Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council (38)Attachment III This document contains Governance Goals GV-1 through GV-10, referred to Policy and Services Committee at the City Council Meeting of November 27, 1995. Governance and Community Services City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Draft IV November 3, 1994 NOTE:Contains Planning Commission Action, and Boards and Commissions’ Comments KEY TO CODES Codes have been written after each goal, policy and program on the following pages, indicating the following characteristics: ECP --An existing Comp Plan policy or program (with Element Program or Policy number). RCP --A revised existing Comp Plan policy or program (with Element Program or Policy number). EPNCP --An existing city policy, but not in the current Comp Plan. NPP --A new policy or program. PLANNING COMMISSION CODES: i!ii!iii!i!i~i!!i!iii -- Shaded items are recommended to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. --Ideas recommended to be preserved in some manner (e.g. text, implementation section, appendix, separate document). C -- Items recommended to be deleted for a lack of priority. D -- Items recommended to be deleted/disagree with policy/program. GOVERNANCE and COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMENTS Human Relations Commission The great amount of citizen participation this process has included is appreciated. Recognize, appreciate, and encourage the diversity aspect of Palo Alto more. Promote "regionalism" wherever possible. Document should address Neighborhood Association potential linkages with the Human Relations Commission. Policies and Programs Draft IV (September 8, 1994)Page 1 Vision Statement ( a picture 20 years hence) Palo Alto has a participatory political and decision making process which contributes to building community. Residents, council, business, commissions, staff, neighborhoods and other organizations work as allies in collaborative efforts. The hallmarks of those efforts are participation, responsibility, communication, commitment, information access, change management and appropriate delegation. Palo Alto is a leading regional citizen participating actively in development of regional, state and national policies which affect Palo Alto. Palo Alto works with neighboring communities to better understand and deal with our common interests and concerns by sharing resources, restructuring services and expanding cooperation. Mention of Palo Alto evokes a positive civic image. Palo Alto’s excellent planning process gains strength from regular expanded participation in the early consideration of development plans. Every member of the Palo Alto community has full access to a diverse range of responsive, high quality community services and facilities. Residents and applicants feel like valued customers of Palo Alto. Palo Alto will be responsive to changing demographics and social conditions in providing services. STAFF COMMENTS Participation Staff feels that the vision statement regarding delegation exaggerates that potential. Staff and the Planning Commission have briefly reviewed th~ types of decisions which might be delegated from the Council to the Commission, and have explored this concept with the City Council. Those applications .identified would not include zone changes, PC zone changes, Site and Design other than single-family, EIg’s or Comprehensive Plan amendments. Potential delegable items included appeals of Zoning Administrator and ARB decisions, subdivision maps, single-family site and design approvals, and applicant initiated non- conforming use extensions. In reviewing records for 1993, the Council reviewed 25 Planning projects, 11 or 44% of which would fall into the potentially delegable category. Out of the 11 items, the Planning Commission made a recommendation on only 8 because they are not now involved in the ARB appeal ~rocess. Of the 8 items, the Conncil reversed one Planning Commission action. Of the 11 potentially delegable items, it is staff’s opinion that 3 or 4 of them would have been appealed on to the City Council due to controversy. If our estimate is correct, the net reduction and organizational efficiency for the City Council and their support personnel in 1993 would be at most 28 io 32 percent fewer planning applications. For applicants, the net amount of process reduction would likely benefit 24% or fewer of the applicants to Council. City o./Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Policies and Programs Draft IV (September 8, 1994) Governance and Community Sera’ices Page 2 Participation Palo Alto is well served by a strong manager/cotmcil form government. Many residents are interested in being more effectively engaged in and connected to the civic affairs of their community. First, the charter should be changed to delega~:~|~d use decisions to the Planning Commission. Many land use decisions now require both Planning Commission and Council hearings. Delegation, subject to appeal to the Council, would streamline most decisions. Both applicants and the Council would be relieved of numerous proceedings~vh~.eh .".e e,~e ":,’m’2s. The Council :hould also create more advisory commissions where th~r~.is a co~itted constituency~.such~s, fo!L.a Second, PaiD Alto should ~.t-!~ organization and operation of neighborhood org~t~tt0~2 and more compelling to be engaged in their immediate neighborhood than in city wide activities. Community wide objectives such as communications, emergency preparedness, beautification, recreation, gardening and planning projects could be enhanced and localized by neighborhood groups. STAFF COMMENTS Staff would also recommend that the Council consider a combined Commtmity Services Commission a step toward the CPAC vision statement on "Participation." We advocate one commission versus several separate commissions for such services as Libraries, Parks, and Recreation as an attempt to encourage collaboration among various constituencies for cooperative allocation of a sparse city budget. Additionally, the cost of staffing independent commissions for various community service constituencies grows with the number of independent commissions and individuals to be supported. The current "Friends of" organizations would continue to function as they traditionally have. GV-I.The Paid Aiio cit~ ~6ii~i~{i will dei~g~if~ A.The Council makes all policy decisions such more deei~ioti ma~iri~ i6 ~e Piattnirig as adopting the budget and ordinances. Commission to Sitiaplify processes for most applicants mid reduce the number of public hearings for non-eoiatroverSial projects. N P’ ~GV-1.A and B - Delete policies A and B because they restate current law and can instead be described in the text of this section for educational purposes. This law would remain intact whether or not certain decisions are delegated. ¯ GV-1.C1 - The appeal to Council should receive more emphasis in this program. Note: BOLD text indicates changes fro’m Drafr III to Draft IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on Draft 111. Underlined text indicates recommended policies and programs which are currently contained in the Comprehensive Plan, with current references in parenthesis. Folicies and Programs Draft IV (September 8. 1994)Page 3 Facilitate increased ~d effective opportunities for eitizeii participation in govemanc -tqPP An A3.The Council periodically reviews the needrn e,v-~ 0..,,_for I~ossible new commissions; e.tz. A4.Staff~upport~laff~s advisory commissions in ~analyzing issues and putting them in the ~context of city policy, law and history to assist them in their work as provided for in the City budget. Organizations and knowledgeable individuals will be invited to comment early in the process on development or revision of city "Ori~|d~tiOh b~ t~ (26~iL policy. Easily accessible information 0ad electronic AI.EmplOy a prugr~ o~i~/neighbnrhood media will be ~ ~u~,~]’to en~h’~ce liaisons, electroiiic eOmmunlcation ~md communication with the Cotihcii and among :.: print om~a~ieati0:~.!6 ~f~ th~ org~inizati0n~ and residdii~ [q [:, p-.7 : .: of coming issues ~d t6 facilitat~ their STAFF COMMENTS GV-2. and 2.A - This Goal should be changed to a policy substituting for those to be eliminated under GV-I. 2A then becomes redundant. "Clarify issues" should be changed to "provide input to Council." GV-2.A - Delete, now merged into GV-2. GV-2.AI through A4 - Staff acknowledges the benefits of these program recommendations and feels the need to advise the Council as to the costs. Support for volunteers can only be effective ff they are linked to the City organization through resource allocation. The costs in staff time, mailing, agendas, minutes, etc. have been the source of recent significant controversy (e.g., costs related to the interim CPAC process or the current controversy with the HRB as to whether they should receive a budget for minutes rather than preparing them themselves) The benefits in leveraged volunteer hours are manyfold, but are achieved with notable public costs. Private costs are also felt. The more volunteer involvement, the more bureaucratic and less "streamlined" the decision or policy-making process. The disadvantages of additional bureaucracy may overshadow the benefits. Consideration should be given to making citizen groups advisory to the City Manager, in appropriate instances, as well as to Council. Advisory groups should also review service level’s, in addition to policy issues. GV-2.A2 - This program should include a provision to "sunset" those " committees and commissions which have fulfilled their identified function or task and are no longer needed. GV-2.B - Shaft questions the intended use of the term "knowledgeable individuals. Note: BOLD text indicates changes from Draft 111 to IMaR IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on Draft IlL Underlined text indicates recommended policies and programs ~shich are currently contained in the Comprehensive Plan, with current references in parenthesis. .,p:~"p\gove~a I ,C’ity a.[ Palo Alto Comprehemive Plan Update Policies and Programs Draft IV (September 8, 1994) Governance and C’ommzznity Services Page 4 C~B ~ie~oni~: buil~ifi ~ard~ to reaeli M~e Co,nell ~d c6~i~tOn ~e~d~ ~d digi~d material relev~i t0 items of broad interest available elec~onically and accept residenfs commen~ elec~onically. ~p p A6.Sponsor an annual opportunity for all public and non-profit organizations serving Palo Alto to provide information about themselves and recruit participation in delivery of and use of their services. ve ne inA7.Provide opportumt~es for e ryo Palo Alto to use advanced communications at City libraries. N~P (2 Disagree, 3 Agree w/changes) A8.Pilot, as permitted, electronic communications to the Council on matters ~ before the Council. ~ p[9 STAFF COMMENTS GV-3.A1 and A8 -These program recommendations have created significant public controversy and debate as they have evolved through the CPAC process. In part the controversy stems from concern that an electronic communication technique from individuals to the Council on matters coming before the Council could evolve to a real-time electorate poll prior to or immediately after Council decisions. This technological capability challenges fundamental principles of American representative democracy. Some have said it challenges the ability of elected officials to lead. Others f’md it the ultimate in "nimbyism." Grave concerns " regarding fair accessibility to such a system for all individuals would be difficult or impossible to achieve due to the "techno-gap." Staff has questioned whether the emphasis on electronic access will be perched as somewhat elitist and exclusionary. Staff has also raised questions regarding the impracticality of achieving compliance with the Brown Act, which does not envision elec!xonic means of public input. In some ways, FAX, internet, e-mall and the media have already begun to augment or challenge traditional political process and work environments in ways that we could never have imagined years ago and that we are continually adjusting to. These programs raise many thought-provoking ’ issues and debates which staff feels largely unqualified to respond to but we raise a few of them here to further the public and policy-maker discussion. GV-3.A3 and A6 - Delete. These are good ideas, but they sliould not be in the Comprehensive Plan. GV-3.A7 - What does this mean? This is true now. Note: BOLD text indicates changes from Draft Ill to Draft IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on Draft Ill. Underlined text indicates recommended policies and programs which are currently contained in the Comprehensive Plan, with current references in parenthesis. Policies ond Programs Draft IV (September 8, 1994)Page 5 GV-4. A2.Encourage formation of a private ¯ council of neighborhoods comprised of neighborhood leaders to help foster quality neighborhood organizations, including participation in leadership programs. ~ pp (I0 Disagree, I Agree wlchanges) Upon request of the neighborhood group, designate one existing city staff member from any department to act as a liaison between the city and any multi-purpose neighborhood organization which meets regularly and has significant membership from a self-def’med area in the city to facilitate two-way communication and understanding. /~l>F’ (7 Disagree, 3 Agree wlchanges) Ened~ge residential arid business ~/~ neighbriP~ ~o communicate and cOOperate. 0n ~bj~s o~ mutua! intenst through . ~eighborhood 0t-ganizstionS or di~ctly, Note: BOLD text indicates changes from Draft Ill to Draft IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on Draft Ill. Underlined text indicates recommended policies and programs which are currently contained in the Comprehensive PI.an, with current references in parenthesis. STAFF COMMENTS GV-4.A2 - Delete. This action could be undertaken by those private organizations without City support. It would be the best use of City resources to commit first to developing stronger cohesiveness in the individual organizations through other programs identified by CPAC, (i.e., a handbook, neighborhood emergency preparedness program, and/or other neighborhood liaison programs). GV-4.A3 - Staff acknowledges the benefit of a program of staff liaison frem City departments to neighborhood associations. The benefit of staff to citizen communication regarding any number of subjects is immeasurable in terms of building public trust in govenunent and building customer responsiveness and understanding among public employees. Similar programs are ongoing in many departments currently, notably the Police Department and their participation with organizations on Neighborhood Watch. It is, however, a policy shift for other departments and would req~re public resource expenditure, reducing the staff hours now devoted elsewhere. Some staff do not have background and training in this type of liaison function, nor do certain professions include this type of training. How much of the necessary staff commitment is offset through avoidance of future conflicts which come up through lack of advanced communication is difficult to measure. It is known that there are insufficient staff to "designate one staff person’ to each neighborhood group. An alternative might be to have a program where staff can be made available to neighborhood groups for communicating on issues which concern them, upon request. A pool of staff from all depar~dnents can be utilized by the City Manager to respond to neighborhood requests. Within the pool, certain employees can be encouraged to develop on- going relationships with specific neighborhood groups. Any liaison program should be fashioned after the existing "Neighborhood Watch" program, where single neighborhood members are identified as lead liaisons to interact with City staff and to assume a leadership role for their neighborhood. This builds community leaders and reduces the amount of staff time needed to respond to numerous requests from individual members within the same neighborhood. Page 5a BOARD AND COMMISSION COMMENTS Human Relations Commission: GV-4. - Concern that the uneven strengths of various neighborhoods which don’t have an association will be kept out of the loop and will not receive adequate attention in comparison to well-orgaulzed sections of town. Those poorer neighborhoods need to be included in this. GV-4.A. - City should facilitate linking up disenfranchised neighborhoods with existing bona fide neighborhood associations. GV-V4.A1. - The Neighborhood Directory is a good organizing tool, but the Directory needs to be bi-lingual. GV-4-A3. - Council should hold regular Town Meetings throughout the City in every neighborhood to include all areas. Policies 7nd Programs Draft 1V (September 8, 1994,)Page 6 GV-5. GV-6. GV-7. GV-8. Pale Alto will be an active regional citizen, r,l P l~ Encourage regular and spontaneous events to reinforce the sense of community city wide and neighborhoods, hip 1~ Encourage volunteerism. FIPP Recognize individualS, groups and businesses that contribute to the community, plp~ C.Encourage neighborhood organizations to ~address and meet their own needs. ~ p~ City lei~der~ ~d staffwill continue to participate in regional agencies to Seek mutually beneficial solutions to pt0blem~ affecting Pal0 Alto and its ~nvirons. Ntop The ciiy will enthusiastically support events with use 0f i’acilities and in-kihd d0titribt~tlons !fthey contribUt~ to the communi~ identity and service% iq p p Citizen volunteers, including youth and Seniorsi will be given appropriate responsible role~ Where theycan serve to leverage city staff resources. [qp p AI.~ s..ypportlf~- the annual University/City parade and at least one other celebration, community building and reeognltioh event in various parts of town. NPP AI. In large and Small ways, indlVidual~ and bUsiness~ who contribi.it~ to co.unity building pubiie or privat~ Alto Will be recognized by th~ Cir, (5 Disagre~ 5 Agree w/changes) Enhance city use of voluuteers. Facilitate communication about volunteer opportunities in Pale Alto. /~ ~ p A range 0foptions from letters of thanks to commentlatiotiS at public events will be systematleally ~atried ottt. /q p ~, STAFF COMMENTS GV-4.C3 Needs further explanation. GV-6.A and AI - This policy and program is already being accomplished for "City Sponsored" events, but the mechanism for prioritizing and brokering facilities beyond the current ongoing use is not within the current budget. With broader encouragement of facility use this function will become an additional resource commitment, for both program administration and facility maintenance, and policies and procedures for prioritizing events and organizations Will be needed. Likewise, Police, Public Works and Fire Department resources are needed for advance planning, coordinating, crowd control, clean-up etc., of large or multiple-small community events. These functions now require significant City resources, and expansion beyond current levels will create additional need. GV-6.AI - The mandate to budget for events such as parades does not belong in the Comprehensive Plan. City management needs flexibility to adjust finances. GV-7 - Refer to staff comments GV-2, A1 through A4. Effective use of volunteers requires staff resources to administer, coordinate and support the citizen efforts. Without proper management these efforts can be counterproductive. There are no staff resources for expanded City volunteer efforts beyond the many opportunities which already exist. This program and others cause concern because the City’s f’mancial resources are not expanding sufficiently to account for increases in current service levels. There should be more consistency in the document between areas of increased cost and increased opportunities for revenue generation. Note: BOLD text indicates changes from Draft !11 to Draft IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on Draft III. Underlined. text indicates recommended policies and programs which are currently contained in the Comp.rehensive Plan, with current references in parenthesis. Policies and Programs Draft IV (September 8, 1994)Page 7 Planning ILack of information, early opportunities to participate and understanding of economic or civic priorities often lead to misunderstanding among developers, residents and city representatives. Present mechanisms for planning flexibility have been disappo.inting to many. Palo Alto presently has no mechanism for working collaboratively with developers, owners and neighbor~ on projects with significant impacts on a neighborhood. A :~,::-’.;’,:.-.’, -reeczz "~h:t ".’.".e!~:~e: : f:e:’!!~;ea_ ,,,_,~:" f~al For changes involving amendment to the comprehensive plan for a large area, a methodology is needed whiGb involves mterested residents. ~ ~4~-ptlaus may be an appropriate approach/lot the CPAC design workshop tony p~ovide nn appropriate starting point. | r, O~ r~t ~’$ STAFF COMMENTS GV-9.A - Staff recommends modifying and clarifying this policy rvcummendation. We understand CPAC to be ~commending a hierarchy of processes which would allow for or require earlier collaborative idea exchange between property owners, neighbors and the City for certain controversial and significant "change"proposals. We undemand the frustration being expressed about current processes, which require public ¯ hearings prior to any planning entitlement, (especially before the recently adopted prescre~g process, which has yet to be used) but after project design investment. From a citizen perspective a reactive process is laden with inherent conflict since the physical changes are publicly discussed with.the neighborhood after the design investment has been made. The developer enters this public discussion or hearing with "buy in" into his proposal, literally and figuratively. The developer may turn to staff for advice about the community concerns or to the ARB, Planning C6mmission and City Council for advice, but it is a rare and sophisticated developer who. actually enters into a meaningful, professional design dialogue with surrounding neighbors and stakeholders in advance of the project design development. In a commtmity where pmpe~ rights and individual investment are highly valued and respected, the traditional process "feels" to some members of the public and CPAC like it is weighted against positive neighborhood or citizen input from those members of the community with significant, stake in the outcome of the proposed physical change and in the best position to provide local knowledge to the professional designer to improve the product. Note: BOLD text indicates changes from Draft Ill to Draft IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on Draft II!. ~ text indicates recommended policies end program~ which are currently contained in the Comprehensive Plan, with current references in parenthesis. STAFF COMMENTS On the other hand, from the perspective of the typical property owner or developer, the individuals with the most to gain or lose, the concept of additional process beyond that now required by local ordinance is very undesirable. The current process is considered cumbersome and costly, and a severe economic disincentive. Public participation in the traditional manner is considered to raise the risk of outcome and the risk of investment. "Nimbyism" is feared to be encouraged through additional process. The goal CPAC is articulating is to invent new ways to streamline the final process product for both developer and community by investing earlier in proacfive planning or design development_ Some criticize this goal as unrealistic, and the examples of successful processes of this type are rare. The CPAC goal is to increase the predictability of outcome for both the applicant and the public, reduce the litigious commtmity culture through improved communication between all stakeholders through earlier dialogue and interactive design. The hope is that everyone can win, both public and private interests. The hierarchy of potential processes they wish to explore, perhaps through a joint weekend workshop (within current budget constraints) with Council members, Commissioners, developers, invited experts and the public in Phase HI is as follows: Coordinated Area Plans - This term is being applied to a number of planning tools (e.g., Specific Plans, precise Plans, Area Plans, etc...) for planning areas in the city under multiple ownership and which are judged to need proactive public intervention. The areas identified by CPAC that staff concurs would be appropriate for this type of tool are: Midtown, SOFA, El Camino Real, Cal/Ventura, the "Dream Team" area and East Meadow Circle Area. (Refer to staff comments CD pp. 3a). ¯ STAFF COMMENTS Preliminary Screening - The City Council has adopted a public prescreening process available for certain projects and the CPAC believes this new process may provide opportunity for community input in the design of these projects prior to property owners committing money toward design development. Since this process requires public notice, it may satisfy this CPAC identified need, although they have not studied it sufficiently and it has not yet been tested practically. It is cmrently only initiated at the applicant/property owners request. ¯ Preliminary ARB - This process allows for earlier ARB and community input into the design of individual projects which require ARB approval. It too is available at the applicants request. PC Z~ne Changes - This process allows individual applications to exceed the parameters of the zoning ordinance under certain circumstancos. It has a built-in requirement for conceptual public and Plmming Commission review prior to detailed specific plans being completed. Other Planned District process - The issue of whether Palo Alto has, by limiting our tools for zoning fleXibility to the PC process, limited our success with development products has been raised by the Commission and Council, particularly for housing. The PC process is very long and requires a public benefit finding. Staff has long felt the need for a planned development process that does not require a public benefit Finding, particularly for housing projects. Staff recommends that these processes be restricted to projects with physical, rather than use and/or economic changes. (Refer to staff comments regarding CD-2.C1.4a. Ca) oj t’ah~ ,,tire Comprehensive t’hm Update ¯ Policies andPrograms Draft IV (September 8, 1994)Governance and Community Services Page 8 For specific development proposals, a variation of the Palo Alto Development Project pre-screening approach may be appropriate where: r~ (i) the project requires a comprehensive plan change; (ii) there is a risk of strong conflict between the developer, neighbors and the City; (iii) the conflict might be allayed by facilitated wo~’kshgop/conflict resolution types sessions involving all interest; or (iv) the project is at an early stage where changes area easily incorporated. (4 Disagree, 4 Agree w/changes) Note: BOLD text indicates changes from Draft 111 to Draft IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on D~afl I11. Underlined text indicates recommended policies and programs which are currently contained in the Comprehensive Plan, with current references in parenthesis. Policiex and Program,~ Draft IV (September 8, 1994)Page 9 Note: BOLD text indicates changes from Draft Ill to Draft IV. Italic text in parenthesis indicates results from CPAC ballot on Draft Ill. Underlined text indicates r~commended policies snd pro~r~ns which ~r~ cun~ntly contained in the Comprehensive Plan, with curr~nt r~fcr~nc~s in p~r~nthesis.