date unknown - subject to lawsuit
Completed Application submitted - City did
Completed
Deferred See Draft 96/97/98 Work Program
Information Management
Public Involvement, Education and Assistance
P:\wp956~midy~a~.wp
3
P:\wp956~midye~r, wp
Liaison, Coordination and Technical Advice
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
P:\wp956~nidyear.wp
rch.itectm’al
Rcv,ew
Board
City of Palo Alto
ROLL CALL
Board Members Present:
Mnnnuule
Thursday, April 4, 1996
8:00 AM
Council Conference Room
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California
Julia Maser
Jim McF’,dl
Bob Peterson
Cheryl Piha
Dave Ross
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Members Present:Joe Colonna (for Item II.1)
Michael Bills
Lisa Grote
Nancy Lytle (for Item III.A)
Lorraine Weiss
~ROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 21. 1996
AGENDA CHANGES,S:None ’
AGENDAITEMS
APPROVALS: The Arc~Al~ ) ~.cis~on o .~sign of the
project is a recommendat~P_l_annlng and Community’T~onment
(the Director), who makes the final decision. Unless otherwise stated by the or
B:ARB:MIN0307.drf Page 1
llI.REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS
Ao Planning Division Work Program - Review and make any recommendations to
City Council on items and priorities to be included in the Planning Division Work
Program 1996-97-98. - Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official, provided background
on the Work Program which is proposed as a two-year program. The ARB
commented that because the Board is presently working on sign interpretations and
guidelines, they were in agreement that the proposed Rex~ised Sign Ordinance be in
the recommended 97/98 budget maintaining a high priority. Review definitions of
Gross Floor Area should be moved up in priority to earlier than 97/98. Update
HRB/Inventory/Classifications should follow after the HRB Ordinance. The ARB
would like to encourage and consider a "Palo Alto Percentage for the Arts" Ordinance
to integrate art in projects included in the Work Program and to see it have a high
priority.
Motion: Approval of the Draft Work Program with comments and recommendations
as noted above.
~B. The ARB members will submit on April 18, their paragraphs regarding the Joint
~,~ ARB/City Council meeting.
C. x..~e topic to agendize: Background on True Divided Lights and other types of .
D. ~egcet~od~Zle6f.~0.b.99 ay 2, 1996 ARB me,,e~ing to discuss "Sign Content and Advertising-
(Hyatt Cabana)CC:5/20/96
.Y~~l
¯
B:ARB:MIN0307.drf Page 8
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
Draft Edition
for the
City Council
May 13, 1996
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
Table of Contents
Work Program Summary Table .................................1
Work Item Descriptions
Advance Planning
1 Comprehensive Plan Phase III- Draft Plan ............................ 9
~Comprehensive Plan Phase III- Draft EIR ............................11
Comprehensive Plan Phase III - Housing .............................13
,~
Comprehensive Plan Phase III - Editing and Publishing .................15
Comprehensive Plan Phase IV - Public review and adoption ..............17
~Downtown Urban Design Improvements (CIP) ........................19
PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan ................................21
~Cal/Ventura Coordinated Area Plan .................................23
South E1 Camino/Gateway CIP ....................................25
10 Palo Alto/Stanford Intermodal Interface Area (Dream Team) .............27
[it Midtown Area Plan ..............................................29
it2 HRB Ordinance .................................................31
it3 Zoning Ordinance Update~evelop Review Recommendations (Streamlining)33
it4 Zoning Ordinance Update~egulations for new Land Use Designations .....35
it5 Zoning Ordinance Update/Overhaul .................................37
it6 Sign Ordinance .................................................39
it7 Review Definitions of Gross Floor Area .............................41
it8 Mitigation/Condition Monitoring Ordinance ..........................43
it9 Professorville Design Guidelines ...................................45
20 Noise Ordinance ................................................47
2it Hazardous Materials Storage Facility Ordinance .......................49
Development Review
22 Stanford/Sand Hill Projects .......................................51
23 Palo Alto Medical-Foundation Implementation ........................53
24 Victor Aviation Application .......................................55
ii
Affordable Housing & Community Development Block Grant Programs
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
BMR Program Evaluation ..................................................57
Housing for Persons with Developmental Disabilities .....................59
Single Family Shared Housing .....................................61
Revision of Housing Reserve Guidelines/Commercial in-Lieu Fee Ordinance .....63
725-753 Alma Street SRO ........................................65
HOME Grant Application .........................................67
Mortgage Credit Certificate Allocation ..............................69
BMR Contribution from 651 Hamilton ..............................71
CDBG/I-Iousing Capital Improvements Rehab Program .................73
Information Management
34
35
36
37
Systems Technology/Publishing/Graphics ............................75
GIS ..........................................................77
Permit Tracking/Condition Monitoring System ........................79
CLG Grant Application ..........................................81
Public Involvement, Education, and Assistance
Update HRB Inventory/Classifications ..............................83
Customer Handbooks .......................... ..................85
Mills Act Contracts Ordinance .....................................87
CEQA Guidelines Handbook ......................................89
Liaison, Coordination, and Technical Advice
CIP Design Consultant ...........................................91
Los Altos Treatment Plant Study and Annexation ......................93
Downtown Parking Structure ......................................95
CIP Project Review and Coordination ...............................97
Coordination with Real Estate .....................................99
Sub-Regional Interagency Review & Coordination ....................101
Regional, State, and Federal Interagency Review & Coordination ........103
Available Time in Division (breakdown) .....................105
Available Time, Planning Director (breakdown) ............109
Planning Division Employee Organization Chart ..........111
iii
iv
Planni, rg Division Work Program 97/98
Work Program SummaryTable
Item Item
rity mendation hours* ] Members*
Advance Planning
500
250
200
150
550
Nanc.v, Virginia, &
Brian
Nancy & Brian
Jim & Cathy
Gloria & Phil
Nancy, Brian, Jim, &
Vir~inia
no
yes
yes
yes
no
250 Jim ,Virginia & Nancy yes
245 Nancy & Lori yes
100 Virginia no
DRecommended ~ Recommended ~ Recommended for 96/97 ~ Recommended for 97/98
for 96/97 ~ for 97/98 ~ w/budget amendment ~ w/budget amendment
* Includes Planning Division staff: does not include Director or staff from other Divisions. -
Consider again ~ Not Recom-
in 98/99~ mefided
2
Recom-
mendation
Development Review
700 Nancy & Lori
NA Ken
20 Jim
Affordable Housing & Community Development Block Grant Programs
96/97
96/97
96/97
96/97
96/97
yes
yes
yes
L~ for 96/97 ~ for 97/98 ~ w/budget amendment ~ w/budget amendment
* Includes Planning Division staff; does not include Director or staff from other Divisions.
Consider again [~[~ Not Recom-
in 98199l~ mended
4
Staff Contract
Members*
Information Management
96/97
Public Involvement, Education, and Assistance
Staff
Hours*
100
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
200 Cathy & Jim
Gloria & Phil
no
Gloria & Phil
Lisa & Brian
Liaison, Coordination, and Technical Advice
30 Lisa no
~%~:~:~:i:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:i:i:~::
40 Lisa no
40 Nancy none for
Planning
96/97
96/97
96/97
50 Jim 500!
iiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiii ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~
60 Jim no
~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
60 Jim no
""""""""~" ~:::::::::::::::::::::::i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:!:i:i:i:i:!:~:i:i
450 Jim & Virginia no
Recommended~Recommended~Recommendedfor96/97 ~ Recommended for 97/98
for 96/97 ~ for 97/98 ~ w/budget amendment ~ w/budget amendment
* Includes Planning Division staff; does not include Director or stafffi’om other Divisions.
Consider again [~[~[~l Not Recom-
in 98/99| mended
6
96/97
Staff Contract
Members*
Iim & Virginia no
’~ancy & Jim no
Total staff & magmt, hours available for 96/97
Total staff & magmt, hours committed to items recommended for 96/97
Total staff & magmt, hours not committed (contingency) for 96/97
8643
8030
613
97/98
Total staff & magmt, hours available for 97/98
Total staff & magmt, hours committed to items recommended for 97/98
Total staff & magmt, hours not committed (contingency) for 97/98
8643
7705
938
**For explanation of hours available for Work Program see Appendix
D Recommended ~ Recommended ~ Recommended for 96/97 ~ Recommended for 97/98
for 96/97 ~ for 97(98 ~ w/budget amendment ~ ,’,’/budget amendment
* Includes Planning Division staff; does not include Director or staff from other Divisions.
Consider again
in 98/99
Not Recom-
mended
7
8
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preparation of the Draft Plan includes writing of the following elements after completion of
Council review of the draft goals, policies and programs and after identification and resolution of
internal consistencies during the "summing up" by Council in Phase II.
Introduction, Land Use and Community Design Element, Transportation Element, Housing
Element (refer to separate item), Natural Environment Element, Community Services and
Facilities (to include Safety) and Business and Economics Element, plus an Implementation
Section and a Governance Element if directed by the Council.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Completion of Phase III is necessary for the completion of the revised Comprehensive Plan as
scheduled.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
~/97
Planning Division .......500*
Contract Services ..........no
97/
Planning Division ...........NA
Contract Services ............NA
*Does not include the time of the Director of Planning and Community Environment
COST
~/97
$22,000 remaining in budget for contract
assistance in preparing Draft Plan.
97/
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
¯Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
¯Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
[]Auditor
¯ Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
qO/q7
Dept. Lead:
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Ken Schreiber
Nancy Lytle (100)
Virginia Warheit (200)
Brian Dolan (200)
MISCELLANEOUS
Dept. Lead: NA
Div. Lead: NA
Staff:NA
NA
Date of Assignment: Oct. 1992
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: Late.Summer 1996
Origin of Issue: Council
10
Planning Division Work Program 97/ 98
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Administer consultant contract for preparation of Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports
and Mitigation Monitoring Program to identify, analyze, and mitigate potential physical effects
of implementation of Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report; and assure preparation
of a legally defensible document. The tasks are:
DRefine/Modify "Existing Conditions" database for use in modeling analysis,
DPrepare Project Description and develop Project Alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR,
¯Finalize Scope of Work for EIR, and complete any necessary contract amendments,
~Review Administrative Draft EIR and direct consultants on necessary modifications,
¯Publish Draft EIR) Issue Notice of Completion and distribute Draft EIR for public review,
¯Hold Public Hearings on Draft EIR,
DDirect consultants on preparation of Final EIR (FEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Program,
~Publish and Distribute FEIR) Hold Public Hearings on FEIR and Mitigation Monitoring
Program,
~Prepare Findings for Action on Comprehensive Plan and Certification of Final EIR, and
¯File Notice of Determination.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Preparation of an EIR is required by CEQA. This master EIR will serve as a basis for CEQA
compliance for many development applications over the coming years. It is a customer service
objective as well as a priority item identified in the Permit Streamlining Task Force meetings by
business representatives.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
5/97
Planning Division .......250*
Contract Services .........yes
9Z/
Planning Division ...........NA
Contract Services ............NA
*Does not include the time of the Director of Planning and Community Environment
COST
96/97 97/98
$95,150 committed for Environmental Con-NA
11
sultant Services - within current budget (ex-
cludes costs for traffic consultant - also within
current budget). $15,000 is committed for print-
in the document.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
¯Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
¯Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
[]Auditor
¯ Recommended for-96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
q6/97
Dept. Lead:
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Ken Schreiber
Nancy Lytle (50)
Brian Dolan (200)
Yes (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
97/98
Dept. Lead: NA
Div. Lead:NA
Staff :NA
Contract:NA
Date of Assignment: Oct. 1992
Multi-year: YES
Expected Completion Date: Late Summer 1996
Origin of Issue: Council
12
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Administer consultant contract for preparation of three documents which together will become
the housing related material for the Comprehensive Plan. The three documents are the Technical
Document, which shall be considered the Housing Element, a summary document for inclusion
in the Comprehensive Plan and an executive summary for general distribution. The consultant
will be primarily responsible for preparation of the Technical document and will assist staff in
preparation of the summary document for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff will
prepare the executive summary.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Housing Element is a required part of the Comprehensive Plan and is further required by
state law to be updated approximately every five years.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
q /97
Planning Division .......200*
Contract Services .........yes
97/98
Planning Division ...........NA
Contract Services ............NA
*Does not include the time of the Director of Planning and Community Environment
COST
q /97
$22,000 for contract services - within
current budget.
97/98
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
[]Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
13
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯ Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
STAFF MEMBERS
Dept. Lead:
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Ken Schreiber
Jim Gilliland (100)
Cathy Siegel (100)
yes (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
Dept. Lead: NA
Div. Lead:NA
Staff:NA
Contract:NA
Date of Assignment: Oct. 1992
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: Late Summer 1996
Origin of Issue: Council
14
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan includes compilation, editing, and publishing of the draft
Comprehensive Plan. It will also involve preparation for the final publication, which will occur
after Phase IV (i.e., public review and adoption) is complete.
This work item includes staff time for:
1) generating:
a. Msc. graphics to augment the text,
b.(1 l"x17") thematic maps,
c. the large Land Use Map,
d. packaging aspects,
2) selectin~ interfacing w/printer re:
a. method of reproduction,
b. medium and language,
3) managing contract for consultants who:
a. edit the document,
b. cross reference/remove redundancies,
c. develop footnoting, appendices,
glossary, and index,
d. assist in developing format/style standards
e. assist in selecting the printer,
f. assist in interfacing w/printer,
4) compiling the fmal document in a digital format that:
a. facilitates delivery to the printer,
b. facilitates storage,
c. facilitates back-up,
d. facilitates updating,
e. facilitates archiving, and
f. facilitates subsequent re-printing~
Although development of in-house desk-top-publishing capabilities is a subset of work item #48,
Systems Technology, this work item also includes some staff time for the development of in-
house capabilities that are particular to and critical to the Comprehensive Plan (e.g., translation
of GIS generated graphics and storage requirements due to the size of the document and the need
for it to exist in more than one software language).
It should be noted that the potential for translating the document to the Internet will be
maintained, but no on-line publishing has been budgeted for, in this work item.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Comprehensive Plan must be readable, usable, legally adequate and easily updated. Staff is
developing in-house desktop publishing capabilities simultaneous with Phase II. The final plan
and a format which allows for annual, professional-looking updates is a goal stated by the
Council when they directed staff to undertake the assignment.
¯ HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
15
q5197
Planning Division ........150
Contract Services .........yes
COST
9Z/
Planning Division
Contract Services
...........NA
............NA
96/97
$24,000 for contract services in CP budget
$45,000 for printing. (The printing budget inclu-
ded no color graphics for cost saving purposes.)
97/98
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
¯ Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
96/97 97/98
Div. Lead:Nancy Lytle
Staff:Gloria Humble (100)
Phil Dascombe (50)
Contract: yes (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
Div. Lead: NA
Staff:NA
NA
Contract: NA
Date of Assignment: Oct. 1992
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: Summer" 1996
Origin of Issue: Council
16
Plan ring Division Work Program 96/97/98
5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This phase of the Comprehensive Plan is comprised of the public review of the Draft document
and Draft EIR. The review will include public hearings by CPAC, Boards and Commissions,
Planning Commission and City Council, time for preparation of Staff reports, resolutions,
responses to public and Planning Commission and City Council questions, fulfilling information
needs, debriefing and revision from the hearings. 550 hours of stafftime are allocated in 1997/7
and another 470 hours will go into revising the Draft Plan and EIR for final adoption in 1997/98.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The public hearing process for both the Draft Comprehensive Plan and the Draft EIR are
required by State Law. Outreach to the community is encouraged in the state Guidelines and has
been fully fulfilled in Phases I, II, and II of this effort. Time spent on the public review is
estimated, but can be lengthened or condensed by a variety of factors.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
~/97
Planning Division .......550*
Contract Services ..........no
9Z/
Planning Division ..........470*
Contract Services .............no
*Does not include the time of the Director of Planning and Community Environment
COST
$50,000 for advertising remains in CIP budget.
97/
Continue w/previous year’s budget.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
¯Attomey’s Office
¯ Manager’s Office
¯ Community Services
[] Human Resources
¯Administrative Services
¯Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
[]Auditor
17
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget.amendment
[] Not recommended
q6197
Dept. Lead:
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Ken Schreiber
Nancy Lytle (200)
Jim Gilliland (50)
Brian Dolan (200)
Virginia Warheit (100)
MISCELLANEOUS
97/98
Dept. Lead:
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Ken Schreiber
Nancy Lytle (200)
Jim Gilliland (30)
Brian Dolan (200)
Virginia Warheit (40)
Date of Assignment: October 1992
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: Summer 1997
Origin of Issue: Council
18
Placcv g Dle, oc¢ Wor Program 96/97/98
6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Development of a Master Plan and construction documents to implement improvements in the
public right of way in the Downtown as identified in the Urban Design Guide. Once complete,
construction and installation of improvements will initiate in Phase II, FY 96/97, 97/98.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The increased number of visitors to the Downtown and the aging and dated street furniture,
paving, signage, etc. has caused improvements to Downtown to be identified by merchants and
property owners as needing urgent attention.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
5/97
Planning Division ........250
Contract Services .........yes
COST
9Z/
Planning Division ...........100
Contract Services ............yes
q6197
$100,000 Consultant fees for design deve-
lopment - within 95/96 CIP budget.
$250,000 Consultant fees for implementa-
tion - within proposed 96/97 CIP budget.
97/98
$250,000 Consultant fees for implementa-
tion - within proposed 97/98 CIP budget.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
[]Attorney’s Office
[]Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[] Recommended for 96/97 [] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
19
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
96/97 97/98
Div. Lead: Nancy Lytle (50)Div. Lead:
Staff:Jim Gilliland (50)Staff:
Virginia Warheit (150)
yes (see Cost)Contract:Contract:
MISCELLANEOUS
NA
NA
Virginia Warheit (100)
yes (see Cost)
Date of Assignment: July 1995
Multi-year: Yes (implementation will go on for up to 5 years)
Expected Completion Date: November 1996 for Master Plan
Origin of Issue: Council
20
Planniccg Dlvision Wor Progra 96/97/98
7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is to prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for both the South of Forest Area, and the
PAMF area. A Coordinated Area Plan includes public participation, professional urban design
assistance, three-dimensional zoning analysis and requirements, circulation plans, public space
design and financing plan for any improvements, environmental analysis and other planning
guidelines and direction fox’ future changes in the area.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Palo Alto Medical Foundation has received City Council approval to rebuild and expand
their facilities at a new campus in the Urban Lane Area. This approval was conditioned upon
their abandoning the majority of their facilities on their current campus in the South of Forest
Area and financing an Area Plan for reuse of their current holdings and surrounding territory
including the South of Forest Area extending to Alma Street. During the Comprehensive Plan
process, the Council committed to conducting a public planning process of some sort for the
PAMF backfill/SOFA properties. As a result of the Council’s review of the Comprehensive
Plan, Coordinated Area Plans have been identified for detailed area planning. This new tool was
them incorporated into an amendment of the PAMF Development Agreement thus committing
both PAMF and the City to undertaking a Coordinated Area Plan. The planning process needs to
be initiated by September, 1997 but can be started earlier at the request of PAMF.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
5/97
Planning Division ........NA
Contract Services .........NA
97/
Planning Division ..........650*
Contract Services ............yes
*Does not include the time of the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
COST
97/98
Contract services amounting to $250,000
will be needed to produce a Coordinated
Area Plan. (PAMF is committed to two-
21
thirds of the cost, up to a maximum payment
of $200,000.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
¯Community Services
[]Human Resources
¯Administrative Services
¯Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
[]Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[] Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget ~amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
STAFF MEMBERS
Dept. Lead: NA
Div. Lead:NA
Staff :NA
NA
Contract: NA
MISCELLANEOUS
97/98
Dept. Lead:
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Ken Schreiber
Nancy Lytle (50)
Jim Gilliland (50)
Virginia Warheit (550)
yes (see Cost)
Date of Assignment: Unassigned
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: Summer 1998
Origin of Issue: City Council
22
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
8
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is to prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for the California/Venmra Area,
concentrating on the area bounded by Page.Mill, E1 Camino Real, the railroad, and Lambert. A
Coordinated Area Plan includes public participation, professional urban design assistance, three-
dimensional zoning requirements, circulation plans, public space design and financing plan for
any improvement, environmental analysis and other planning guidelines and direction for future
changes in the area.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
When the City Council considered the amortization extension for commercial uses at the
Maximart site, they directed staffto return to them with a proposal to conduct a Coordinated
Area Plan for the entire area. The Council set parameters and objectives for the process and
directed that it occur parallel with, but not necessary tethered to, the Comprehensive Plan.
Further Council consideration is scheduled for Spring of 1996.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ........750
Contract Services .........yes
COST
9Z/
Planning Division ...........NA
Contract Services ............NA
q6197
Contract Services amounting to $250,000
will be needed to produce a Coordinated
Area Plan, to be funded through budget
amendment ordinance in 1996/97/98.
97/98
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯ Transportation Div.
¯ Building Div.
¯ Public Works Dept.
¯ Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
¯Community Services
[]Human Resources
¯Administrative Services
¯Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
[]Auditor
23
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯ Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
q6197
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Nancy Lytle (50)
Jim Gilliland (150)
Virginia (275)
Brian (275)
(650 - see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
97/98
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
NA
NA
NA
NA
Date of Assignment: December 1995
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: Summer 1997
Origin of Issue: City Council
24
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
Item#
9
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Santa Clara Valley Water District is planning a creek stabilization project for Adobe Creek.
The project includes replacing the bridge at E1 Camino Real. This is the same bridge described
in Program 23 of the Comprehensive Plan. Tiffs program calls for creating a south gateway to
the City at this point on El Camino Real through the enhancement of the bridge, and gateway
plantings and entry sign. City staff have coordinated with SCVWD and the project developer for
the Hyatt Cabana site to allow for implementation of the Comprehensive Plan program through
privately funded enhancements to the District’s significant and expensive public project. The
coordination and design of enhancements will need to be managed by City staff.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The SCVWD is replacing the bridge at E1 Camino Real, and there will be no other oppommity tO
achieve Program 23 of the Urban Design Element unless the objective is achieved as part of the
District’s significant capital investment. Their project will not be considered consistent with
Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan unless it is enhanced to fulfill the gateway urban design
objective. The District has expressed willingness to coordinate with the City in achieving this
objective, if the City can finance the cost of the enhancements. The City expects to acquire the
majority of funds for the enhancements from the developer at the Hyatt Cabana site.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
97
Planning Division ........NA
Contract Services .........NA
COST
97/98
Planning Division ............80
Contract Services ............yes
9Z/
$200,000 is expected to result from the re-
development of the Hyatt Cabana and as-
sociated entitlement exactions. An addition-
al $90,000 will likely be needed for project
design and construction..
25
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
¯Attomey’s Office
¯ Manager’s Office
¯ Community Services
[] Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
¯Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
[]Auditor
[] Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
96/97 97/98
Div. Lead:NA Div Lead:
Staff:NA Staff:
Contract:NA Contract:
MISCELLANEOUS
Nancy Lytle (30)
Jim Gilliland (50)
yes (see Cost)
Date of Assignment: July 1995
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: 1999
Origin of Issue: Santa Clara Valley Water District Coordination by Staff
26
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City has sponsored legislation to obtain Petroleum Vehicle Escrow Account funding for the
design development costs of schematic design plans for this potential project. $200,000 of PVEA
funds were allocated to Palo Alto for this project as part of state budget. The original estimate
from Walker and Johnson to achieve the objective of design development, including an EIR, was
$400,000. Staff now needs to apply for the grant and we are seeking additional contributions
from other agencies to achieve the original budget amount
Stanford, the Joint Powers Board (JPB), the County Transportation Agency and the City are
pursuing a joint agreement for steering the design development effort and for developing a long-
range plan for use, maintenance and management of the Downtown Intermodal transit depot.
The JPB is developing plans for making the station more accessible to all users. The
Transportation Agency has approached the City with plans to significantly expand their bus
staging area in the parking lot adjacent to the station. The Palo Alto Medical Foundation has
approved to relocate their facility to the Urban Lane area with a connection through to a future
Urban Lane leading to University Circle. Stanford University and PAMF have reached some
tentative joint agreements regarding shuttle service between their two facilities, utilizing the
Downtown transit depot. Stanford has proposed a Margarite shuttle turn-around on the south
side of University Circle. The Historic Resources Board has nominated the Transit depot for the
National Historic Register.
Planning and Transportation Divisions will continue to take the lead in the joint effort to plan for
the area, utilizing the funds acquired from the State PVEA allocation. Significant participation
will also be needed from Public Works, Real Estate, HRB, Stanford University, JPB, and the
County Transit Agency to support all of these incremental efforts to improve the interface and
integration between the Downtown Transit Depot, Downtown Palo Alto, Stanford, Town and
Country, the Medical Center and vicinities, including the future potential of significant physical
improvement, such as those envisioned in the "Dream Team" design plan.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Council has directed staff to pursue Petroleum Vehicle Escrow Account funding and to
coordinate with other agencies regarding improvements to the area.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
96/97 97/98
27
Planning Division ........245
Contract Services .........yes
COST
Planning Division
Contract Services
........... 450
............ yes
q5/97
$200,000 earmarked from the State PVEA.
Will apply for these funds in 1996. We
will also request a $50,000 from Stanford,-
$50,000 from JPB, andS50,000 from the Trans-
portation Agency to cover the cost of the EIR.
97/98
Continue w/previous year’s budget.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯ Attorney’s Office
¯ Manager’s Office
r-I Community Services
[] Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
¯Auditor
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
STAFF MEMBERS
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Nancy Lytle (60)
Loft Topley (185)
yes (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
97/98
Div Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Nancy Lytle (100)
Lori Topley (350)
yes (see Cost)
Date of Assignment: April, 1995
Multi-year: yes
Expected Completion Date: Continuing
Origin of Issue: Council
28
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide assistance to the Economic Resource Manager with regard to the planning and public
participation issues in the Midtown Plan process.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Midtown has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan process as an area for study and current
vacancies and interest in redevelopment make planning for this area a priority. The Council has
authorized a planning study for the area.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
~5/97
Planning Division ........100
Contract Services ..........no
9Z/
Planning Division ...........NA
Contract Services ............NA
COST
96/97 97/98
None (for Planning)NA
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
¯Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
¯Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
[]Auditor
¯ Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
29
q6/97
Staff:Virginia Warheit (100)
MISCELLANEOUS
97/98
Staff:NA
Date of Assignment: June 1995
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: UnknOwn
Origin of Issue: Council
30
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A joint meeting between City Council and the HRB is scheduled to allow Council to provide
policy and regulatory framework direction on any hisotric ordinance update, should they decide
to proceed. The Historic Resources Board has identified the following areas to be included in an
update.
a)Authority of the Board. Currently the Board is a recommending body. Although HRB
review is mandatory, compliance with Board actions is voluntary. There is a belief that the
Board’s effectiveness could be improved if compliance with HRB decisions is required. If
this change is enacted, the HRB’s relationship with the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
could change. Corresponding sections of the ARB Ordinance (Chapter 16.48 of the
PANIC) would also r~eed to be amended. Additional city staff resources would be required
to support another decision - making function.
b)Category definitions. There are currently four categories of historic structures specified in
the ordinance: 1,2,3, & 4. These categories range in significance from 1, which are
exceptional buildings to 3 or 4, which are contributing buildings. While the
Comprehensive Plan recognizes the value of the structures that are either architecturally or
culturally significant, the categories in the ordinance place importance on only those with
architectural, merit. The HRB is not convinced that the categories provide useful
distinctions when evaluating the impact of proposed modifications on historic structures.
This part of the HRB Ordinance amendment would look at different ways of categorizing
buildings and the possibility of not using categories at all.
c)Moratorium on demolition of significant historic structures in areas other than downtown.
There is currently a 60 day automatic moratorium on the demolition of significant historic
buildings outside of the downtown area. The HRB can recommend to the City Council
that the moratorium be extended for up to one year to provide the applicant additional time
to develop alternatives to demolishing the building. The Board has recommended
reevaluating and strengthening the demolition provisions.
d)There is neither consistency nor reference between our Historic Ordinance and the
National Standards. This effort could examine the value of incorporating standards into
the ordinance.
PROJ ECT J USTI FICATION
31
The Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) was
enacted in 1974. It has not undergone a comprehensive update since that time. The role historic
preservation plays in Palo Alto has evolved over the last 20 years and the Ordinance needs to be
updated to reflect current public commitment to historic preservation.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
97
Planning Division ........200
Contract Services .........300
97/98
Planning Division ...........NA
Contract Services ............NA
COST
97
$47,000 for contract services.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
¯ Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
Staff recommends that this item be undertaken as soon as possible. Many other future HRB
actions depend upon the ordinance being up-to-date and reflective of the City’s commitment to
historic preservation.
STAFF MEMBERS
96/97 97/98
Staff: Lisa Grote (200)Staff:NA
Contract: (300) (see Cost)Contract:NA
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: Not yet assigned
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: NA
Origin of Issue: Historic Resources Board
32
Planning Division Work Program 97/ 98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City Attorney and Economic Resources Manager are participating in a joint effort to
identify methods for streamlining development review processes in the City. This effort will
likely yield a variety of recommendations to reduce overlap and encourage delegation in City
processes. Likewise, it may lead to new processes, such as minor PC amendments, new
applications of the conditional use permit process, a new PD ordinance, and others. The
implementation of streamlining measures will need to be integrated with Council
recommendations coming from their review of the Comp Plan, Governance Section. These
recommendations will also need to be integrated with existing City ordinances and codes that
are to be retained.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Zoning Ordinance has not received a thorough and comprehensive overhaul for well over 20
years. Portions of it are outdated and in need of update. At the time the Comprehensive Plan
was initiated by Council, staff advised them that a comprehensive zoning ordinance update was
likely to follow. Ordinances need to be updated regularly to reflect changing law, changing
policy direction from the Comprehensive Plan, and the changing planning environment.
The latest direction from Council has been to reduce regulatory burdens that can be lifted within
the environmental and quality of life standards of the City. Several sources of recommendations
to this end will be collected for the Council’s consideration and direction. This work item
anticipates such direction.
Following completion of the Streamlining assignment and the Comprehensive Plan, Phase III,
Planning and Attorney’s staff will be recommending a program and process for overhaul of the
Zoning Ordinance, not only to meet legal requirements of Comprehensive Plan compatibility, but
also to achieve certain objectives such as this "streamlining" assignment. This item is expected
to be handled as a separate sub-task of the Zoning Ordinance Updatel Two other sub tasks are
identified in Items 14 and 15.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
5/97
Planning Division ........NA
Contract Services .........NA
97/98
Planning Division ..........500*
Contract Services ............yes
33
*This is a broad estimate; a more definite scope will be prepared in 1996/97, as part of the Comprehensive Plan
implementation, with direction from the City Council.
COST
97/98
A budget amendment of approximately
$250,000 would be needed to cover
additional Planning Division contract
services needed to complete the Zoning
OrdinanceUpdate, ~tems 13, 14, & 15.)
In-house staff will also be utilized.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
[] Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
q6197
Div. Lead:NA
Staff:NA
NA
Contract: NA
MISCELLANEOUS
97/98
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Nancy Lytle (100)
Jim Gilliland (50)
Brian Dolan (350)
yes (see Cost)
Date of Assignment: Not yet assigned
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: Summer 1998 or beyond
Origin of Issue: Staff
34
Planning Division Work Program 97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Comprehensive Plan process has identified three new land use designations: Commercial
Hotel, Village Residential, and, Mixed Use including Live Work. This work item includes the
necessary study, design, regulatory framework and ordinance preparation to carry through from
these new land use designations to zoning districts, as directed by Council.
PROJ ECT J USTI FICATION
In order to implement, any new designations called for in the Comprehensive Plan, new zoning
ordinances will need to be developed. These regulations are already in demand for a variety of
Village Residential housing prototypes. In fact, developers are increasingly tuming to the PC
process to develop housing projects which fit traditional community pattems in the more urban
parts of the city. Likewise, the "live work" concept, recently publicized during the Council’s
review of the PC zone change project at University and Cowper, has been the subject of repeated
inquiry from the development community. An occasional mixed-use project inquiry has been
handled by the Division, and it is hoped that regulations which encourage this product and
provide additional incentive for it. Consideration of a new hotel at the comer of E1 Camino Real
and Page Mill Road is also a possible reason to study commercial hotel regulations.
Following completion of the Comprehensive Plan, Planning and Attomey’s staff will be
recommending a program and process for overhaul of the Zoning Ordinance, not only to meet
legal requirements of Comprehensive Plan compatibility, but also to achieve certain objectives
such as preparing new regulations to implement new land use categories. This Work Program
item is expected to be handled as a separate sub-task of the Zoning Ordinance Update. Two
other sub tasks are identified in Items 13 and 15.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
5/97
Planning Division ........NA
Contract Services .........NA
9Z/
Planning Division ..........500*
Contract Services ............yes
*This is a broad estimate; a more definite scope will be prepared in 1996/97, as part of the Comprehensive Plan
implementation, with direction from the City Council
COST
35
q6/97
None
97/98
A budget amendment of approximately
$250,000 would be needed to cover
additional Planning Division contract
services needed to complete the Zoning
OrdinanceUpdate, ~tems 13, 14, & 15.)
In-house staff will also be utilized.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[] Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
96/97 97/98
Div. Lead:NA Div. Lead:
Staff:NA Staff:
NA
Contract: NA Contract:
MISCELLANEOUS
Nancy Lytle (100)
Jim Gilliland (50)
Virginia Warheit (350)
yes (see Cost)
Date of Assignment: To come when Comp Plan Update is completed
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: Summer 1998 or beyond
Origin of Issue: Staff
36
Dlvlsion Program 96/97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Periodic update/cleanup of the Zoning ordinance is desirable to address issues of inconsistency
and other problems identified by staff, the Planning Commission, the City Council or the public.
Following adoption of any changes, staff follow up will be required for staff training, and
revision of public handouts.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Zoning Ordinance has not received a thorough and comprehensive overhaul for well over 20
years. Portions of it are outdated and in need of update. At the time the Comprehensive Plan
was initiated by Council, staff advised them that a comprehensive zoning ordinance update was
likely to follow. Ordinances need to be updated regularly to reflect changing law, changing
policy direction from the Comp Plan, and the changing planning environment.
Following completion of the Comprehensive Plan, Planning and Attomey’s staff will be
recommending a program and process for overhaul of the Zoning Ordinance, not only to meet
legal requirements of Comprehensive Plan compatibility, but also to achieve certain objectives
such as fixing outdated and inconsistent aspects of the code. For example, the appeals process
needs adjustment, the land use category definitions are very outdated, and the ARB ordinance
structure is cumbersome for this discretionary approval process. The "clean-up" items
accumulated will be wrapped into this thorough update. Also to be included is the request from
the Planning Commission that the definitions in the codes permit "thick building walls" for those
projects that are deemed to have a beneficial design consequence from the added thickness. (Item
16 of the 1995/96 Work Program) and a Mitigation and Conditions Monitoring Ordinance (Item
#18 of the 95/96 Work Program). This Work Program item is expected to be handled as a
separate sub-task of the Zoning Ordinance Update. Two other sub tasks are identified in Items
13 and 15.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
5/97
Planning Division ........NA
Contract Services .........NA
97/98
Planning Division ..........500*
Contract Services ............yes
*This is a broad estimate; a more definite scope will be prepared in 1996/97, as part of the Comprehensive Plan
implementation, with direction from the City Council
37
COST
97/
A budget request for $250,000 has been
to finance additional contract services
needed to complete this assignment, and
that described in Items 13 and 15.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Communivj Services
[]Human Resources
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept..
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[] Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
96/97 97/98
Div. Lead:NA Div. Lead:Nancy Lytle (100)
Staff:NA Staff:Jim Gilliland (50)
NA Brian Dolan (350)
Contract: NA Contract:yes (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: To come when Comprehensive Plan Update is completed
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: Summer 1998 or beyond
Origin of Issue: Staff
38
Planning Division Work Program 97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project would update the current sign ordinance (Chapter 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code) and accompanying guidelines so that they reflect the thinking and design standards of the
Architectural Review Board (ARB), current industry standards and techniques, as well as input
from the business community regarding signs. The project would include forming a
subcommittee consisting of two ARB members and several members of the community with
representatives from the business sector, sign manufacturers, and general residents. Issues would
be brought forth from each of these sectors to identify where the existing regulations are working
and where they fall short of expectations or desires. Sign applications within the last five years
will be researched to identify how proposals have been changed to be more consistent with the
architecture of a building or the surrounding area. Sign programs and ordinances from other
cities will be evaluated to identify the advantages and disadvantages of having different types of
requirements.
The products of this effort would include: 1) an updated sign ordinance; 2) a handbook, with
illustrations, that explains the sign ordinance and provides examples of the types of signs that can
be used on different styles of buildings in different locations; and 3) updated sections of
guidelines such as the E1 Camino Real Guidelines, which address signage for specific areas of
the City.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The ARB and staff have long considered signage to be a critical element in the successful design
of a building and have long understood that the existing sign ordinance is outdated and does not
achieve the desired result if maximum sizes are pemfitted. The Board has developed preferences
and informal guidelines towards signage, which are not always discernable when reading the sign
ordinance and other existing guidelines. Identifying, illustrating and codifying the preferences
will assist applicants, designers, staff and the Board when designing and reviewing sign
applications, and improve customer service. The City Attorney has also noted that the sign
ordinance is outdated and needs evaluation in terms of recent legal decisions.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
5/97
Planning Division ........NA
Contract Services .........NA
Planning Division ..........500*
Contract Services .............no
39
*This is a broad estimate; a more definite scope will be prepared in 1996/97, as part of the Comprehensive Plan
implementation, with direction from the City Council
COST
96/97 97/98
NA None
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attomey’s Office
¯ Manager’s Office
[] Community Services
[] Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
[] Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
96/97 97/98
Div. Lead:NA Div. Lead:Lisa Grote (100)
Staff:NA Staff:Lori Topley (400)
Contract:NA Contract:no
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: Not yet assigned
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: December 1998
Origin of Issue: Architectural Review Board, staff, business community
40
Divlsio Progra 96/97/98
17
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Study the effects of revising the definition of Gross Floor Area so that it is measured to the inside
of walls rather than the outside, for nonresidential structures, or amending the Home
Improvement Exception process to allow for lhicker walls.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Planning Commission is concemed that the current definition of floor area discourages
architecturally desirable features which come with thick building walls, and instead encourages
thin walls without the relief and interest of older buildings. Staff concem would be regarding the
amount of square footage this new definition would relieve throughout the community for
additions within existing code, since the measurement to the outside of walls can add hundreds,
or for larger projects, even thousands of square feet to each individual project. Staff would also
be concerned about the manner in which the proposed definition does not address the mass of the
structure, which is one of the purposes of the FAR site development restriction.
Staff is recommending that this issue be handled in the comprehensive zoning ordinance update,
Work Program Item # 15.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division .......NA*
Contract Services ........NA*
COST
NA*
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
41
[]Recommended for 96/97
¯Recommended for 97/98"
[]Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendmem
[] Not recommended
Div. Lead:NA*
Staff:NA*
Contract:NA*
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: Summer 1994
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: NA
Origin of Issue: Planning Commission
* Staff recommends that this item be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance Update/Overhaul
item, (# 15).
42
Planning Divisioc¢ Work Program 97/ 98
18
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Develop a mitigation and condition monitoring ordinance that would specify how the City will
handle enforcement of mitigation and conditions adopted by Council for project approvals,
including establishment of a fee program to offset the costs of enforcement.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
State law (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6) requires all state and local agencies to
establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a
mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report (EIR). Accordingly, our
adopted CEQA guidelines and procedures must be updated as necessary to include these
reporting requirements.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division .......NA*
Contract Services ........NA*
COST
TBD*
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attomey’s Office
¯ Manager’s Office
[] Community Services
[] Human Resources
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
¯Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[]Recommended for 96/97
¯Recommended for 97/98"
[]Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
43
Staff has long aspired to complete this assignment. Not only is it good practice for the City to
adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Ordinance, but staff believes that costs for legal compliance can
be recovered by the City. This measure would go a great distance toward building public trust in
the City as citizens observe the fulfillment of commitments made by Council in public hearings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Div. Lead:NA*
Staff:NA*
Contract:NA*
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: During Hughes Heiss Review 1994
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: NA
Origin of Issue: Staff and State Law
* Staff recommends that this item be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance Update/Overhaul
item(# 15).
44
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
19
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This item would result in design guidelines for the Professorville Historic District, which would
provide text and illustrations explaining the various styles of houses in the district and how
architecturally compatible additions can be designed.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The houses in Professorville have special historical significance to the City of Palo Alto.
Homeowners are not always aware of the historical value of their house and do not necessarily
understand how to design an addition that would be sensitive to the original character of the
structure. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) often gives detailed advice to property owners in
the district about how to design an addition. An applicant would be much better served if this
information is made available to him/her prior to beginning an addition or remodel. The
applicant will save time and money if fewer changes to proposed designs need to be made.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ........180
Contract Services .........400
COST
$38,000 would be required in consultant services.
$850 for 500 copies of a handbook similar to those currently used by the Planning Division for
HIE’s, ARB and HRB explanation. There would be an additional 80 hours of staff time needed
in the subsequent year’s work program, to desk-top-publish the document.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
This item is being recommended for deferral until Items 12 and 38 have been completed.
45
[] Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
¯ Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
STAFF MEMBERS
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Lisa Grote (100)
Gloria Humble (80)
400 (See cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: Not yet assigned
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: NA
Origin of Issue: HRB
46
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Review and revise the City Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.1) including evaluating
expanding the types of noise sources addressed, allowing less or more restrictive noise levels
where appropriate and making it easier to understand and enforce. The process would be an
interdepartmental effort including the Planning, Public Works, Building Inspection (Zoning
Compliance), and Police Departments, and City Attorney’s Office and require the support of a
noise consultant with expertise in development of Noise Ordinances and noise measurement
methods and mitigation measures. Key tasks include: 1) with public input, identify shortcomings
of the existing noise ordinance, noise sources not currently addressed, and measurement and
enforcement issues/problems, 2) with consultant assistance identify the pros and cons of different
means of controlling noise/measuring noise, 3) identify alternative ordinance approaches and
recommendation for development of noise ordinance for public review and Council endorsement,
and 4) preparing a draft ordinance and environmental assessment for public review and City
Council adoption.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Documents prepared as part of the Comprehensive Plan update identify the need to revise the
City’s Noise Ordinance. Such action was supported by the City Council during their initial
review of the Comprehensive Plan Update Policies and Programs Draft IV. Natural Environment
Section Goal NE-8 is to "Reduce and prevent noise pollution." Actions to be taken to achieve
this goal include Program NE-8.B7 "Update the Noise Ordinance". A Technical Background
Report on Noise prepared by noise consultants Illingworth and Rodkin evaluated the existing
noise ordinance and identified several shortcomings: duration of noise measurements to establish
background ambient noise levels was too short, some noise sources are not addressed and
allowable noise levels were overly restrictive. The noise ordinance currently allows noise levels
to be a certain amount above ambient (background noise). Ambient noise levels are currently
established by six minute measurements. Background Noise levels may vary significantly from
six minute period to six minute period. It was suggested that it be rewritten to set specific noise
limits allowed by zoning (e.g. single family) or ambient noise levels based on a noise
measurement survey, reasonable noise limits be established for each type of area (stricter for
residential areas), and a longer, 15 minute period be used for measuring potential noise offenders.
The Police Department representatives responsible for enforcing the ordinance also recommend
that the ordinance be revised to make it easier to understand and enforce.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
47
Planning Division ........300
Contract Services .........yes
COST
$20,000 for contract services - not within current budget
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community. Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
[]Auditor
[] Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
¯ Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
Div. Lead:Lisa Grote (TBD)
Staff:TBD
Contract:TBD
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: Not yet assigned
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: NA
Origin of Issue: Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee
48
Placc cing Division Work Program 96/97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In July of 1995, the City Council approved a staff recommendation to adopt an ordinance for
Hazardous Materials Facility Siting, in order to comply with the Santa Clara County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan and the State Law. in adopting the siting criteria imposed by the
County, City staff recommended and Council directed that a follow-up assignment be made
which would have staff further evaluate the specific criteria for the City of Palo Alto, and make
any additional modifications to the regulations which might better suit Palo Alto’s circumstances.
This work item is to complete that follow-up assignment.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Whereas the County approved Hazardous Waste Siting criteria are general provisions applicable
Countywide, they have yet to be analyzed by staff for their specific applicability to Palo Alto.
Whereas the State provided us 180 days to comply with the requirement to adopt the County
criteria or our own, we did not in adopting the County criteria relinquish the ability to further
examine them and consider modifications that are more tailored to Palo Alto’s specific
circumstances. With the Comprehensive Plan Phase III effort (i.e., development of the Draft
Plan), further analysis for the Safety Element will be conducted in collaboration with the Police
and Fire Departments. Additionally, the Fire Department is now updating the Emergency
Preparedness Plan. It will be an opportune time for staff to examine the County siting criteria in
more detail and to bring forward any analysis or recommended modifications to the community
for consideration.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division .........80
Contract Services ..........no
COST
None.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
¯ Attorney’s Office
¯ Manager’s Office
[] Community Services
[]Administrative Services
¯Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
49
[] Utilities Dept.[] Human Resources [] Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[] Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
¯ Consider again in 98/99
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
Div. Lead: Jim Gilliland (80)
Contract: no
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: July, 1995
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: July 1996
Origin of Issue: Council
50
Planning Division Work Program 96! 97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Stanford has submitted applications for various entitlements in the Sand Hill corridor:
development of apartment housing on the vacant site known as Stanford West; development of
senior housing complex at the site of the old Children’s Hospital; expansion of the Stanford
Shopping Center; and improvements to and extension of Sand Hill Road and Quarry Road to E1
Camino Real. These are complicated and intelrelated projects which are requiring extensive
environmental and public review.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Planning Division is legally obligated to process all applications for development
entitlements, and to do so within the parameters of the Permit Streamlining Act. While these
projects are technically development applications which would normally be assigned to the
Development Monitoring section (and thus not appear on the Division Work Program), they are
included here because they involve some legislative action and they represent an opportunity for
coordinated planning of the Sand Hill corridor area, and adequate staff time is not available
within the Development Monitoring Section. The outcome of decisions made regarding these
applications will influence the current Comprehensive Plan update process.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division .......700*
Contract Services .......yes**
97/
Planning Division ...........NA
Contract Services ............NA
*Does not include the time of the Director of Planning and Community Environment
**This is a full cost recovery development application project
COST
96/97 97/98
Cost Recovery NA
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
51
¯Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
¯Community Services
[]Human Resources
¯Administrative Services
¯Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
[]Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯ Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
96/97 97/98
Div. Lead:Nancy Lytle (100)Div. Lead:NA
Staff:Loft Topley (600)Staff:NA
Contract:yes (see Cost)Contract:NA
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: Application date July 1992
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: December 1996 / Litigation: March 1996
Origin of Issue: Stanford
52
Plav ¢i Wor Program 96/97/98
23
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The entitlement applications for the relocation and expansion of the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation to the Urban Lane site have been approved by City Council, however, there will be
considerable follow-up work to be completed in FY 96/97 in order to implement the numerous
conditions of approval which accompanied the entitlement approvals. Specific engineering work
for the new structures and public improvements, landscaping, and other aspects of the project are
yet to be fully developed and will require coordination with City staff, the ARB and other
agencies in order for the construction permit approval process to be undertaken.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The project involves the continued use of a consultant planner, directed by the Director of
Planning, to coordinate and oversee the next steps in the permit and construction process,
including completion and recordation of the final map, and completion, sign-off and
implementation of conditions of approval prior to permit issuance and during construction.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
96/97 97/98
Planning Division .......NA*Planning Division ...........NA
Contract ..............300"*Contract ...................NA
*Does not include the time of the Director of Planning and Community Environment
** This is a full cost recovery development application project
COST
96/97 97/98
Cost Recovery NA
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Attomey’s Office
¯ Manager’s Office
¯ Community Services
¯Administrative Services
¯Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
53
¯ Utilities Dept.[] Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[] Auditor
¯ Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
q6/97
Dept. Lead:
Contract:
Ken Schreiber
Anne Moore (300)(see Cost)
97/98
Dept. Lead: NA
Contract: NA.
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: Ongoing
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: 1999
Origin of Issue: Applicant
54
Plauning Division Work Program 96!97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Victor Aviation is an FAA approved, small aircraft repair business located at the Palo Alto
Airport. Victor Aviation proposes to construct new facilities for their use. The applicant
received generally favorable comments from the Planning Commission and City Council to his
application for development project preliminary review and is expected to submit a formal
application. The application could require modification of the Baylands Master Plan,
Comprehensive Plan and will require a conditional use permit.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
This is an application request from the property owner. As an entitlement application, the
Planning Division is obligated to process the application. It is included in the Planning Division
Work Program because master plan amendments and projects on public land are the
responsibility of the Advanced Planning Section.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
q5/97
Planning Division .........20
Contract Services .......yes
97/
Planning Division ...........NA
Contract Services ............NA
**This is a full cost recovery development application project
COST
96/97 97/98
Cost Recovery NA
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
¯Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
¯Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
[]Auditor
55
¯ Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
96/97
Div. Lead:
Contract:
Jim Gilliland (20)
yes (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
97/
Div. Lead: NA
Contract: NA
Date of Application: May, 1995
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: Unknown
Origin of Issue:
56
Planning Division Work Program 96! 97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This program will require a preliminary evaluation in 1996/97. At that time some modifications
will be made by staff and a complete analysis of the program will be defined and budgeted for.
The initial analysis will include the following components:
oRevise BMR requirements and in-lieu fee and prepare a BMR ordinance for Council adoption.
oEvaluate cost of administration of BMR program (City staff & Palo Alto Housing Corporation)
and develop new sources of revenues for administration.
~Revise BMR Rental Guidelines to develop a workable program with some built in
administrative revenues.
¯Identify and take measure to deal with defaults and prevent loss of units from program.
~Develop revised deed restrictions and obtain Council approval.
Approximately 670 hours of stafftime as well as 250 hours of contract assistance will
additionally need to be committed in 1996-97 to complete these tasks.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The City’s Below Market Rate program has been in operation for over 20 years. During that time
a complete review and evaluation of the program has not been done. Staff has isolated problems
with some BMR units, as well as concerns about the cost of administering the program, have
pushed forward the necessity for a complete review of the program.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
5/97
Planning Division ........325
Contract Services ........200*
Planning Division ...........425
Contract Services ...........200*
COST
5/97
*None (unpaid intem)
9Z/
*None (unpaid intem)
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
57
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
qS/ q7
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Jim Gilliland (50)
Cathy Siegel (275)
Intern (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Jim Gilliland (100)
Cathy Siegel (325)
Intern (see Cost)
Date of Assignment: July 1995
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: December 1997
Origin of Issue: Planning staff
58
Planning Division Work Program 97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Assist nonprofit (Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition) to apply for development approval, funding
and entitlement to construct 24 units of independent living apartments for persons with
developmental disabilities from Palo Alto and the North County area to be located at Page Mill
Road and Ash Street. Entitlement applications were applied for in February of 1996. If
approved, the remainder of this assignment will be carried out.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Housing for persons with developmental disabilities is not readily available in the Palo Alto area.
The nearest residences are in Belmont and San Jose. This facility will provide a much needed
source of housing in the mid-peninsula area. This type of housing is listed as a priority in the
Consolidated Plan and in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The development
review application will be cost recovery, but Housing Planning staff time will be required for the
funding and entitlement applications.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ........120
Contract Services .......yes**
9Z/
Planning Division ............60
Contract Services .............no
**Contract planner resource as needed to process the entitlement application; this is a full cost recovery
development application project. The staff hourly estimate is to assist in securing funding.
COST
96/97 97/98
Cost Recovery.None.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
59
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
q5/97
Staff:
Contract:
Cathy Siegel (120)
yes (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
Staff:Cathy Siegel (60)
Contract:no
Date of Assignment: Dec. 1993
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: June 1997
Origin of Issue:
60
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
27
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Assist nonprofit(s) to acquire one or two single family houses or vacant lots for the purpose of
constructing new housing or renovating existing housing to be used for shared living or group
homes by low income households.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Shared housing provides the oppommity for low income persons to share expenses to obtain
better housing. This type of housing is listed as a priority in the Consolidated Plan and in the
Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
5/97
Planning Division ........NA
Contract Services .........NA
97/98
Planning Division ...........140
Contract Services .............no
COST
96/97 97/98
NA None
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
[] Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
61
96/97 97/98
Staff: NA Staff:Cathy Siegel (140)
Contract: NA Contract:no
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: May 1995
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: June 1997
Origin of Issue: Staff at request of Palo Alto Housing Corporation & Innovative Housing
62
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Assist and provide input to City Attorney’s Office for revisions to Mitigation Fee Ordinance,
Revise Housing Reserve Guidelines per Nexus Study and take ordinance and guidelines to
Council for adoption.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Staff recommends that an update of Ordinances and guidelines should be completed since they
have not been significantly reviewed and modified in over 15 years.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
~5/ 97
Planning Division ........170
Contract Services ..........no
COST
97/98
Planning Division ............25
Contract Services .............no
96/97 97/98
None.None.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[] Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
63
q6197
Div. Lead:
Staff:
-Contract:
Jim Gilliland (80)
Cathy Siegel (90)
yes (see Cost)
97/98
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
NA
Cathy Siegel (25)
NA
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: Not yet assigned
Mtflti-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: June 1997
Origin of Issue: Planning staffand City Attorney Office
64
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
29
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Assi.st nonprofit (PAHC) in obtaining funding to construct new 107 unit SRO. Activity involves
assisting PAHC in obtaining funding and preparation of a funding and loan agreement.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
This is an on-going project resulting from City Council approval of the SRO.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
96/97
Planning Division ........200
Contract Services ..........no
COST
96/97
None.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[] Transportation Div.[] Attomey’s Office
[] Building Div.[] Manager’s Office
[] Public Works Dept.[] Community Services
[] Utilities Dept.[] Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[] Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
96/97
Staff:Cathy Siegel (200)
97/~
Planning Division ............60
Contract Services .............no
9Z/~
None.
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
97/98
Staff:Cathy Siegel (60)
65
Contract: no Contract:no
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: May 1995
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: June 1998
Origin of Issue: City Council, PAHC
Plauv ing Division Work Program 96/97/98
30
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Prepare and submit HOME Grant Applications to HUD to be used, if grand received, for various
housing projects. The City is not an entitlement city for HOME, so funding may or may not be
received.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Using federal funds to the extent possible reduces the necessity for local funds.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
q5/97
Planning Division ........NA
Contract Services .........NA
COST
9~
Planning Division ...........100
Contract Services .............no
96/97 97/98
NA ,None.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
[]Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
¯Auditor
[] Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
97/~
67
Staff:NA
Contract:no Contract:
Cathy Siegel (100)
no
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignmem: May 1995
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: December 1996
Origin of Issue: Council
68
Planning Division Work Program 97/ 98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Prepare application with Santa Clara County for new allocation of Mortgage Credit Certificate
(MCC) authority and an allocation for Palo Alto. MCC’s allow first time home-buyers to take
income tax credit for housing purchase.
The City will assist the County in efforts to continue current level of MCC allocations to Santa
Clara County and to preserve Statewide priority for MCC program.
~PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Mortgage Credit Certificates assist lower income households in purchasing homes. In Palo Alto
they are primarily used by Below Market Rate unit buyers. The program is significant in
assisting first time home buyers to get into home ownership.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division .........20
Contract Services ..........no
97/98
Planning Division ............20
Contract Services .............no
COST
96/97 97/98
None.None.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
[]Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
69
STAFF MEMBERS
Staff:Cathy Siegel (20)
Contract:no
97/98
Staff:
Contract:
Cathy Siegel (20)
no
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: Ongoing
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: December 1995
Origin of Issue: Planning staff
70
Planning Division Work Program 96! 97/98
32
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
With the approval of The Hamilton senior housing project through a Planned Community Zone
in 1993, the Council required the applicant to agree to provide a seven unit below market rate
project for the community. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation will be the non-profit
organization that the project will eventually be administered by, however the entitlements,
approvals and administrative support to the applicant and PAHC will come from the Planning
Division.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
This work item is required in order to fulfill the PC Zone Change BMR agreements. It is
expected to be initiated in 1995/96, but to carry over substantially to 1996/97 fiscal year.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
97
Planning Division .......100
Contract Services ..........no
COST
9Z/
Planning Division ...........100
Contract Services .............no
96/97 97/98
None.None.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
¯Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
¯Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
[]Auditor
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
71
STAFF MEMBERS
Staff:Cathy Siegel (100)
Contract:no
97/98
Staff:
Contract:
Cathy Siegel (100)
no
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: 1993
Muki-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: Unknown
Origin of Issue: Council
72
Planning Division Work Program 97/98
33
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed projects are rehabilitation projects for various existing housing developments.
These rehab projects are funded primarily through CDBG funds. Projects proposed for 96/97 that
cannot be handled by the CDBG Coordinator include Arastradero Park Rehab by PAHC at
$287,000, Emerson North Rehab by PAHC at $70,000,and Innovative Housing’s transitional
house on Illinois Street in East Palo Alto at $21,000. This program would be on-going as new
projects are funded annually.
PROJ ECT J USTI FICATION
In recent years, request for rehabilitation projects through the CDBG program have increased in
number and size, partially as a result of decreasing federal funding in other areas. The smaller
and fewer projects of previous years have been handled by the CDBG Coordinator; however, the
additional projects are creating an overwhelming work load and require additional time for added
requirements, such as Davis Bacon compliance.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
~5/97
Planning Division ........200
Contract Services .........yes
COST
9Z/
Planning Division ...........150
Contract Services ............yes
The program itself will.not incur additional
costs beyond CIP costs funded through
CDBG process. However contract services
for processing in the amount of $8,000 will
be paid from CDBG funding.
97/
The program itself will not incur additional
costs beyond CIP costs funded through
CDBG process. However contract services
for processing in the amount of $8,000 will
be paid from CDBG funding.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
[]Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
¯Auditor
73
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Jim Gilliland (50)
Cathy Siegel (150)
yes (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
Div. Lead:NA
Staff:Cathy Siegel (150)
Contract:yes (see Cost)
Date of Assignment: Spring 1996
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: On-going
Origin of Issue: CDBG Advisory Committee and City Council
74
Planccing Division Work Program 97/98
34
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Planning Division is beginning to develop systems and capabilities in the following areas of
more advanced technology.*
A.Desk-Top-Publishing
B.GIS*
C.Database Management Systems
D.Digital Presentations
E.Internet
F.Automated Permit Tracking*
G.Automated Forms
H.Optical Imaging
Some of the major sub-areas or activity areas, common to each, are:
1.Hardware
2.Software
3.Data gathering
4.Data entry
5.Training
6. Data proof’rag
7. Data organization
8. Data analysis
9. Data back-up
10.Data archiving
11.Hard-copy output
12.Metadata!Documentation
13.Digital Presentations
*Note: The areas of Geographic Information Systems, an Permit Tracking System are each
separate projects.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Development of communications graphics is an ongoing function that supports the Division’s
responsibility to educate, provide information to, and assist the public as well as various Boards,
Commissions, and the City Council. Also, development of four new Desk-Top-Publishing
products is an Impact Measure of MDB.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
q5/97
Planning Division ........650
Contract Services ..........no
9Z/
Planning Division ...........600
Contract Services .............no
COST
q5/97
None.
9Z/
None.
¯ 75
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
[]Attorney’s Office
[]Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96197 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
STAFF MEMBERS
Contract:
Gloria Humble (400)
Phil Dascombe (250)
no
Staff:
Contract:
Gloria Humble (400)
Phil Dascombe (200)
no
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: Ongoing
Multi-year: yes
Expected Completion Date: Continual
Origin of Issue: Council and staff
76
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
35
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Planning Division is participating in the development of the enterprise wide GIS.
Some of the major sub-areas or activity areas are:
1.Hardware
2.Software
3.Data gathering
4.Data entry
5.Training
6. Data proof’nag
7. Data organization
8. Data analysis
9. Data back-up
10.Data archiving
11 .Hard-copy output
12.Metadata~ocumentation
13.Digital Presentations
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Data:
The GIS that is being developed is envisioned to be a comprehensive source of information
pertaining to the city. It is broad based enough that each department will be able to organize
their vital data, however diverse, such that it can be entered into the system and used enterprise
wide and by the public. GIS is viewed to be the future backbone of all data related activities at
the inter-departmental level.
The Planning Division’s responsibilities have and will continue to require inter-departmental
coordination.
Graphics:
One of the most outstanding aspects of a GIS is its inherent capability to express data spatially
and graphically, ie., in maps. Maps are excellent communication graphics that can be used to
support the Division’s responsibility to educate, analyze, provide information to, and assist the
public as well as various Boards, Commissions, and the City Council.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
97
Planning Division ........700
Contract Services .........yes
COST
97/98
Planning Division ...........700
Contract Services ............yes
q6/97 97/98
77
$34,000 requested in 96/97 CIP budget $40,000 requested in 97/98 CIP budget
$22,000 to be a midyear admendment to
97/98CIP budget
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
q6197
Staff:
Contract:
Gloria Humble (450)
Phil Dascombe (250)
yes (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
97/98
Contract:
Gloria Humble (400)
Phil Dascombe (300)
yes (see Cost)
Date of Assignment: Ongoing
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: Continual
Origin of Issue: Council and staff
78
Planing Division Work Program 96! 97/98
36
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This item includes purchase and implementation of an automated Permit Tracking and Condition
Monitoring System. The system is to be used to track and monitor all types of permits activities
related to permits such as applications, licenses, inspections, utility service modifications,
complaints and code enforcement. The system will be used to monitor the complete
development process, from initial planning entitlement requests through the final building
inspection, including ongoing conditions of approval following occupancy. The system is to be
interconnected so information regarding any application can be obtained by all participating
departments and provided to applicants and members of the public during the application
process. The system is to calculate fees, place holds, route information, require on-line
departmental sign-off, issue permits, and monitor project status, conditions of approval and
special fees. The system shall also include reporting capabilities.
The new system must incorporate the current Building Inspection Permit system (BIPS) and Fire
Inspection System (FIS), and interact with the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS),
IFAS and Cubis. The new system must also interact with the notebook computers used by the
building division.
Purchase/Implementation of the system is to include:
¯ permit tracking system software purchase, license, warranty,
eany necessary custom modifications to the system to achieve City requirements as specified in this RFP,
edesign of new screens/forms/permits/receipts/reports to be printed for permits tracked in the system,
ewritten system documentation and training manuals,
estaff training,
¯ system installation and implementation assistance, (start-up and debugging),
¯ on-going system maintenance and technical support,
¯ system updates, and
oaccess to optional future training and!or programming assistance.
This work item is a multi-year project. In 1995-96 the system will be purchased and
implementation will be initiated.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Project approved as part of Capital Improvement Program for 1994/95. The Planning Division
currently has no automated means of tracking the status of applications for planning approvals,
and monitoring compliance with conditions of approval or satisfactory completion of
environmental mitigation measures.
79
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ........450
Contract Services .........yes
COST
97/98
Planning Division ...........350
Contract Services ............yes
q6197
$90,000 within 95/96 CIP budget.
97/98
Continue w/previous year’s budget.
$50,000 added for enhancements.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
¯Attomey’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
¯Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
[]Auditor
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
q6197
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Lisa Grote (50)
Brian Dolan (400)
yes (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Lisa Grote (50)
Brian Dolan (300)
yes (see Cost)
Date of Assignment: 1994 with CIP adoption
Multi-year:
Expected Completion Date: Spring 1998
Origin of Issue: Council
80
Planccing Division Work Program 97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Historic Resources Board would like to apply for another CLG grant to upgrade its
computerized historic inventory. Although there are many enhancements that would be useful,
the most important ones at this time involve data model changes such as normalizing street
numbers so that they are no longer in ranges, but are discreet categories in themselves. Building
lookup lists for materials and updating forms and reports to reflect data model changes would
also be part of this item.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The historic inventory was recently computerized. The data has not been normalized and is
therefore not as useful as it could be. Individual addresses can not be accessed if they were
entered into the data base as part of a range (e.g. 340 - 380 Cowper Street). This problem can be
corrected, but it will take a concerted effort to identify those addresses that were entered as part
of a range. Building lookup tables will reduce the amount of time needed to access data and
updating forms and reports will make the data base more efficient.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division .........80
Contract Services .........150
COST
The grant application would be for $8,000
to $10,000 and would pay for the consul-
tant’s time.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
[]Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human. Resources
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
¯Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
81
[] Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
¯ Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
STAFF MEMBERS
Div. Lead: Lisa Grote (80)
Contract: yes (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: Not yet assigned
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: NA
Origin of Issue: HRB
82
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
38
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Historic Inventory is one of the most extensively used documents in the City regarding
historic preservation. It was completed in 1979 and has not undergone a comprehensive update
since that time. Many of the buildings on the Inventory have undergone additions or
modifications and the descriptions need to be amended to reflect the changes.
Supporting information has also changed over the years, especially with regard to surrounding
environment, condition of the building, and potential threats to the site. This results in a
perception by HRB members that many buildings on the inventory are classified as less
significant than they actually are.
Additionally, the HRB is not satisfied that the classification system used is consistent with
national Standards for Historic Preservation and have discussed changing the ordinance
definition of Categories 1, 2 and 3 (see related Work program item titled "Historic Preservation
Ordinance Update").
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
To maintain usefulness of the Inventory, it is necessary to keep it current. This is important to
further the City’s objectives regarding historic preservation, but it is also an important customer
service objective. Currently, property owners often find the HRB taking issue with the
classification of their buildings and the result is poor customer service. Phase I of the Inventory
update would be to update those structures already on the Inventory. Phase II would be to
identify additional structures that might qualify under any new definitions of categories.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
5/97
Planning Division ........NA
Contract Services .........NA
COST
Planning Division ...........175
Contract Services .........1,000"
97/
$95,000 for contract fees-not within current
budget*
83
*The 1,000 hours of time of a consultant with expertise in historic preservation would be spent
conducting a site visit to each of the 500 properties currently on the inventory, assessing recommended
sites not now on the inventory, the structure on the site, and assessing the surrounding area. The
information collected in the field would then be compared to the information on file with the City.
Planning and Building files would be researched for planning entitlement and building permits. It is
anticipated that each site would require approximately two hours to visit, assess and research.
The 175 hours of staff time would be spent reviewing the consultant’s data and managing the consultant
contract (55 hours), preparing a staff report explaining the update process and the criteria used to
evaluate sites and surrounding areas (40 hours), 15 hours of Planning staff time to coordinate review
conducted primarily the City Attorney’s Office, Real Estate Division and Public Works, 10 hours of
public and staff contact meetings to discuss inventory and 15 hours of revisions to the draft report after
initial staff review. 40 hours are allowed for HRB and City Council hearings as well as any special
meetings needed with historic groups, property owners or the community organizations.
Significant hours of volunteer HRB time would be spent reviewing the consultant’s work and draft
recommendations for changing the existing categorization of specific buildings.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
[] Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
61q7
Div. Lead: NA
Contract: NA
MISCELLANEOUS
Div. Lead:
Contract:
Lisa Grote (175)
yes (see Cost)
Date of Assignment: Not yet assigned
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: N/A
Origin of Issue: Staff and Historic Resources Board
84
Planning Division Work Program 97/ 98
39
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Customer handbooks explain Planning Division processes and requirements in easily understood
language and illustrations. The handbook is a document that customers can keep and refer to
when not in the office. The handbooks that Planning currently uses have proved very useful for
staff and customers alike. Existing handbooks are updated to include ordinance changes and new
handbooks are created to explain processes not yet in handbook form; e.g., Conditional Use
Permit, Subdivisions, and Site and Design.
The Division has a program to convert all entitlement handbooks to desktop publishing for ease
of update and graphic illustrations for customer convenience. Several are yet to be reformatted.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The new Mission Driven Budget (MDB) requires that two handbooks be created or updated each
year. This work program item must be undertaken to meet the MDB objective.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
5/97
Planning Division .........30
Contract Services ..........no
COST
9Z/
Planning Division ............30
Contract Services .............no
$200 for offset printing of cover and $850
for 500 copies of document. ($1,050 total
for printing is within current budget.)
9Z/
$200 for offset printing of cover and $850
for 500 copies of document ($1,050 total
for printing is within current budget.)
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
85
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
q6/97
Div. Lead: Lisa Grote (30)
Contract: no
97/98
Div. Lead: Lisa Grote (30)
Contract: no
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: September 1995
Multi-year: Yes. Two handbooks per year
Expected Completion Date: Ongoing
Origin of Issue: Staffand Council
86
Planning Division Work Program 96! 97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Comprehensive Plan, Urban Design Element, Program 8, states that the City will" Encourage
and assist owners of buildings architectural or historic merit in applying for tax relief under
federal and state programs." In FY 1995/96, a request was made by the owners of the Squire
House on University Avenue for Mills Act tax relief. Staff processed the request on the basis of
the Comprehenisve Plan program and Council approved it. However, many questions about how
many properties would qualify, how far the City should go in encouraging the use of the Mills
Act, revenues that might be lost, and at what point in the historic preservation process the tax
relief was appropriately granted were raised. Preparation of an ordinance would provide
opportunity for more analysis, more definitive Council policy direction, and development of ¯
procedures and fees for recovering the cost of staff time. Council, in their review, requested that
staff develop some analysis and options for Council to consider, although they stopped short of
disallowing any more Mills Act requests until such time as these procedures are developed.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
This work item was referrd to staff by City Council in FY 1995-96 when they processed the
owners of the Squire House request for a Mills Act contract.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division .........40
Contract Services ..........no
97/
Planning Division ...........NA
Contract Services ............NA
COST
96/97 97/98
None NA
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attomey’s Office
¯ Manager’s Office
[] Community Services
[] Human Resources
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
87
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯ Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
q6/97
Div. Lead: Lisa Grote (40)
Contract: None
97/98
Div. Lead: NA
Contract: NA
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: February 1996
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: July 1997
Origin of Issue: City Council assignment
88
Plauning Division Work Program 96!97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This assignment involves updating the City of Palo Alto CEQA Guidelines. The current
publication was produced in 1984 and is out of date.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The City Attorney’s Office has long identified this task as one which Legal and Planning staff
should undertake jointly, and it has been identified as a key plan item in this year’s Planning
Division Mission Driven Budget. The number of EIR’s undertaken by the City has increased.
The use of contract planning firms to complete EIR’s for all City departments has risen as well.
The need for updated and easy to use local CEQA guidelines becomes more and more important
to assure legal adequacy of the City’s CEQA process, to allow better interface with consultant
firms, and to assure that the most recent State requirements are folded into our procedures. The
need to republish the document through desk-top-publishing so that it can be readily updated in
the future is also high.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
5/97
Planning Division .........40
Contract Services .........no*
9Z/
NA
NA
COST
*The City Attorney anticipates needing con-
tract services to complete this assignment,
within current budget.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
89
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯ Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
STAFF MEMBERS
97
Div. Lead:
Contract:
Nancy Lytle (40)
none for Planning
97/98
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: June 1995
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: July 1996
Origin of Issue: Staff
90
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The CIP Design consultant assists city staff from all Departments in incorporating aesthetic and
design elements into public improvements..Specific work tasks include project assistance,
facilitation or coordination for inclusion of art in various projects, CIP project evaluation for
design issues and code evaluation for implementation of broader design objectives.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The CIP Design Consultant has produced improved design for City projects, incorpo}ated art and
aesthetics in projects and in some cases has reduced project costs.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division .........50
Contract Services .........500
97/98
Planning Division ............50
Contract Services ............500
COST
5/97
$40,000 for contract services - within
current budget.
9Z/
$40,000 for contract services - within
current budget.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
[]Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
¯Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
91
STAFF MEMBERS
96/97 97/98
Div. Lead: Jim Gilliland (50)Div. Lead:
Contract: yes (see Cost)Contract:
Jim Gilliland (50)
yes (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: October 1994
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: On-going
Origin of Issue: Council, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, Public Arts Commission
92
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
43
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Public Works has studied and analyzed the use of the former Los Altos Treatment Plant at the
end of San Antonio Road for refuse collection, a vehicle yard, and a construction staging yard.
The City is now in negotiations with the City of Los Altos for acquisition of the property. An
EIR will be prepared in 1996/97 to evaluate a proposed annexation of the lands to the City of
Palo Alto through a LAFCO process, and the use of the property for a variety of public purposes.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
An EIR for this site needs to be evaluated for several alternative city functions.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
q5/97
Planning Division .........60
Contract Services ..........no
COST
9Z/
Planning Division ............60
Contract Services .............no
96/97 97/98
None.None.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendmem
[] Not recommended
93
STAFF MEMBERS
97
Div. Lead: Jim Gilliland (60)
Contract: no
97/98
Div. Lead:
Contract:
Jim Gilliland (60)
no
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment:
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: 1997
Origin of Issue: Council
94
Planning Division Work Program 96/97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In March 1994, the City Council approved a comprehensive parking plan for downtown Palo
Alto. One of the elements of the Parking Plan is consideration of a new parking structure. The
purpose of the project is to investigate the overall feasibility of the development of a parking
structure on one or more sites and submit a recommendation to the City Council. The study will
include conceptual designs, cost estimates, environmental issues, economic impacts, and
consideration of mixed-use concepts. Transportation Division has the lead on the project with
Planning Division Staff serving on the Project Study Committee.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The current parking deficiency, as indicated in the annual Downtown Monitoring Program
report, is estimated to be 1,500 spaces. A significant number of downtown patrons and
employees intrude with parking into the adjoining neighborhoods. The Chamber of Commerce
and Downtown Marketing Committee and property owners have voiced serious concerns
regarding the parking deficit. The study would determine the feasibility of constructing a
parking structure or structures downtown to provide needed additional parking.
¯ HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division .........60
Contract Services ..........no
COST
9Z/
Planning Division ............60
Contract Services .............no
96/97 97/98
None.None.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Commtmity Services
[]Human Resources
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
95
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[] Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
q6/97
Div. Lead: Jim Gilliland (60)
MISCELLANEOUS
97/98
Div. Lead:Jim Gilliland (60)
Date of Assignment: March 1994
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: Phase 1 study - April 1996
Origin of Issue: Council
96
Planning Division Work Program 97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Involves coordination among departments and agencies, assisting with environmental review and
permitting, and processing of planning permits, when required. There are 22 projects that are
included in the proposed 1996-2001 CIP and are expected to be completed through their
entitlements in 1996-97. The estimated time commitment for planning staff review and
assistance for each project assumes 20 hours of stafftime on average. The time estimated
represents staff commitment on these various projects during FYs 96/97 and 97/98 only.
LIST OF PROJECTS:
Public Works 96/97
OG Bond Assessments
OPermit Streamlining
OBackflow Devices
OBarron Park Storm Drainage
OPage Mill/JSB intersection
OTraffic Circleffraffic Calming
OArastradero Dam/Creek
OAlma/Charleston/Meadow landscape
OGIS Application Coordination
ODowntown Urban Design
OSan Francisquito Creek Erosion
OPublic Buildings (Structural)
OAlma St. Bicycle Bridge
OHarbor Marsh Restoration
OGolf Course Master Plan
Public Works 97198
OG Bond Assessments
OBackflow Devices (CIP)
OBarron Park Storm Drainage
OArastradero Dam/Creek
OGIS Application Coordination
ODowntown Urban Design
OPublic Buildings (Structural)
OHarbor Marsh Restoration
OGolf Course Master Plan
OHanover & Page Mill Inter-
section Design
Facilities 96/97
OADA Exterior Signage
OChildren’s Theater Storage Shed
072" storm drain replacement
Facilities 97/98
OUnknown
Transportation 96197
OEmbarcadero Bike Path/bridge
OPed/Bike grade separation/Cal Ave Underpass
OECRfMaybell Improvements
OTraffic Signal Controllers
Transportation 97/98
OUnknown
Utilities 96197
OAssume 8 projects
Utilities 97/98
OAssume 8 projects
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Planning staff involvement in CIP and other City-sponsored projects is required. Many of these
projects require environmental review, design review or planning permits, as well as
interdepartmental coordination.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
5/97
Planning Division ........450
Contract Services ..........no
97/98
Planning Division ...........400
Contract Services .............no
97
COST
96/97 97/98
None.None.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
STAFF MEMBERS
5/97
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Jim Gilliland (150)
Virginia Warheit (300)
Contract: no
9Z/
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Jim Gilliland (150)
Virginia Warheit (150)
Brian Dolan (100)
no
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: Various CIP adoption dates
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: On-going
Origin of Issue: Council
98
Plavming Division Work Program 96!97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This function includes reviewing plans and proposals referred by the Real Estate Division,
participating in tenant selection, coordinating necessary entitlements, environmental and design
review. Each project averages 35 hours of Planning Division staff time.
LIST OF PROJECTS:
OWilliams House
OUniversity Ave. Depot
@Senior Center Temp Signs
@Sea Scout Building
@Duncan Place Well Site Sale
@Tower Well Site
OWinterlodge Tennis Courts/Park
~Arastra House Re-use
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
These are on-going functions that require Planning input in order to completely assess the impact
of certain projects and proposals, obtain appropriate tenants and uses and complete physical
modifications.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
5/97
Planning Division ........300
Contract Services ..........no
97/98
Planning Division ...........300
Contract Services .............no
COST
96/97 97/98
None.None.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attomey’s Office
¯ Manager’s Office
[] Community Services
[] Human Resources
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
99
¯ Recommended for 96/97
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
STAFF MEMBERS
Div. Lead:Jim Gilliland (150)
Staff:Virginia Warheit (150)
Contract:no
97/98
Div. Lead:Jim Giliiland (150)
Staff:Virginia Warheit (150)
Contract:no
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: Annual
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: On-going
Origin of Issue: Council & City Manager
100
Wor Program 96/97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This function includes reviewing plans from other agencies and providing cooperative assistance
to neighboring cities, including Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and
Mountain View. This function also includes a unique referral relationship for activity on
Stanford lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Projects for neighboring cities and Stanford should be reviewed for consistency with Palo Alto
goals and objectives. Plans that Stanford intends to process this year include:
LIST OF PROJECTS:
OHousing Project near golf course
OCampus Transit Mall
¯ Manzanita Housing Project
¯ Stanford Museum restoration
and expansion
~Tennis Stadium expansion
~Quarry Rectangle Parking lot
OHospital lobby & entry im-
provements
¯ ASA Science/Engineering Quad
¯ Galvez Rd. Reconfiguration
~Serra Mall II
¯East transit Mall
OASA Science!Engineering Quad
¯Cancer Center
Also, we would expect to receive another 6 miscellaneous Santa Clara Architectural & Site
Approval referrals or other j urisdiction’s referral items (Staff time averages 10 hours per each
referral item reviewed).
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
q /97
Planning Division ........100
Contract Services ..........no
9Z/
Planning Division ...........100
Contract Services .............no
COST
96/97 97/98
None.None.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[] Transportation Div.[] Attorney’s Office [] Administrative Services
101
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
[]Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[] Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
STAFF MEMBERS
96/97 97/98
Div. Lead:Nancy Lytle (40)Div. Lead:Nancy Lytle (40)
Staff:Jim Gilliland (60)Staff:Jim Gilliland (60)
Contract:no Contract:no
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment:
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: On’going
Origin of Issue: Council, Stanford University, Local Agencies and Neighboring Cities
102
Planning Division Work Program 97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This function includes reviewing plans, legislation, guidelines, and rules from regional, state and
federal agencies. For the coming year, the primary role is anticipated to be in the area of
reviewing state legislation regarding changes to environmental laws and housing element reform,
and to changes in federal programs such as HOME and CDBG.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Legislative and regulatory changes can have a profound effect on the workload of local
governments and can provide for funding assistance.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ........50*
Contract Services ..........no
9Z/ g
Planning Division ...........50*
Contract Services .............no
*Does not include the time of the Director of Planning and Community Environment
COST
96/97 97/98
None.None.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Recommended for 96/97
¯Recommended for 97/98
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
103
[] Consider again in 98/99 [] Not recommended
STAFF MEMBERS
96/97 97/98
Dept. Lead: Ken Schreiber Dept. Lead:
Div. Lead: Nancy Lytle (50)Div. Lead:
Contract: no Contract:
Ken Schreiber
Nancy Lytle (50)
no
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: On-going
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: On-going
Origin of Issue: Federal, State and Regional decision-makers
104
Planning Division Work Program 97/98
AVAILABLE TIME IN DIVISION (breakdown)*
MANAGEMENT:
Chief Planning Official (CPO)
52 weeks at 40 hours ...............................................2,080
Less 45 days
(15 days vacation, 12 days Holiday, 6 days sick, 2 days personal business,
5 days training, 5 days professional development) .......................360
Less Management and Administration
(Personnel evaluations and issues, progress reports from supervised staff
and supervisor, problem solving, cross education, Work Program, Boards &
Commissions retreats/orientation, interdepartmental relations) ..............900
TOTAL CPO TIME AVAILABLE FOR WORK PROGRAM ITEMS ...............820
Assistant Planning Official (APO)
52 weeks at 40 ...................................................2,080
Less 50 days
(See CPO with 20 days vacation) ...................................400
Less Management and Administration (See CPO) ...........................450
TOTAL APO TIME AVAILABLE FOR WORK PROGRAM ITEMS ..............1,230
Zoning Administrator (ZA)
52 weeks at 40 ...................................................2,080
Less 45 days (See CPO) ..............................................360
Less Zoning Administration
(Hearings, applicant meetings, decision making, code interpretation) ...........540
Less Development Monitoring Projects
(Process Planning Entitlement’s) ...................................330
Less Management and Administration (See CPO) ............................540
TOTAL ZA TIME AVAILABLE FOR WORK PROGRAM ITEMS ................310
TOTAL MANAGEMENT TIME AVAILABLE ...................2,360
*Does not include the time of the Director of Planning and Community Environment
105
106
STAFF:
Planner Hours Available
52 weeks at 40 hours ...............................................2,080
Less 50 days
(15 days average vacation, 12 days Holiday, 6 days sick, 2 days personal
business, 5 days floaters, 5 days training, 5 days professional development) .....400
Less 6 hours per week x 42 remaining weeks
(Staff meetings, time management, mail, counter rotation
and other similar functions) ......................................252
TOTAL PLANNER TIME AVAILABLE FOR WORK PROGRAM ITEMS ..........1,428
Planning Division Full Time Equivalent
Full Time Senior Planner (Virginia Warheit) ..................................1.00
Full Time Senior Planner (Brian Dolan) .....................................1.00
3/4 Time Senior Planner (Less.20 for budget) (Lori Topley) ........................55
Full Time Housing Planner (Less .25 for on-going projects, monitoring, etc.*)(Cathy Seigel) 0.75
3/4 Time Planner (Gloria Humble) ........................................0.75
1/3 Time Planning Technician (PhilDascombe) ...............................0.35
FULL TIME EQUIVALENT PLANNERS ................................4.40
TOTAL PLANNER TIME AVAILABLE (Hours x 4.40 FTE) .........6,283
TOTAL MANAGEMENT AND PLANNER TIME AVAILABLE FOR WORK PROGRAM ITEMS
2,360 + 6,283 : ................................................8,643
TOTAL HOURS AVAILABLE FOR WORK PROGRAM ............8,643
* 330 Emerson Housing Project - 120 hours, Administration of City’s Housing In-Lieu Funds - 120 hours, Monitoring and
Oversight of the BMR program - 120 hours, FY 1992 HOME Grant Administration - 50 hours, Barker Hotel - 40 hours,
Consolidated Plan Annual Performance Report - 56 hours and others
107
108
Planning Division Work Program 97/ 98
AVAILABLE TIME, PLANNING DIRECTOR (breakdown)
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT:
52 weeks at 40 hours ............................................2,080
Less 44 days
(20 days vacation, 12 days Holiday, 2 days sick, 5 days training, 5 days
professional development) .....................................352
Less Management and Administration
(Personnel evaluations and issues, progress reports from supervised staff
and supervisor, problem solving, cross education, Work Program, Boards &
Commissions retreats/orientation, interdepartmental relations) ............30._...QO
TOTAL DIRECTOR TIME AVAILABLE FOR WORK PROGRAM ITEMS ............1428
Local and Interdepartmental ..............................100
CIP Project Review .....................................77
Sub-regional Coordination ...............................100
Regional Coordination ...................................50
PAMF .............................................125
Stanford ...........................................120
Comprehensive Plan ...................................420
CAP ..............................................210
Sand Hill Corridor .....................................22.___~6
1428
109
110
111