Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-08 City Council (9)TO: ATTENTION: C ty City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE 3 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE DATE:MARCH 8, 1999 CMR:166:99 SUBJECT:RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND CHAPTERS 10.04, 10.36,10.40, 10.44 AND 10.60 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING THE STOPPING, STANDING, AND PARKING OF VEHICLES REPORT IN BRIEF Thi~ report provides recommendations for amendments to several chapters in of the Palo Alto Municipal Code regulating the stopping, standing, and parking of vehicles. Specifically, proposed changes are recommended for Chapters 10.04- Definitions; 10.36- Stopping, Standing and Parking - Generally; 10.40- Stopping, Standing and Pa~king - Loading and Unloading; 10.44- Stopping, Standing and Parking - Prohibited or Restricted; and 10.60 - Parking Violations. The recommendations address overnight parking restrictions, o.versized vehicles, and loading zones for the disabled. Additionally, the changes would bring the City’s ordinance into compliance with changes made in the California Vehicle Code and would clarify issues related to the parking and towing of vehicles. CMR:166:99 Page 1 of 8 RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Chapters 10.04, 10.36, 10.40, 10.44, and 10.60 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) regulating parking, stopping, and standing of vehicles be amended. Specifically, the recommended revisions address overnight parking regulations, oversized vehicles, and loading zones for the disabled. Staff’s recommendations would also bring the City’s ordinance into compliance with the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and some practices the City has established, and would clarify enforcement issues related to the parking and towing of vehicles. BACKGROUND In 1996, the City Council amended Title 10 of the PAMC concerning the time limits for- contesting parking citations. Since then, there have been changes made in the CVC associated with these time limits that conflict with the City’s ordinance. State law also now requires that local governments adopt an ordinance that authorizes the enforcement of the vehicle code section that prohibits parking in a loading zone next to a disabled parking space. Additionally, over the past several years, the Police Department has received frequent complaints about trailers, trucks, motor homes, and oversized vehicles parked in or near residential areas. Since the time the current ordinance was amended, considerable changes have been made to zoning designations throughout the city, making enforcement almost impossible. As an example, the current code allows parking of these oversized vehicles next to a park, a school or across the street from a residential zone. The recommended amendments address these issues. . As staff was reviewing these chapters, it became apparent that other clarifications and changes were needed to address enforcement authorizations, vehicles parked on City streets that are for sale, temporary parking signs, and to provide more effective processing of abandoned vehicles. DISCUSSION The following are the significant changes that staff is recommending: Chapter 10.36 Stopping, Standing, and Parking - Generally CMR:166:99 Page 2 of 8 Section 10.36.030: Use of Streets or Public Parking Facilities for Storage of Vehicles This section deals with vehicles left on streets and in City parking lots for more than 72 hours. The recommended amendments to this section would add the prohibition for storage of a vehicle for more than 72 hours in a public parking facility; require only one warning notice prior to the towing of a vehicle; increase the distance a vehicle must be moved from 1,000 feet to half a mile; and delete the requirement of a pre-tow heating. Under the current code, Police Department personnel must use three different steps to deal with a vehicle that has been reported stored or abandoned before it can be towed. The first step is to chalk the vehicle and obtain an odometer reading. This is usually done within several days after receiving the complaint and actually starts the 72 hour clock. After 72 hours, if the vehicle has not been moved, the vehicle is cited and a tow warning is placed on the car. The third step involves the actual towing of the vehicle 24 to 48 hours later. This labor intensive process means that the vehicle is actually on the street for more than 144 hours after a complaint has been made. Staff recommends that steps two and three be combined. The vehicle would be chalked and a warning notice would be placed on the vehicle. If, after 72 hours, the car has not been moved in compliance with the code, a citation would be issued and the car would be towed. With the proposed amendments, the amount of time the vehicle is actually parked on the street after a complaint has been received would be reduced by 72 hours. During FY 97-98, the Police Department responded to 1,308 complaints of vehicles that were reported as stored or abandoned and subsequently towed 88 of these vehicles. The way the current code reads is also confusing and frustrating for residents when abandoned and!or inoperable vehicles, usually registered outside the neighborhood, are just pushed down the street or around the corner to circumvent the distance requirements. Changing the required distance from 1,000 feet to half a mile would make it more difficult for this circumvention to occur. It would also make it easier for vehicle owners and Police Department personnel to calculate the distance a vehicle has been moved on a vehicle odometer or trip meter. Section 10.40.010: Authority to Establish Loading Zones The recommended amendments to this section would add a requirement that in addition to any colored curb markings, signs also be required to designate parking spaces for bus, loading, and disabled parking spaces. City staffhas already initiated this practice after receiving numerous complaints from motorists that they do not see the curb markings. Since initiating the practice of installing signs in addition to curb markings, compliance with parking regulations has significantly improved. CMR:166:99 Page 3 of 8 Section 10.40.020: Signs or Curb Markings to Indicate No Stopping and Parking Regulations. The changes to this section would also bring current practice into compliance with the code by increasing temporary parking in green zones from 24 to 30 minutes; changing the time period of parking enforcement to 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to conform with the currently posted signs; and clarifying that only vehicles with commercial license plates may use loading zones. Section 10.40.025: Parking or Standing in a Crosshatched Area Adjacent to Disabled Parking Spaces The proposed new section would bring the City’s code into compliance with the CVC. State law mandates that, prior to enforcement of the CVC section pert.aining to parking in disabled parking loading zones designated by crosshatched areas adjacent to disabled parking spaces to occur, local governments must adopt similar regulations. Without a local ordinance, Police staff is unable to enforce this violation. Numerous complaints have been received by members of the disabled community about this issue. Section 10.40.040: Parking Distance From Curbs and Commercial Vehicle Deliveries Amendments to this section would clarify that parallel parking requirements on one-way streets would require either both right-hand or both left-hand wheels of the vehicle (depending upon the side of the street) to be parked within 18 inches of the curb. The Chief Transporation Official would be authorized to issue permits that would allow parking of large commercial vehicles in business districts, instead of the Police Chief. This change is recommended due to the efficiency associated With all types of parking permits being issued by the same official. Section 10.40.045: Special Parking Permits The change in language for this section would allow the Chief Transportation Official to issue temporary parking permits for vehicles used to move property or for construction projects, and would change the maximum length of a temporary permit from five days to 60 days. The increase in the length of the permit period reflects the fact that many construction projects require several months to complete, and it is more efficient and customer-friendly to issue temporary parking permits for a longer period of time. Section 10.40.100: Bus Zones CMR:166:99 Page 4 of 8 The amendments to this section would require the placement of signs and/or red curb markings at bus stops. This is the current procedure used in the city by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Chapter 10.44 Stopping, Standing and Parking - Prohibited or Restricted Section 10.44.015: Definitions Changes to this section would provide clearer definition for oversized vehicles and remove. designation by the type of vehicle. The proposed dimensions for an oversized vehicle would be exceeding seven feet in height, or twenty feet in length, or seven feet in width. These dimensions would not exclude the typical large sport utility vehicles (e.g., Chevrolet Suburban, Ford Expedition, or Chevrolet Tahoe) or passenger vans. This definition would likely include many of the medium to larger vehicles formerly listed under the definition of a camp trailer or house car. The maximum height limit was determined based upon the distance between the street and the bottom of a stop sign being seven feet. The Police Department receives frequent complaints about vehicles more than seven feet in height that block the view of stop signs. The length and width restrictions are designed to address sight distance safety concerns for vehicles exiting from driveways. Language prohibiting commercial vehicles more than 3,800 pounds would be deleted. Staff found that most full size family pickup trucks exceed this weight. Staff does not believe that the intent of this ordinance was to restrict pickup trucks, all of which are required to be licensed with a commercial license plate. Residents are usually more concerned about the size of vehicles parked in-residential areas than their weight. Staff believes that the reduction in the size of large vehicles that are allowed to park in residential areas increases the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists by reducing vision obscurements. While these complaints have been received during both daytime and nighttime hours, staff also believes that the prohibition of parking oversized vehicles during nighttime hours helps to reduce the number parked in residential areas during the daytime as well. Outdated residential zoning district designations would be replaced in the code with the current zoning classifications. For the purposes of this ordinance, a residential zone would include both sides of the street in RE, R1, R2, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40, and PF zoning districts. Currently, it is legal for a prohibited vehicle to park on the street in front of a park or a school across the street from a residential zone. Proposed changes in the code will prohibit these vehicles from parking on either side of a street in a residential area. CMR:166:99 Page 5 of 8 Section 10.44.020: Standing or Parking 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Section 10.44.021: Hardship and Guest Permits These sections deal with oversized vehicles, trailers, camper shells, tow trucks and construction equipment parking overnight, and vehicles used for human habitation. The effects of the changes in this section would be that oversized vehicles, trailers and camper shells would be prohibited from parking in residential areas from 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., unless they have a hardship or guest permit. These vehicles could still be parked in non- residential areas at any time of the day’ or night unless they are in violation of some other parking regulation (e.g., 72-hour vehicle storage, timed or permit parking areas, etc.) Additionally, language that would prohibit tow trucks and construction equipment from being parked in a residential area between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. is recommended in this section. Many cities have an ordinance that prohibits tow trucks from parking in residential areas due to the noise and disruption associated with on-call tow trucks arriving and departing from heavily parked residential streets. Construction equipment normally is required to be parked on the property where the work is being conducted, but on occasion construction equipment is left on the street. This amendment would allow the Police Department to issue a parking citation if a tow truck or construction equipment is left on the street overnight. Section 10.44.040: Parking Space Markings The recommended changes to this section would allow for parking space markings to be installed on streets, alleys, or in public parking facilities. It would prohibit vehicles more than six feet wide from parking in spaces designated by markings for small cars or compact cars. As a point of reference, the compact car spaces in the Civic Center parking garage are about 7’ 6" wide. It is difficult and sometimes impossible for drivers to enter or exit their vehicle if a large vehicle is parked adjacent to them in a compact parking space. Section 10.44.050: Temporary Parking and Street Sweeping Restrictions The recommended amendments to this section would add language to include the Director of Public Works and the Director of Utilities, in addition to the Police Chief, as authorizing officials for temporary parking restrictions. Additionally, it would clarify that street sweeping, construction or maintenance work that requires temporary parking restrictions could be enforced CMR:166:99 Page 6 of 8 and would allow the Police Department to remove vehicles parked in temporary, tow-away zones. Section 10.60.030: Police Department Review of Parking Violations To comply with changes in the CVC, the period to request an investigative review of a parking citation would be changed from 10 days to 14 days from the date of the mailing of notices of delinquent parking violations. Section 10.60.040: Appeal of Parking Violations to Parking Examiner To comply with changes in the CVC, the recommended amendments would change the time period to request an administrative review before a parking examiner from 15 days to 21 days. Section 10.60.070: Permit Parking in City Lots Language changes in this section would modify the location of placement of parking permits from the center of the rear bumper to either the left side of the rear bumper or left side of the rear window. Staff has found that with the types of materials being used for bumpers on newer models of cars, many people are reluctant to put parking stickers on their bumpers for fear of damaging the paint or detracting from the overall appearance of their vehicle. RESOURCE IMPACTS Costs associated with the enforcement Department’s adopted budget. of these ordinances are included in the Police POLICY IMPLICATIONS Staff’s recommendations are consistent with City policy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CMR:166:99 Page 7 of 8 ATTACHMENTS Amended Chapters PREPARED BY:Lynne Johnson, Assistant Police Chief Don Hartnett, Police Lieutenant DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: anager CMR:166:99 Page 8 of 8 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 10.04 [DEFINITIONS] , CHAPTER i0.36 [STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING - GENERALLY], CHAPTER 10.40 [STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING - LOADING AND UNLOADING], AND CHAPTER 10.44 [STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING - PROHIBITED OR RESTRICTED] OF TITLE I0 [VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC] OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING VEHICLE PARKING The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. The Council hereby finds as follows: WHEREAS, local legislation is required in order to establish and enforce restrictions on vehicular parking in disabled parking loading/unloading zones, and the Council desires to adopt such legislation; and, WHEREAS, overnight parking of large vehicles also need to be regulated on the basis of size and bulk rather than on the basis of vehicle type and weight in order to more directly link these controls to the sight distance safety concerns posed by large vehicles; and, WHEREAS, the procedures for enforcement of restrictions on the use of city streets for storage of vehicles in excess of seventy-two hours may be made more efficient and effective; and, WHEREAS, numerous minor changes to the vehicular parking ordinances are required in order to clarify the intent and streamline the enforcement of these parking ordinances. SECTION 2.. Chapter 10.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and reenacted to read as follows: CEAPTER 10.04 DEFINITIONS 10.04.010 Definitions generally. For the purpose of this title, unless it is plainly evident from the context that a different meaning is intended, certain terms used herein shall have the definitions ascribed to them in this chapter. 990303 syn 0043628 10.04.020 Alley. "Alley" means a public or private vehicular way less than twenty-five feet in width affording a secondary means of vehicular access to abutting property. 10.04.030 Bicycle parking zone. "Bicycle parking zone" means exclusively for the parking of bicycles. that space reserved 10.04.040 Business district. "Business district" means all portions of the City of Palo Alto which are commercially zoned as provided in Title 18 of this Code. 10.04.045 Community service officer. "Community service officer" means a special police officer of the city authorized to direct traffic and to enforce all laws of the city and of the state applicable to the parking or towing of vehicles and all laws of the city and of the state applicable to bicycles and bicyclists and to enforce all traffic laws of the city and of the state applicable to traffic within bicycle lanes and bicycle paths. 10.04.050 Holidays. For the purpose of this title holidays and other special days shall be in accordance with Chapter 2.08 of this Code. 10.04.060 Loading zone. "Loading zone" means that space adjacent to a curb reserved for the exclusive ~use of vehicles during the loading or unloading of passengers or materials. 10.04.070 Official time standard. Whenever certain hours are named herein, they shall mean standard time or daylight saving time, as may be in current use in this city. 10.04.080 Park. "Park" means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for a period of less than thirty seconds for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading passengers or materials. 990303 syn 0043628 2 10.04.85 Parking enforcement officer. "Parking enforcement officer" means a special officer of the city authorized to direct traffic and to enforce all laws of the city and of the state applicable to the parking or towing of vehicles. 10.04.090 Parkway. "Parkway" means that portion of a street other than a roadway or a sidewalk. 10.04.100 Passenger loading zone. "Passenger loading zone" means the space adjacent to a curb reserved for the exclusive use of vehicles during the loading or unloading of passengers. 10.04.110 Pedestrian. "Pedestrian" means any person afoot. 10.04.120 Police officer. "Police officer" means every sworn member of the police department, police reserves or any employee of the city of Palo Alto authorized by the chief of police to direct or regulate traffic or to make arrests for violations of traffic regulations. 10.04.125 Public parking facility. The term ~public parking facility" shall mean any public parking lot or parking structure owned or leased by the city in which parking by the general public is permitted. 10.04.130Stop. "Stop" w~ ~qu±~u, means complete cessation of movement. 10.04.140 Stop or stand. "Stop or stand" wl’~ p~uhlblL~d, means any stopping or standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or official traffic control device. 10.04.150 Taxi stand. "Taxi stand" means a public place alongside the curb of a street or elsewhere in the city of Palo Alto which has been 990303 syn 0043628 3 designated by the city manager as reserved exclusively for the use of taxicabs. 10.04.160 Traffic. "Traffic" means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles and other conveyances either singly or together while using any street for purposes of travel. 10.04.170 Traffic control devices. "Traffic control devices" means all signs, signals, markings and devices not inconsistent with this title, heretofore or hereafter placed or erected under this title, as authorized by the Vehicle Code of the State of California or by the authority of this title. 10.04.180 Traffic lane. "Traffic lane" means that portion of any road-way, either marked or unmarked, being not less than eight and one-half feet in width. 10.04.190 Vehicle Code definitions. In addition to the definitions set forth above, all definitions of words and phrases set forth in the Vehicle Code of the State of California are hereby incorporated in this title as though set forth in full herein. SECTION 3. Chapter 10.36 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and reenacted to read as follows: CHAPTER 10.36 STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING - GENERALLY 10.36.010 Application of regulations. (a) The provisions of this title prohibiting the stopping, standing or parking of a vehicle shall apply except when it is necessary to stop a vehicle to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with directions of a police officer or official traffic control device. (b) The provisions of this title imposing a time limit on standing or parking shall not relieve any person from the duty to observe other and more restrictive provisions of the Vehicle Code or this title prohibiting or limiting the standing or parking of vehicles in specified places or at specified times. 990303 syn 0043628 4 (c) In addition to any other persons authorized by law, any employee of the city classified as a p~ki~9 tttu~iSu£ Community Service Officer or Parking Enforcement Officer is authorized to give the notice required by the Vehicle Code of the State of California of any violation of said code or of local regulations adopted pursuant thereto governing the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles. (d) For purposes of this chapter, the term ~public parking facility" shall mean any public parking lot or parking structure owned or leased by the city in which parking by the general public is permitted. 10.36.020 Standing in parkways. No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle within any parkway, except on a permanent or temporary driveway. 10.36.030 Use of streets or public parking facilities for storage of vehicles. (a) No person who owns or has possession, custody or control of any vehicle shall park or leave such vehicle standing upon any street or alley or public parking facility for a period of seventy-two consecutive hours or more. For the purposes of this section, a vehicle shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two or more consecutive hours if it has remained inoperable or has not been moved at least u~e thousand f-e~t--five tenths of a mile or more during said seventy two hour period. (b) in the event a vehicle is parked or left standing upon a street or alley or public parking facility in excess of a consecutive period of seventy-two hours, any member of the police department authorized by the chief of police may remove such vehicle from. the street as authorized by the California Vehicle Code and subject to the provisions of this section. (c) Prior to removing any vehicle, notice shall be affixed to the vehicle advising that the vehicle will be removed for violation of this section wlthi~after ~w~-~u~ seventy-two hours unless it is moved at least on~ Lhuu~=~d f~t five tenths of a mile.The ~uti~e ~±~ ......also ±~U~Lt~ U~ 0~ U~=~ h~ O~ ~ ~ ~ ~’i~ht t~ a he~i~i9 to cu~itest u~ ~±~u v±u±~u±~ but that failu~=tu tak~ =dva~t=~e uf th~ hea~i~N within twe~ty-fuu~’ ho~x’s ok" f~ilu~ tu ~~iuv~ uil~ v~hlcl~ will ~u±u ~i ul~ v~l’~±u~= u~llW ~eLLLUV~. 990303 syn 0043628 (d) Whenever a member of the police department removes a vehicle pursuant to this section and causes it to be stored as permitted by the California Vehicle Code, the chief of police or his designee shall comply with the requirements of Section 22852 of the California Vehicle Code relating to post-storage notice and hearing for registered owners and legal owners of record. 10.36.040 Parking for u=zt=i~x p~pu~ sale, advertisement, or repair prohibited. (a) No person shall park a vehicle upon any street or alley or public parking facility for the purpose of: (i) Displayi~9 such v~hlcl~ fux ~mle. Advertisement to the public the private sale of that vehicle; (2) S~vI~I~xw, Advertisement of any event or function on private property or on public property hired for a private event or function to which the public is invited. (b) No person shall park a vehicle upon any street or alley or public parking facility for the purpose of servicing, repairing or otherwise working on such vehicle except repairs necessitated by an emergency. 10.36.050 Parallel parking. (a) Subject to other and more restrictive limitations, a vehicle may be stopped or parked within eighteen inches of the left-hand curb facing in the direction of traffic movement upon any one-way street unless the city manager has caused signs to be erected prohibiting such stopping or standing. (b) In the event a highway includes two or more separate roadways and traffic is restricted to one direction upon any such roadway, no person shall stand or park a vehicle upon the left-hand side of such one-way roadway unless the city manager has caused signs to be erected permitting such standing or parking. (c) The city manager is authorized to determine when standing or parking shall be prohibited upon the left-hand side of any one-way street or alley or when standing or parking may be permitted upon the left-hand side of any one-way roadway of a highway having two or more separate roadways and shall erect signs giving notice thereof. 990303 syn 0043628 (d) The requirement of parallel parking in this section shall not apply in the event any commercial vehicle is actually engaged in the process of. loading or unloading freight or goods, in which case that vehicle may be backed up to the curb, provided that such vehicle does not extend beyond the center line of the street and does not block traffic thereby; however, pursuant to section 10.40.040 commercial vehicles may not stop, park, or stand in business districts between the hours of ii a.m. and 6 p.m. unless they are legally parallel parked or are legally parked in any angle parking space. 10.36.060 Angle parking. (a) Whenever any ordinance or resolution of this city designates and describes any street or public parking facility or portion thereof upon which angle parking shall be permitted, the city manager shall mark or sign such street indicating the angle at which vehicles shall be parked. (b) When signs or markings are in place indicating angle parking, as herein provided, no person shall park or stand a vehicle other than at the angle to the curb or edge of the roadway indicated by such signs or markings. 10.36.070 Parking adjacent to schools. (a) The city manager is authorized to place signs and to place markings on curbs, pavement, and similar areas to provide adequate control for vehicle parking and loading upon any street or portion thereof adjacent to any school property in accordance with those traffic engineering and safety standards and instructions set forth in policies and warrants for traffic control devices near schools, adopted by ordinance or resolution of the legislative body of this city. (b) When official signs or markings are installed indicating no parking upon a street or portion thereof adjacent to any school property, no person shall park a vehicle in any such designated place. 10.36.080 Stopping or parking prohibited - Signs required. (a) The city manager ~h=il is authorized to appropriately sign or mark the following places and when so signed or marked no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in any of said places: (i) At any place within thirty feet of a crosswalk at an intersection in any business district except that a bus may stop at a designated bus stop; (2) Within fifty feet of the approach to any traffic signal, boulevard stop sign or official electric flashing device; 990303 syn 0043628 (3) At any place where the city manager determines that it is necessary h~ds or desirable. 10.36.090 Removal or defacement of markings. It is unlawful for any person to remove, erase, deface, obliterate, or render unusable for the purpose of enforcement of this title any chalk mark, marker or other device placed on a vehicle ok ~n~ p~tlu~ th~of by the city for the purpose of measuring the passage of time or the movement of a vehicle stopped, standing or parked on any street, or in any p~kln9 iut ox ................ Vioiatlu~s of thi~ ~utlu~ ~hall cu~stitute =~ i~£~ctiu~i public parking facility. 10.36.100 Removal or defacement of signs. It is unlawful for any person to remove, erase, deface, obliterate, or render unusable for the purpose of enforcement of this title any sign, marking, or device placed by the city for the purpose of indicating prohibitions or restrictions on stopping, standing or parking of vehicles on any street, alley, or public parking facility. SECTION 4. Chapter 10.40 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and reenacted to read as follows: CHAPTER 10.40 STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING -LOADING AND UNLOADING 10.40.010 Authority to establish loading zones. (a) The city manager is hereby authorized to determine and to mark by signs or curb markings loading Zones and passenger loading zones and h=~dlu~pp~d disabled parking zones as follows: (i) At any’ pi=u= i~ th= On any street, alley, or public parking facility within any business district; (2) Ei~h~ On any street, alley, or public parking facility in front of or adjacent to any place of business, school, park, public building, hall or place used for the purpose of public assembly. (b) In no event shall more than one-half of the total curb length in any block be reserved for loading zone purposes. (c) Whenever curb marking is used, loading zones shall be indicated by ~--yellow paint ii~ stenciled ~ith bi~ck i~tt~s 990303 syn 0043628 and posted with a sign indicating "LOADING ZONE" upon, Lh= LulJ of all ................. (d) Whenever curb marking is used, passenger loading zones shall be indicated by a white li~ie st=~uil=d with bl=ck i=tt~is white paint and posted with a sign indicating "PASSENGER LOADING ZONE" mlU~ p~illU llii~ =llu, ili ~ddlLion, eiLli~r ~ ~u~u±± ~i u~ ~zuullu ok ..... ~ i9 .....~ ’’~ ’ .....~~uu~lu±iit"~ ’ (i.e., Wzuf±i~ view o£ ~ ~i~lu±~=±~). Disabledparking spaces shall be indicated by blue space markings and,in addition, an adjacent and appropriately posted sign conforming to the requirements of the California Vehicle Code. (f) Disabled parking loading areas shall be indicated by white cross-hatched lines adjacent to a disabled parking space; 10.40.020 Signs or curb markings to indicate no stopping and parking regulations. (a) The city manager is authorized, subject to the provisions and limitations of this title, to place, =~d wh~ ~qui~d h~i~ ~h~il ~i=~, signs or the following curb markings on any street, alley, or public parking facility to indicate parking or standing regulations, and curb markings shall have the meaning as herein set forth: (i) Red shall mean no stopping, standing or parking at any time except =~ p~mltt~d by tli~ V~hlui~ Cud~ =lld ~C~pt tli~t mu~ m~y ~tup ±~i ~ £~d zon~ m=~u u~ ~±~u ~ ~ ~u~ ~o~i~ whether the vehicle is attended or unattended except that a bus may stop in a red zone marked or signed as a bus zone. (2) Yellow shall mean no stopping, standing or parking at any time between six a. m. and six p.m. of any day except Sundays and’holidays for any purpose other than the loading or unloading of passengers or materials; provided that the loading or unloading of passengers shall not consume more than three minutes nor the loading or unloading of materials more than twenty minutes by commercial vehicles. (3) White shall mean no stopping, standing or parking at any time for any purpose other than loading or unloading of passengers which shall not exceed three minutes &nd such (4) Green shall mean no standing or parking for longer than thirty minutes at any time between eight a.m. and s-kx five p.m. of any day except Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. (5) Blue shall mean no stopping, standing or parking except for vehicles o£ pliyslu~l!y i~dlu=pp~d p~u~s; 990303 syn 0043628 p~uvid~d, that ~uuh v~hiui=~ di.~play a disti~wui.-hi~W iic~l~S~ pi~t~ by u~ Hutor ........ ’ ....... that lawfully display a disabled placard or disabled license plate while transporting a disabled person. Such restrictions shall apply at all times. (b) When the city manager, as authorized under this chapter, has caused signs or curb markings to be placed, no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle adjacent to any such legible sign or curb marking in violation of any of the provisions of this title except as specifically authorized by law. 10.40.025 Parking or standing in cross-hatched areas adjacent to disabled parking spaces. No person shall stop, stand or park any vehicle in any pavement area marked by cross-hatched lines and adjacent to a parking stall or space designated for disabled persons or disabled veterans, upon any street or upon any city-owned or operated public parking facility or upon any private off-street parking facility. These cross-hatched areas are designated for the loading and unloading of vehicles for disabled persons or disabled veterans only. 10.40.030 Effect of permission to load or~unload. (a) Permission herein granted to stop or stand a vehicle for purposes of loading or unloading of materials shall apply only to commercial vehicles and shall not extend beyond the time necessary therefor and in no event for more than twenty minutes. (b) The loading or unloading of materials shall apply only to commercial deliveries; als~ the deilve~y u~ pi~ku~ o£ e~s~ =~d ~=~u~i pu~t p~uk~ and ~llt~d SLates ~ail. including the delivery or pickup of express and parcel post packages and United Statesmail~ (c) Permission herein granted to stop or park for purposes of loading or unloading passengers shall include the loading or unloading of personal baggage but shall not extend beyond the time necessary therefor and in no event for more than three minutes. (d) The provisions of this section shall be enforced so as to accommodate necessary and reasonable loading or unloading but without permitting abuse of the privileges hereby granted~ 10.40.040 Parking regulations for commercial vehicles. Parking distance from curbs. (a) No person shall stop, park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, vehi~i~ ~t~d, parked ~ st=ndln~ at ~nless both right-hand ~ wheels (or either both right-hand wheels or both left-hand wheels 990303 syn 0043628 10 on a one-way street) are parallel with and within eighteen inches from the curb edge of a street or highway except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or traffic-control device. (b) No person shall stop, park or leave standing any commercial vehicle for the purpose of loading, delivering or unloading of freight or materials in any.business district between the hours of eleven a.m. and six p.m. unless such vehicle is parked so that both right-hand wheels (or either both right-hand wheels or both left-hand wheels on a one-way street) are parallel with and within eighteen inches of the curb or unless said vehicle is legally parked in any angle parking space. (c) The chi~£ uf puiiuechief transportation official, in case of undue hardship such as extremely large commercial vehicles or commercial vehicles at the terminal of a long haul, sh&ll issu~ is authorized to issue a permit for parking to load or unload in the business district between the hours of eleven a.m. and six p.m. even though curb space may not be readily available. Permits, when issued, shall contain the make and type of vehicle, the license number, the name of the applicant, the location where and time when the permit shall be in effect, and the manner of parking or other restrictions necessary to insure the usual flow of traffic. The permit shall be attached to the windshield of the vehicle at all times when the permit is in effect. 10.40.045 Special ~parking permit for construction or maintenance work. (a) The di~utu~ uf t~a~ispo±t~tiu~i chief transportation official may issue a permit for the temporary use of any parking space in a public street or in a public parking lot in a business di~t~iut facility upon a showing that the applicant will be moving property or conducting construction and/or maintenance work in the immediate area and that no alternative off-street site for the parking of con~t~cti~ ~d/’o~ m~i~t~c~ vehicles or for the temporary storage’ of equipment and/or materials is available reasonably near the work site. Such permit shall entitle the holder temporarily to use a designated parking space or spaces in a public street or a public parking Tot--facility as specified in the permit without regard to time limits otherwise imposed, but shall not permit illegal parking or use and parking or use of unauthorized places. (b) A permit, when issued for the use of a vehicle, shall contain the name of the permittee, the make and type of vehicle, the license number, and the location where and time when the permit shall be in effect. A permit, when issued for the temporary storage of equipment and/or materials, shall contain the name of permittee, the specific type of equipment and/or materials to be stored and the location where and the time when the permit shall be in effect. When a single permit is issued for both parking 990303 syn 0043628 11 and storage, the information required for both parking and storage permits, as set forth in this chapter, shall be contained therein. (c) When issued for parking, the permit shall be placed on the windshield of the vehicle and, when issued for storage, the permit shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the equipment or materials. (d) No permit shall be issued for any initial period greater than five sixty working days ~h, but the di~e~Lu~ of L~pu~5~Lio~ chief transportation official may renew the permit for additional periods not to exceed ~-i-v~--sixty working days each. The fee for ~y--such permit shall be i~ued paid 5u 5h~ uiS~ 5xe=~u~ established in the municipal fee schedule. No permit shall be issued until said fee has been paid to the Supervisor of Revenue Collections. (e)In addition to the permits described in this section, the di~L~ o£ 5~a~p~Sio~ chief transportation official may issue permits authorizing the temporary use by commercial vehicles of any parking space in a public street or in a public parking luL in = burliness diploid5 facility upon a showing that the applicant provides emergency repair work. Such permit shall entitle the holder to use a parking space in a public street or a public parking ~-c~---facility without regard to the limits otherwise imposed, but shall not permit illegal parking or parking in unauthorized places; the permit shall authorize parking for the duration of the emergency only. Each use of the permit shall be recorded with the date, time, place, and nature of the emergency, as well as with other information required by the forms provided for reporting purposes. The completed form shall be submitted to the di~Su~ u£ 5~a~po~L=Liu~ chief transportation official on a monthly basis for verification. A permit shall be effective for one year and shall contain the name of~the permittee, the make and type of vehicles, the license numbers and the effective dates of the permit. The original permit shall be placed on the vehicle d=~i~u=~d windshield so as to be visible from outside the vehicle and shall include an indication as to the specific location of the emergency. No person shall reproduce a permit. The annual fee for such permit shall be established in the municipal fee schedule. No permit shall be issued until said fee has been paid to the Supervisor of Revenue Collections. It is unlawful and an infraction for any person: (i) To use an emergency repair parking permit for other than parking for emergency repair work; (2) To use an emergency repair parking permit for other than commercial vehicles; 990303 syn 0043628 12 (3) TO use an expired or revoked emergency repair parking permit; or (4) To reproduce an -emergency repair parking permit. Two violations in any calendar year shall automatically revoke privileges for the next succeeding twelve months. For purposes of this subsection, "emergency repair work" means repair work done to a structure or to mechanical, electrical, or plumbing devices where there exists a threat to life or property. 10.40.050 Standing for loading or unloading only. No person shall stop, Stand or park a vehicle in any yellow loading zone for any purpose other than loading or unloading passengers or materials for such time as is permitted in Section 10.40.030. 10.40.060 Standing in passenger loading zone. No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in any passenger loading zone for any purpose other than the loading or unloading of passengers for such time as is specified in Sections 10.40.030. 10.40.070 Standing in any alley. When officiil signs prohibiting such parking are in place, no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle for any purpose other than the loading or unloading of materials in any alley. Such parking shall not exceed twenty minutes. In no event shall the driver of such vehicle leave less than one traffic lane for unobstructed passage. When an alley is designated as a one-way alley, such parking by vehicles shall be permitted on the right side only. 10.40.080 Bicycle and motorcycle parking spaces. (a) The city manager is authorized to designate and establish bicycle and motorcycle parking spaces for use at such places and during such times as the city manager may deem suitable and necessary. The city manager may also authorize the placing of bicycle parking racks in the spaces so designated. (b) When official signs or markings restricting parking to bicycles only are in place, only bicycles shall be parked ~n-l-z in such places, and it is unlawful for any person to park or stand any vehicle other than a bicycle or other nonpowered two-wheeled vehicles in such space. (c) When official signs or markings restricting parking to motorcycles only are in place, only motorcycles shall be parked ~ in such places, and it is unlawful for any person to park or 990303 syn 0043628 13 stand any vehicle other than a biuyui~ motorcycle or other self- propelled two or three wheeled vehicles in such space. 10.40.090 Taxi stands to b~~u=u±i~h~d. (a) The city manager is authorized to determine the location of and to mark taxi stands. (b) Such taxi stands shall be indicated by signs or a white line stenciled with the words "T~II ONLY" upon the tops of all curbs and places specified for taxicabs only. (c) No driver of any taxicab shall park or stand the same upon any public highway in any business district in the city for any period of time longer than is necessary to discharge or receive passengers then occupying or then waiting for such taxicab; provided, that a taxicab may be parkedin a taxi stand established pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. (d) When official signs or markings designating such taxi stands are in place, no person other than the driver of a taxicab shall park or stand any vehicle in any taxi stand. 10.40.100 BUS zones to (a) The city manager is authorized to establish bus zones for the loading and unloading of buses or common carriers of passengers and to determine the location thereof subject to the limitations set forth in this section. (b) The word "bus," as used in this section, means any motor bus, motor coach or passenger stage used as a common carrier of passengers. (c) No bus zone shall exceed eighty feet in length, except that when satisfactory evidence has been presented to the city manager showing the necessity therefor, the city manager may extend bus zones not to exceed a total length of one hundred thirty feet. (d) Bus zones shall normally be established on the far side of an intersection. (f) No bus shall stand in any bus zone longer than necessary to load or unload passengers. (g) No person shall stop, stand or park any vehicle except a bus in any bus zone. 990303 syn 0043628 14 SECTION 5.. Chapter 10.44 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and reenacted to read as follows: CHAPTER 10.44 STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING - PROHIBITED OR RESTRICTED 10.44.010 Restrictions established - Signs designating. (a) The city council shall by ordinance or resolution establish such parking, or stopping, standing and parking restrictions or prohibitions as may be necessary, and the city manager shall designate such streets, portions of streets, or city- owned parking luSs facilities by appropriate signs or markings giving effect to such parking or stopping, standing and parking restrictions or prohibitions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city manager may establish such parking, or stopping, standing and parking restrictions or prohibitions for periods of time not to exceed four months at which time such restrictions or prohibitions shall no longer be of any force and effect unless duly established by ordinance or resolution of the city council. The city manager shall designate streets or portions of streets by appropriate signs or markings, giving effect to such parking or stopping, standing and parking restrictions or prohibitions. (b) When authorized signs are in place giving notice of such prohibition or limitation, no person shall stop, stand or park any vehicle in violation of such s±~ii prohibition or limitation. (c) Whenever the stopping, standing or parking of a vehicle has been prohibited, restricted, or limited as to. time by this chapter or any resolution enacted pursuant hereto, the continued standing or parking of such vehicle after a citation therefor has been issued shall constitute a separate and additional violation of the provision for which the citation was issued, when such standing or parking continues for an additional period longer than the maximum permissible period of parking in such space or location after issuance of such citation, or if no such period of time is designated, when such stopping, standing or parking after a citation therefor continues for an additional period longer than one hour. 10.44.015 Definitions. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section: 990303 syn 0043628 15 (5) "’Ti~ile±" me~i~ a velilcl~ d~.~i~11~d fu~ c=~yiliM p~±muii~ u± fJ±Up~ity oli itm uw,i st~uctuz~ o±’ fu± L~II,~ d±=wll by = ,notoi vehici~ ~lid so uul,mt~uut~d tli=t ,’io pa~t u£ itm w~iMLt ~e~ts upo,i ~,iy othez vehicle. (i) ~Oversized vehicle" means any vehicle (other than vehicles lawfully displaying a disabled placard or license) exceeding seven feet in height or exceeding twenty feet in overall length or exceeding seven feet in width (including any load or accessory thereon other than antennas); (2) "Camper shell" means a structure designed to cover and/or protect the bed area of a pickup truck but removed therefrom; (3) "Trailer" means a vehicle designed or utilized for being drawn by a motor vehicle. (4) "Residential zone" means all lands located within the following zoning districts: RE, RI, R2, RMD, RM-15, RM- 30, and RM-40; where one side of a street is located within one of these residential districts, then the portion of the opposite side of the street directly across from the residential district shall also be included in the definition of a residential zone; (5) ~Public Facility+Zone" means all lands located within a PF zone; where one side of a street is located within a public facility zone, then the portion of the opposite side of the street directly across from the public facility zone shall also be included in the restrictions pertaining to a public facility zone. 990303 syn 0043628 16 10.44.020 Standing or parking, two a.m. to six a.m. (a) No person shall, between the hours of two a.m. and six a.m. of any day, p=~k upoii Lhu~ c~L~i~i ~L~ts ~ pu~Lions (1) (3)Hous~ unless authorized by a hardship permit issued pursuant to section 10.44.021 or a construction or maintenance permit issued pursuant to section 10.40.045, park upon streets or alleys located within a residential zone or public facility zone any of the following vehicles: (i) (2) (3) oversized vehicles; trailers; camper shells; (4) (5) tow trucks as defined by California Vehicle Code section 615; special construction equipment as defined by California Vehicle Code section 565. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10.44.010, no signs or markings are necessary to give effect to the restrictions and prohibitions contained in this section. 10.44.021 Hardship permit. Persons who have obtained hardship permits pursuant to this section shall be exempt from the provisions of Section 10.44.020 during the duration of said permit. (a) Eligibility. Any resident of the city of Palo Alto may be eligible for a one-time nonrenewable hardship permit for ~ c~u~ =~d = huu~ an oversized vehicle if such resident can show a "hardshipA~s~’’. For the purposes of this section "hardship" means 990303 syn 0043628 17 that the applicant has no legal offstreet parking space adequate to accommodate the vehicle for which the permit is sought at the street address specified in the permit application. (b) Classes and duration of permits. There shall be two classes of permits: (i) "resident permit and (2) guest permits. Any resident of Palo Alto may obtain a resident permit upon .........................~±±~±~±±~ xes~u~u~ =uu~. for a specified vehicle upon establishing actual residence at an address within the city. The maximum duration of this permit shall be thirty days ~e9 p~’~’~"~ xe~±~u~u to li~i~sidelits p~’ovld~d eligibilit~ is cla~ u£ pexmlt ~±± be x~=u±~.but shall not exceed the actual duration of the hardship. Any resident of Palo Alto may obtain a guest permit for a specified vehicle registered to a non-resident guest of the applicant. The duration of guest permits shall not exceed fourteen days and shall not be renewable within thirty days following expiration. (c) Fees. The fees for hardship permits shall be set forth in the municipal fee schedule. No hardship permit shall be issued until said fee has been paid to the Supervisor of Revenue Collections. (d) Procedures and regulations. Applications for hardship permits shall be submitted to the supervisor of revenue collections. The supervisor of revenue collections may issue a hardship permit if it is determined that the application of Section 10.44.020 will create a hardship on the applicant or his guest. The Supervisor of Revenue Collections may establish additional procedures and regulations for the implementation of this section which are consistent with this section and with Section 10.44.020 of this Code. 10.44.030 Parking prohibited on grade. No person shall park or leave standing any vehicle unattended on a highway when upon any grade exceeding three percent within any business or residential district without blocking the wheels of said vehicle by turning them against the curb or by other means. 10.44.040 Parking space markings. (a) The city manager is authorized to install and maintain parking space markings to indicate parking spaces ~c]~z~ric~c~ uu~bi~ where authorized parking is permitted. 990303 syn 0043628 18 (b) When such parking space markings are placed in ~ iii~hw=y a street, alley, or public parking facility, subject to other and more restrictive limitations, no vehicle shall be stopped, left standing or pa~ked other than within a single space unless the size or shape of such vehicle makes compliance impossible. (c) No vehicle over six feet wide or fifteen feet long (including loads or accessories) shall park or stand in a parking space marked as a small car or compact car space. 10.44.050 Em=z~u~ p=zki~,~ ~i@~ Temporary parking and street sweeping restrictions. (a) Whenever the chief of police, director of public works, or director of utilities determines that ~ e~’~’,~e~iey traffic congestion or conflict is likely to result from construction or maintenance work, the holding of public or private assemblages, gatherings or functions ................. or for the movement of equipment, articles, or structures of unusual size interfering with normal flow of traffic, those officials shall have power and authority to restrict the operation, parking or standing of vehicles at the particular streets, alleys, or public parking facilities (and for the duration) determined to be necessary or desirable to avoid such traffic congestion or conflict. No person shall operate, park, or leave standing any vehicle in violation of such restrictions where temporary signs, devices or barricades are erected or posted indicating that the operation, parking or standing of vehicles is restricted. (b) Whenever the director of public works determines that parking or standing of vehicles on any city street, alley, or public parking facility should be prohibited or restricted for the purpose of street sweeping, no vehicle shall be parked or allowed to stand on any portion of the street, alley, or public parking facility in violation of signs posted therefor, and removal of vehicles parked in violation of such signs is authorized; (c) When signs, devices or barricades authorized by the provisions of this section are in place giving notice thereof, no person shall operate, park or stand any vehicle contrary to the directions and provisions of such signs. Whenever signs are erected or placed at least 24 hours in advance of the prohibition against parking or standing and those signs warn that removal is authorized for violation of the prohibition, the chief of police is authorized to remove vehicles parking or standing in violation of 990303 syn 0043628 19 the prohibition. Whenever a vehicle is removed pursuant to this section and is stored as permitted by the California Vehicle Code, the chief of police shall comply with the requirements of Section 22852 of the California Vehicle Code relating to post-storage notice and hearing for registered owners and legal owners of record. 10.44.060 Parking vehicles held for commercial sale or repair. It is unlawful for any person who deals in or whose business involves the sale, trade, shipment or other disposition, repossession or repair of new or ~sed vehicles to park or leave standing on one or more streets, alleys, or public parking facilities any vehicle held for sale, trade, repossession, repair, shipment or other disposition for more than Lhkee two hours in the aggregate during any one day. If two or more such vehicles are in thepossession or custody of such person, the Lhk~ two-hour aggregate period shall commence when the first vehicle is left standing upon any street, alley or public parking facility and shall include and apply to all other such vehicles, whether parked at the same time or at a later time, or at the same ~or different location on any city street, alley or public parking facility. 10.44.070 Parking on city property. (a) Whenever the city manager determines that the orderly, efficient conduct of the city’s business requires that parking or standing of vehicles on city property owned or controlled by the city other than city streets or alleys should be prohibited, limited or restricted, the city manager shall have the power and authority to order signs to be erected or posted or curb markings to be placed indicating that the parking of vehicles is thus prohibited, limited or restricted. (b) When signs or curb .markings authorized by the provisions of this section are in place giving notice thereof, no person shall park or stand any vehicle contrary to the directions or provisions of such signs or curb markings. 10.44.080 Vehicles not to obstruct streets, o~ p=kki~,~ lute, alleys, or public parking facilities. No person shall operate or stand or park any vehicle on any street, ok in a~y p=x’kln~ lot alley, or any public parking facility owned or controlled by the city in such a manner as to obstruct the free use of such street ok’ pa~ki~N iut, alley, or any public parking facility. 10.44.090 Requiring ignitions locked and keys removed from motor vehicles. No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle, except a commercia! motor vehicle, shall allow it to stand unattended on 990303 syn 0043628 20 any highway, public street, or any other public place, or on a parking 9mtfacility open to the public use, without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition and removing the ignition key from the vehicle, iIUi’ sh=ll this seutiull ui c~lly viui=tiuli tli~±~u£ b~ ~dmi~ibi~ =~ ~vldeiice aff~ctin~ ~uuv~y ~li =lly civil =utiuil fu~ otli~’ b~’i~i~ in a~y ~ivil ~tlu~.The registered o~er of a vehicle found in violation of this section shall be held prima facie responsible for any such vehicle. Violation of this section shall not mitigate the offense of theft of such motor vehicle. SECTION 6. The Council finds that the provisions of this ordinance do not constitute a project under the California Environ- mental Quality Act because it can be seen with certainty that no significant environmental impact will occur as a result of the ordinance. SECTION 7.This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day after the day of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Mayor City Manager Police Chief Director of Planning and Community Environment 990303 syn 0043628 21 City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:MARCH 15, 1999 CMR:167:99 SUBJECT:1998-2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REPORT IN BRIEF This report forwards to the City Council a recommendation by the Planning Commission and staff to adopt the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan consists of an Introduction and a Matrix of all of the Programs in the adopted 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. After adoption by Council the Implementation Plan will be distributed to all persons who have received copies of the Comprehensive Plan to be inserted as the Implementation Chapter. The Planning Commission-prepared Introduction will mimic the format of other Elements in the Comprehensive Plan and is intended to provide an overall sense of the priorities while augmenting the more detailed staff-prepared Matrix. The Matrix provides an analysis of each of the Programs in the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and establishes for each Program: 1)Responsible Lead Department or Agency, 2)A broad estimate of Timing in which the program is expected to be initiated 3)Financing costs including a range for actual cost and possible fund sources, and 4)Initial thoughts on the type of Actions that might be required. CMR:167:99 Page 1 of 5 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council adopt the attached 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan, including an Introduction and Matrix, to be included in the adopted 1998-2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan on July 20, 1998. The Implementation Plan was not included. City staff, including all departments, prepared a draft Implementation Plan and began the process of review of the Implementation Plan by the boards and commissions on August 13, 1998. Comments from the Utilities Advisory Commission, the Public Arts Commission, the Historic Resources Board, the Human Relations Commission and the Architectural Review Board are summarized in the attached Planning Commission staff report, dated November 18, 1998. The Planning Commission reviewed the Implementation Plan at three different meetings and recommended approval at its January 13, 1999 meeting. The Commission prepared an Introduction section to be used as a cover for the staff-prepared Implementation Plan Matrix. DISCUSSION Identification of implementation priorities and strategies is a refinement of the Comprehensive Plan’s policy setting function. The intent of the Implementation Plan is to provide an overall sense of the priority of the various programs (and a few policies) and to facilitate incorporation of the Comprehensive Plan in the City’s budget process. The goals and objectives set by the Comprehensive Plan that are manifested in the programs to be accomplished go well beyond what can be reasonably expected to be achieved during the lifetime of the Plan. Complete and timely implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will involve considerable costs for staffing, consultants and capital and operating expenditures. Establishing priorities, particularly in the first few years, will ensure a systematic approach to implementation. The proposed Implementation Plan is composed of two parts, an Introduction and a Program Matrix. The Planning Commission found the staff-prepared Implementation Plan too detailed and felt that setting priorities based on it required more information than was generally available to the Commission. Instead the Commission prepared an Introduction section to provide an overall sense of the priorities and to augment the more detailed staff- prepared Implementation Plan Matrix. Introduction: Noting that nearly 50 of the Comprehensive Plan Programs address the Zoning Ordinance update, the Commission strongly supported preparation of a new Zoning Ordinance as the number one Comprehensive Plan priority. The Commission also established a targeted completion date of four years from the beginning of work on the update in 1998 to complete the Zoning Ordinance update. Second priority is a transportation CMR: 167:99 Page 2 of 5 strategy, with emphasis on reducing reliance on the automobile. The strategy includes altering traffic and parking patterns, exploration of a local shuttle system, traffic calming, higher residential densities near transit and regional solutions to transportation problems. The third priority is the preparation of Coordinated Area Plans and smaller area plans to guide evolution of sub-areas of the City. Following adoption of the SOFA/PAMF Coordinated Area Plan, the Commission recommends proceeding with successive plans as rapidly as is feasible without impinging on the resources dedicated to the Zoning Ordinance update. The Introduction further describes the content of the Implementation Plan Matrix, the resources required to implement the Plan and the need for annual review of the Implementation Plan. This makes it consistent with the general format of the other Elements and Chapters in the Comprehensive Plan, while also allowing it to stand alone. Implementation Plan Matrix: The staff-prepared Implementation Plan Matrix was intended to establish a sense of relative priority among all the Comprehensive Plan Programs. It provides a beginning time period, identifies the lead Department or Agency and creates a mechanism facilitating linkage of the Comprehensive Plan to the City budget. In preparing the Matrix, staff took into consideration that: 1) the City organization is not in a position to take on significant new assignments; 2) the City has embarked on the development of an Infrastructure Plan that will identify specific priorities for City infrastructure; and 3) a substantial portion of Comprehensive Plan implementation resides in the Planning Department, such as the Zoning Ordinance update and transportation-related programs. The priorities as identified by staff are very broad and will necessitate regular updates. An internal City Steering Committee, composed of managrnent representatives from Public Works, Utilities, Administrative Services, Community Services and Police and chaired by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, has been formed to oversee implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and its inclusion in budget and annual policy documents. . The Implementation Plan Matrix includes all of the Programs from the adopted Comprehensive Plan and a few Policies that fit the definition of a Program. The Programs are listed in the same order as in the Comprehensive Plan: that is, they are Separated by Element and in numerical order. Each Program is further defined by the responsible department or agency; a beginning date in years; financing information including funding source such as the Capital Improvement Program, operating budget or other; and information on the action that might be required such as Zoning Ordinance, study, guidelines, interagency cooperation, etc. Following is a more detailed description of each area and the parameters applied. Program: A Program is an action, activity or strategy carried out in response to an adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective. CMR: 167:99 Page 3 of 5 Lead Department or Agency: Responsibility for nearly all programs is given to a specific City department. In some cases two or even three departments are identified as being co-leads. The lead department(s) will coordinate with other City departments, other agencies and, as appropriate, the general public. Because the bulk of Programs are in the Planning Department, these Programs are further defined by the divisions within the Planning Department, that is Planning~lanning, Planning/Transportation and Planning/Inspection Services. Timing." The timing column is very broad and it identifies only a period of years in which the program is expected to be initiated. The timing column was the most difficult to resolve because of the high number of programs, the capital and staffing resources required to implement some programs, and other City activities that are not related to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff initially attempted to be more precise in defining the starting time for a Program and to estimate the number of years to completion; however, this attempt was quickly abandoned given the uncertainty of future budgets and the complexity of some of the programs. With fiscal 98/99 being defined as the zero year, the following are the timing categories as used in the matrix: Ongoing: the Program is currently being addressed. 0-12 years: the Program involves activities that will periodically occur over the life of the Plan. 0-7 years: implementation of the Program should be initiated within the next seven years. The Planning Division tasks reflect the Division Work Program and are further refined to 0-2 years and 3-7 years. 8-12 years: implementation of the Program will not occur until later in the life span of the plan. Financing: Given the lack of details on implementation of the programs and the unknown inflation costs, the cost ranges are very broad. Existing funding means that it is part of a currently funded City activity, but may not be to the level contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan or Council. Operating budget is included as some expenses will be on-going once the program is established. Action: Six action areas are identified. These are intended as general guide to future actions. ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is not mandatory that the Council adopt an Implementation Plan. The Housing Element is the only Element that the State mandates to address implementation. These measures are contained within the text of the Housing Element Technical Document that was certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development on November 19, 1998. CMR: 167:99 Page 4 of 5 RESOURCE IMPACT As noted, implementation may have significant impacts on city budget. The costs have been broadly estimated, but will need to be refined in succeeding years. In order to continually assess the impacts on the budget, as well as program implementation, the Comprehensive Plan has been integrated into the preparation of the 1999-2001 Budget and the 1999-2004 Capital Improvement Program budget. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed Implementation Plan seeks to provide a policy direction for timing, lead agency or Department, budget requirements and financing and action requirements for the adopted City policies contained in the 1998-2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Dratl and Final Environment Impact Reports for the Comprehensive Plan were adopted by the City Council on July 20, 1998. ATTACHMENTS (To Council Members only) A.Implementation Chapter, including Introduction and Matrix B.Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 18, 1998 C.Planning Commission Minutes of 11/18/98, 12/9/98, and 1/13/99 (excerpt) PREPARED BY:James E. Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official Kenneth R. Schreiber, Deputy City Manger/Special Projects DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:~ ~G. EDWARD GAWF Director of Plannin Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Architectural Review Board Historic Resources Board Human Relations Commission Planning Commission Public Arts Commission Utilities Advisory Commission CMR:167:99 Page 5 of 5 Attachment A alo Alto’s Implementation Plan is intended to provide an overall sense of the priorities for future actions in support of accomplishing the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It provides key mechanism to link Comprehensive Plan implementation to Palo budget process, and it will ultimately be the yardstick against which Palo Alto can measure its Comprehensive Plan accomplishments. Introduction The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is the primary tool for guiding the future development of the City. Its Introduction describes the following seven major themes: ¯Building Community and Neighborhoods ~Maintaining and Enhancing Community Character ¯Reducing Reliance on the Automobile ~Meeting Housing Supply Challenges ¯Protecting and Repairing Natural Features ¯Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs ¯Providing Responsive Governance and Regional Leadership Priorities While it would be desirable to pursue every program and policy immediately, priorities must be established to focus the City’s efforts and to allocate the City’s resources (City Council empha- sis, stafftime and budget resources). At the initiation of this Plan in 1998-1999, the City sees the following three broad priorities. ZONING ORDINANCE The Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance forms a foundation for development and redevelopment in the City, but it has not had a comprehensive update for over twenty years. Nearly fifty of the Comprehensive Plan programs will be- addressed by updating the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance has a major focus on Land Use and Community Design, and it touches on all of the seven major themes of the Plan listed above. Embracing the New Century I-1 ’~]~ Polo Aho Comprehensive Plan I-2 An updated Zoning Ordinance will help build a base for dealing with two critical needs in both Palo Alto and the region - housing and transportation. Changes to the Zoning Ordinance can support !he Comprehensive Plan’s vision to aggressively pursue a variety of housing opportu- nities that enhance the character, diversity and vitality of the City". Because there is a strong link between land use and transportation, Zoning Ordinance changes can address, in part, our transportation problems by altering underlying land use patterns and encouraging exploration of alternative transportation modes. Work on the Zoning Ordinance began in 1998, and it is planned that the new Zoning Ordinance will be complete within four years. TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY The .Comprehensive Plan calls for a total transportation strategy with emphasis on reducing reliance on the automobile. The strategy includes altering traffic and parking pattems, explo- ration of a local shuttle system, traffic’calming, the allowance of higher density developments near multi-modal transit locations, and seeking regional transportation solutions. A main objective of the Transportation Strategy is to improve and increase local transit services in the near future. Establishment of a local shuttle system is being explored in 1999, and other local transit services need to be explored and assessed as well. In order to evaluate the most effective actions, cost/benefit analysis should be done for key transportation programs to guide Palo Alto’s decisions. COORDINATED AREA PLANS The Comprehensive Plan calls for creation of a number of Coordinated Area Plans and smaller area plans to guide evolution of sub-areas of the City. These area plans, too, will address a majority of the Comprehensive Plan’s seven themes. A Coordinated Area Plan for the South of Forest Avenue / Palo Alto Medical Foundation (SOFA/PAMF) area is the first. Palo Alto will review the schedule for the remaining area plans based on the experiences with the SOFA/ PAMF plan, and will proceed with successive plans as rapidly as is feasible. Updating the Zoning Ordinance will address many of the issues associated with the need for area plans. Therefore, preparation of area plans should not impinge on resources dedicated to the Zoning Ordinance update. Implementation Plan Format There are more than three hundred programs and program-like policies in this Comprehensive Plan. More than half of these programs are "on-going", that is, at the beginning of this Plan have at least some current funding and are being undertaken by staff. Close to one hundred programs are new. Most of new programs come from the Land Use and Community Design Chapter and the Transportation Chapter, which indicates where Palo Alto sees a need for major change and improvement. As noted above, approximately fifty programs relate to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Update. For each Program, the Implementation Plan matrix defines the Lead Department or Agency, the Timing, the Financing, and Action Areas. Timingindicates when programs will be started and when the majority of the programs will be completed. Financing indicates a very broad range of cost and a designation for "on-going" or "one-time" funding. There are six Action Areas ranging from "revising or creating new ordinances" to "public outreach and education". The Comprehensive Plan is being incorporated into the City Budget and the Capital Improve- ment Program. The Implementation Plan will serve as a tracking system for future review and for continued coordination with budgeting. Resources Although Palo Alto would like to implement all these’programs during the term of this Plan, there are capital resource and staffing limitations as well as limitations to the amount of work that the City and the City Council can focus on effectively during this period. It is difficult to determine the exact cost of most of the programs and the specific staffing requirements needed to support the scope of future detailed work plans. Issues that cannot be anticipated may arise in the future that may act to divert resources from the programs and priorities of the Compre- hensive Plan. It is hoped that by acknowledging and focusing on Comprehensive Plan priori- ties, the City can avoid distractions and diversion of resources and attention. Review and Update The Comprehensive Plan is a living document. Palo Alto’s priorities will evolve through the life of this Plan, and therefore changes will need to be made to the Implementation Plan. It will be essential to review the Implementation Plan annually, to make modifications in priorities or schedule, and to measure what has been accomplished. An existing starting point for imple- mentation review is the Planning Commission’s annual required review of the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusion The Implementation Plan was designed to advance the overarching themes of the Comprehen- sive Plan. The Plan also recognizes the capacity of City resources and the need to focus those resources. It is hoped that the Implementation Plan appropriately addresses those themes, sets priorities for use of resources and creates a framework to answer the question that might be asked in 2010 - "What did the City of Palo Alto do and what actually changed, as a result of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan? Embracing the New Cenlury I-3 >ii~’ Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan "~I-4 i I d [] [] -~ou -- ND 0o ~oo:o_o- -~ou oo ~ [] oo "8 c 0 0 .o_ -- N -- N t-’- [] [] E o~ [] [] [] [] [] [] d tl 4 [] [] c- d ’ 0 [] [] [] [] ~o°8 [] [] oo c~ 4 [] [] o~:~o 0© _g 0 PLANNING Attachment B DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: PLANNING COMMISSION James E. Gilliland November 18, 1998 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Communiff Environment SUBJECT:1998-2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive public comment, review the comments of other Boards and Commissions, and formulate comments and recommendations for consideration by the City Council on the staffpr.oposed ~. Implementation Plan for the .1998-2010 City. of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Transmitted with this report is ~he ~taffproposed Implementation Plan for the recently adopted 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. The cover memo dated August 13, 1998 prepared by Kertneth R. Schreiber, provides a general description of the proposed Implementation Plan. The intent of the Implementation Plan is to provide an overall sense of the priority of the various programs (and a few policies) in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Implementation Plan also identifies the lead Department or agency, the estimated timing to begin implementation, a broad range of the required budget amount and additional information on the possible financing sources and the actions required. The Implementation Plan, as well as the Comprehensive Plan, will be used and incorporated into the City’s annual budget process. REVIEW BY OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS During the past few months, the proposed Implementation Plan has been reviewed by other City Boards and Commissions. In the following section, staff has summarized their comments that were germaine to the prioritization of the programs, the identified lead Department or Agency and the estimated budget of the implementation Plan. Additional S:[Plan[PladivlPCSR[PCImp.sr Page 1 comments were made by the Boards and Commissions and are included in the attached memorandum and minutes from the individual Boards and Commissions. UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION: The Utilities Advisory Commission noted that the utility does have an interest in trees and particularly street trees (Programs N-18 and N-19) and how trees can have a positive impact on conservation of energy. The Commission noted that the Transportation studies should include the possible use of remote parking lots with local shuttle services, such as using the Elks Lodge parking lot. They stated that storm water is a specific utility with separate funding and that land use and zoning decisions should be coordinated with Public Works forecasting on what additional development will to do flood areas. PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION: The Public Arts Commission commented that a goal should be to seize all opportunities to get art in all possible projects and to educate the public, staff and the decision makers as to the need for art. They encouraged that art be included in the zoning ordinance update and in Capital Improvement projects. They provided a list of policies and programs that should .include art as a consideration (see attached memo dated September 28, 1998). HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD ’The Historic Resources Board encouraged caution in reviewing the interaction between implementation of some of the programs in the Comprehensive Plan and the possible negative impact they might have on historic resotwces. For example, encouraging additional hotising density (Programs H-1 and H-2) could apply pressure in certain areas to remove historic structures. Moreover, the Zoning Ordinance update should provide incentives to retain historic resources instead of de-emphasizing. For example, the Board was concerned that allowing for second units and added density in all areas of the city, would de-emphasize possible incentive~ to maintain historic resources. The Board questioned the timing of the Midtown Study as being 8-12 years in the future when many changes were taking place now. The Board encouraged that the Zoning Ordinance Update be viewed in a different manner that would recognize the diversity in neighborhoods and different areas of the city rather than citywide rul’es that apply everywhere. The Board encouraged the development of guidelines for the Professorville area. S:IPIanlP,!adiv[PCSR[PCImp.sr Page 2 HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION: The Commission noted that some of the proposed changes to encourage affordable housing, such as minimum densities and the two new land use designations (village residential and transit oriented residential), were shown as a 3 to 7 year priority as part of the Zoning Ordinance update. They felt that this was too far in the future. The need for more affordable housing is critical now and the delay in developing the revised regulations will further delay implementation. They also noted that this applied to changes in the Below Market Rate (BMR) regulations. The Commission recommended that the effects of the zoning ordinance changes on social policies be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance update. They noted that land use decisions, the types and mix of housing, and paths of circulation all play an important role in addressing the diversit~ of an area. The Commission recommended that some of the concerns in the California Avenue Area should be addressed sooner rather than later, as this is an area that is undergoing change and otten is not a priority for studies and comprehensive planning. Finally, the Commission recommended that program C-27 regarding implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also include a box on public education and outreach. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD The Architectm’al Review Boar_d (ARB) wa~ p.rimarily concemed about the pri0i’ity for preparation of a new sign ordinance. The Board noted that preparation of a new sign - ordinance had been a priority for more than 15 years and had always been moved down ¯ the priority list. The Board requested that the Commission and Council give a high priority to the development of a new sign ordinance and commit the necessary city resources. The Board also discussed the Planned Community zone and the need to better def’me what is public benefit and to structure what is the guidelines for use of the PC zone and the relative public benefits. The Board noted that this would be part of the Zoning Ordinance update, but felt that it should be done as soon as possible. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed Implementation Plan seeks to provide a policy direction for timing, lead agency or Department, budget requirements and financing and action requirements for the adopted City policies contained in the 1998-2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. TIMELINE Following Commission action, the Ordinance changes will be forwarded to the City Council for f’mal action. S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRlPCImp.sr " "Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports for the Comprehensive Plan were adopted by the City Council on July 20, 1998. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment # 1: Architectural Review Board Action Minutes of November 5, 1998. Attachment #2: Public Arts Commission Draft Minutes of September 17, 1998. Attachment #3: Human Relations Commission Minutes of September 10 and October 7, 1998. Attachment #4: Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes of September 2, 1998. Attachment #5: Historic Resources Board Action Minutes Of October 7 and 21, 1998. Attachment #6: Memorandum from Keneth R. Schreiber dated August 13, 1998 with attached Draft Implementation Plan COURTESY COPIES: Palo Alto Housing Corporation Prepared by:James E. Gilliland Division/De 9artrnent Head Apl~ro~al:. Eric Riel, Jr. Chief Planning Official S:IPIaNPIadivlPCSRICP-Imp.sr Page 4 Attachment A MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 November 5, 1998 REGULAR MEETING - 8:00 AM City Council Conference Room Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ROl Meeting called to order at 8:00 A~. Board members: Robert Peterson, Chairperson Francisco Al.fonso, Vice-Chair " Cheryl Piha, Absent Lee I. Lippert Joseph Bellomo Staff: Phillip Woods, Planner Other: Tami Garland, Office Specialist Paul Jensen, Contract Planner :~ Chandler Lee, Contract Planner Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Amy French, Associate Planner Carolynn Bissett, Associate Planner PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARING~ Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: " ¯ Announce agenda item. ¯ Open public hearing ° Staffrecommendation ° Applicant presentation - Ten(lO) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board o Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff ¯ Public comment - Five(5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three(3) minutes depending on large number of speakers per item ° Applicant closing comments - Three(3) minutes ¯ Close public hearing o Motions/recommendations by the Board ¯ Final vote City of Palo Alto Page I REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. 10. Introduction of Ed Gawf, 11. [] [] Director of the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Review and Discussion of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Implementation, Speaker Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official. Jim Gilliland discussed in detail .the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, the Board stated that they felt the deficiencies were with the Sign Ordinance and the Planned Community Zone, specifically: The enforcement of the sign ordinance, the need for citations and witholding occupancy until signs are finaled; The banner or blade signs and the need for an amendment; The need to incorporate the El Camino Real Guidelines into the sign ordinance; The need to assess the public benefits required for Planned Community zones and to define what is relative. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. [] Architectural Review Board representative at City Council meetings: 2775 Middlefield Rd. (Starbuek’s) Meeting date November 16, 1998 Representative Robert Peterson []Next Meeting: November 19, 1998.. Meeting adjourned at 10:40 AM. November I0, 1998 CiO, of Palo Alto ’Page 6 MEMORANDUM Attachment B TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jim Gilliland Leon A. Kaplan September 28, 1998 Public Art for 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan-Proposed Implementation Plan The following items are areas where the Public Art Commission could potentially be involved. Obviously, not all of them require public art BUT public art could enhance any of the projects/policies listed, especially the city infrastructure projects, transportation projects, private development, community parks and neighborhood outreach/inclusion of commercial development. Art can beused to help implement the following Programs in the Comp Plan: L section 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 21,22, 24, 25,26,27, 30, 31~ 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 57, 6.0, 69, 70, L-62 policy, 71, 72, 79*, 81 T section 13, 15, 10 Policy, 16, 22, 25, 32, 36, 41, 42, 43, 55 N section 10, 11 C section ’ 16, 19, 22**, 23, 23, 25, 26 B section 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 18 policy, 19 policy, 12, 15, 17, 18 G section 3, 14 * This one has far-reaching significance and is very important. **What about using St Anne’s Chapel for performing arts? Ken Schreiber Public Art Commission 65¢-3266165 PA CULTURAL CEHTER PAGE 82 Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: ’ Council Liaison: Publk Art Commission September 17,o 1998 Palo Alto City Hall Council Conference Room 250 Hamilton Avenue Brigid Barton, Kathryn Carleton, Kathryn Dunlevie, Judith Wasserman, Gerald Brett, David Levin Natalie Wells Leon Kaplan, Debra Jacobs, Ken Schreiber, ]’im Gilliland loe Huber 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 CALL TO ORDER - Meeting called to order by Chair Carleton at 7:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 16, 1998 MINUq~ MOVED: Barton; seconded: Wassermam Ayes: Unanimous, DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURES Oreg Smith, Turner Construction, consultant for Public Works, and architect from Komorous- Towey Architects introduced the Commission to potential art opportunities.in the Downtown Parking Stx~ctures proje~.. Smith de, cribed niches, panels and columns where art elements could be incorporated. City has commissioned and are funding consultants to 509~ of design de,,velopment and bu.dget estimate only. Consttltants Will put the project together tothe poittt of forming an assessment district next fall. As they go through fhe approval proce~_ the plansfor art will become clearer, Commission would ~ im artist involved, in the preliminary planning stagea. Debxa Jacobs, Public Works Engineer, reported that there is no money budgeted for this. l~e, xt.St~: Commission to aerve as resource during Downtown Parking $.tructures (DPS) process. Commission will work with consultant to include artist at appropriate time, Wasserman is Commission contact for DPS. 1998-2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Ken Schr~iber, Deputy City Manager,and Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official, were present seeking input from Commission on proposed implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, Commission asked advice on how to make public art in projects a reality. Planning document carl buttress Commission’s requests. There may be further opportunities within the Zoning Ordinance Update. ~: Commission to submit input on where they be~eve art can be added to the Comp~..hen~ive Plan to Kaplan, for compilation and submittal to Gilliland. Ee.gmml~.ndaik~: Commission to review budget and Capitol Improvcm~t Program and work with Staff Liaison to get comments and xecommendations to Finan~ Committ~, in a timely fashion, for ~vh~w prior to Spring budget d~adlines. TRAFFIC CIRCLES Wasserman reported that while a general t~nor at presentation was favorable to art, presentation was not well attended. Traffic circle is at Lytton and Outnda. There is both traffic cirele and median strip option hex¢. Consensus is needed from three of the four TUE 03:25 PH OITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO FAX NO, 8508588756 Attachment C HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION P, 01/05 HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:00 p.m. Council Conference Room Yale Alto Civic Center 250 Hamilton Avenue PRESENT:Eve Agiewich, Roy Blltzer, Wymz Hawser, Litsie Indergand, Adele Khabbaz, Catherine O’Brien, Andrew Pieme; STAFF: Kathy Espinoza- Howard, Andr~y Mak ORAL coMMUNICATIONS.. None APPROVAL OF TIlE MINU~ Wyna Hausser moved; Seeoa~l by Roy Blitzer approved the miautes as amended, Recommendation from a friend of Roy Blitzer: If there is mention of someone’s name in the minutes, the title of that person should beincluded so that people reading, the minutes know who they are. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS DOMESTIC PARTNER REGISTRY IN PALe ALTO w~ moved to the O~tober agenda because the September agenda was quite full. It was moved because tl~ere didn’t seem to be any pressing timeliness. The goal was to put it under affordable housing. If’an item doesn’t make the agenda, it w= probably done’by executive decision while the person with ownership in the issue wasn’t there. In the future, someone should make a phone ell to the contact person if the item isn’t going to be agendized so that it doesn’t come as ~t smprise to anyone. One person will be the contact for futur~ agenda items. CITY OF FhLO hLTO -~upportive about the graduate housing plan which is desperately needed. The only problem is file planning whicle which is being used. City Council is eolacerned that Stanford may want to step outside the use permit process, Stanford should eith~" begin a ncv¢ use p~’nit to accommodate the housing or go through the existing perrnit process. Councilman Fazzino also agreed that the HRC should play a much stronger role in the HSR.AP process. It is important to recognize that there is a limited amount of money to fund the eonnmmity service organizations and there needs to be a formal allocation process. It is important to recognize that there are unique relationships between the City and some of the grass roots organizations in Pale Alto. It is also important to make HSKAP more visible, which includes holding community forums and formal presentations with the Finance Committee beeaus~ HSRAP does play a legitimate role in the funds alloeatioia process. One way in which the HRC can help with the homeless issue would be to work with PIA to develop a strategy, develop a multi- jurisdictional group working on the issues. There-ai’o different sources for homeless support, but the question is, what contribution does Pale Alto have in terms of the homeless programs, and what unique value can Yalo Alto provide? DISCUSSION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN .William Beekett, former Co-chair of the Compmhenkive PI~ Advisory Committ~was absent. What are the responsibilities oF the HRC concerning the Comprehensive Plan7 Ind~ stated that most of the recommendations made by a sul~committee were included in thv revision of th~ Comprehensive Plan. The reco.rnmeudations included fair housing, making sur~ to advise Council on the housing issues, and looking at discriminatory issues. Became William B~kett was not present at the meeting, the discussion o.n this lopic wil! be deferred to the October HRC meeting. .." FOLLOW-UP ON THE COMMUNITY FORUM ON DISABILITY NEEDS This is tho beginning Of an on-going discussion about what the n~xt steps am going to be regarding the community forum on disability needs. The following am questions and eommen~s were made r~garding the follow up: ~What are we looking to s~d out to everyone who is interested in the topic? ~’Should there b¢ a draft drawn up about what t.h¢ HRC wants to do based upon the testimonies and complaints given at the forum? People took the time to come to the fortma, they should feel validated ~o see what they ~aid. Should all the testimoni,s be published? There was a sign in sheet and a mailing list of all the participants has be~ rrtad~ up. Citizens were told they would get a copy of the minutes, which do not include all the written tes~monies or the charts. Should the Attaehm~t be s~’nt out? It do~n’t say what the HRC is going to do, it is jus~ ~t summary of documents. Ol I 6 7 I0 11 12 13 15 16 17 IB 19 9_0 9_1 24 7.6 27 7.8 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 39 4O 42 43 DRAFT HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Thursday, October 8, 1998 7:00 p.m, Council Conference Room Pale Alto Civic Center :250 Hamilton Avenue PRESENT: ABSENT: Eve Agiewich, Roy Blitzer, Wynn Hausser, Litsie Indergand, Adele Khabbaz, Andrew Pier, e; STAFF: KathyEspinoza- ~ Howard, Maggie Wong, Erin Solheim Catherine O;Brien ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- None APPROVAl, OF THE MINUTES-Sept. 10, 1998-Lit$ie Indergand moved; Second by Roy Blitzer approved the minutes as amended. BUSINESS- JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND HRC- The joint meeting which was previously scheduled for Nov. 9, 1998 at 6:00 PM needs to be re, scheduled. A number of dates were explored. After a lengthy discussion, the .Commissioners decided to set date ottline. Topics to be discussed with council: Communication: how should the HRC communicate with Council7 HRC would like to receive some proaetivo suggestions on giving and receiving feedback. City Council buddy system with Commissions: How does the Council see this working? NOV-12-98 THU 09:23 AM OITY OF PALO ALTO FRR NO, 8508568756 P, 02 1 7 9 .11 12 13 14 15 16 I7 18 t9 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 39 4O 41 42 43 What does each Council member envision as the~job description and role of the HRC? What has the HR.C been successful in accomplishing? What the most appropriate way to keep open channels of communication between the HRC and Council? HRC’s Job Responsibility for the Joint Meeting: Send Council the proposed Agenda ahead of time, including HRC’s mission statement and ordinance. The Mission Statement paints a broad picture for Council. Attaeb a brief one page summa .ry of HRC’s accomplishments for 1997/’98 and ’99f2000 goals. Hausser preferred that other commissioners help by preparing the background, forming am " subcommittee and assigning tasks for the council meeting. Each Commissioner should discuss an issue and keep within the time flame. F.spinoza-Howard suggested getting feedback from the Council Liaison before submitting the agenda and attachments to Council. The Commissioners agreed to implement this suggestion. Some id~s for the joint discussion Were offered by the Commissioners: A. Describe where/.he HRC is heading and summarizing how we see our role, how we are operating, and where the Commission has been successful. B, Establish ground rules before.hand on geeing and receiving specific feedback," C. Identify what the tiRC wants in t~nns off~edbaek. D, Discuss the goals and main issues that the Iq~C feels are critical.to the community. DISCUSSION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANAND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN~ Ken Schmiber, Deputy City Manager, has primary responsibilityto the Comprehensive Plan. Also at the meeting was Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official, who lead the discussion ofthe Comprehensive Plan. Sehreiber reported that at the end of June, Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan, Polieyand programs are now in place and there have be~n periodic updates. Staffidentitied and Council approved adding an Implementation Plan to ¢oordinate with the budget process. The City Manager is committed to having a process in place so that priorities can be set and tracked. The Implementation Plan was distributed on August 13th to all City Boards and Commissions, asking for their input, ~ity Council will review all of the comments in December, They are trying to ke~p it moving m~d relevant to "~he next budget cycle. The purpose tonight is to hear reactions from the HRC on the Implementation Plan pdoritles. NO, 6508568756 P, 03 1 2 3 4’ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 - 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ,40 41 42 43 Hausser asked if this i~ HRC’s only chance for input, of if there was more time within the next month for suggestions and comments, Staff stated that all comments mad suggestions should be in by next month’s meeting. Pierce asked a question regarding housing. He said that file tlRC has received overwhelming input at public fon~ms regarding affordable housing which is a huge problem that cuts across all other problem,q. There are proposals for increased density housing around commercial areas and transit centers, that are proposed for a 3- 7 year time frame. The housing crisis needs to be addressed now. This strikes him as an inappropriate delay. Other issues may have higher priority but housing will take a long time to build. We know there is a housing need now. Sehreiber answered by saying that the Planning Division made the call ttfil~king that they couldn’t start that project until year 3, that it was a priority call. Agiewieh asked Sehreiber to explain what was meant by the zoning ordinance update. Sehreiber stated that after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted, the land use regulations need to be looked at to see ifthere have hee.n any significant gaps since the ordinance was adopted. Khabbaz asked it’ the BMR program for the City was going to he implemented in 3 to 7 yrs? Giililand replied by ~aying that the BMR plan will happen a lot quicker because the ordinanc~ have to he consistent with the Comprchemive Pla..n~ and in &is particular ease, thr’re is a lot of inconsistency between policy and what Was adoplcd in the Plan, There has b~en a need to change that ordinance t’0r a number ofyears, going back to when the housitig element was adopted in 1990. There are approximately 400 people eurrently on the BMR. waiting list. F.spinoza. Howard asked who is involved in zoning ordinance update pro~ess? Gilliland stated that the work plan for the zoning ordinance update specifies who will be involved, and much like the Comprehensive Plan, there will be a rather I~ge citizens advisowc0mm[ttee, and a professiona! group as well Espinoza- Iloward poirtted out that there should be some attempt to involve social service delivery agencies and other gowmm~ntal jurisdiction because there is m’~ impact’ on social policy. ):lausser said that there were a number of.items on hand use in the Col Ventura area. During the public hearing last month, comments Were heard about how that neighborhood is often the last to receive am’vice.s, left out of the process, and onn of the few "affordable" neighborhoods left in Pale Alto. Hausser suggested that a higher priority should be plaee, d on that neighborhood because the need there is greater, Creating more affordable housing around transit nodes is another priority for the zoning ordinance. Espinoza- Howard volunteered to be the point person and have all the Commissioners comments should be -mailed to her to compile a list regarding the Comprehensive Plan. The deadline for these comments will bo the same dat~ that the agenda items are due, November 2rid. 3 City of Palo Alto Attachment D Utilities Advisory Commission Wednesday, September 2, 1998 City Council Conference Room i. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. o I0. II. 12. THIS SUMMARY OF CONDENSED EXTRACTS FROM THE FULL MEETING MINUTES HAS THREE SECTIONS:P(~L|CY ISSUES ¯ A BRIEF STATEMENT OF ANY ITEMS THAT ARE BELIEVED TO NEED A POLICY DEC|S|ON OR GUIDANCE FROM THE CITY Council, KEY_I=R.~ME~ - A BRIEF STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANT ITEMS DISCUSSED;M~ . SHORT EXTRACTS FROM THE MEE’r]NG SHOW1NG THE GIST OF DISCUSSION. ALL MOTIONS AND VOTES, AND A NUMBER IN PARENTHES|S IND|CATING THE PAGE OF THE FULL MINUTES WHERE MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT MAY BE FOUND. Roll Call ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯e e0 . ¯¯¯¯o o o ¯¯¯¯o o o ¯ Election of Office~s "¯e o e ¯¯¯o ¯o_ o ¯o o* ¯¯¯¯¯o Oral Comunications --..~ 2 2 3 A.pp~oval of Minutes: July I,. 1998 Agend~ Review and Revisions" Consent Calendar ....................... 3 3 3 Unfinished Business~’~13 a. Gas Issues Update .....................13 b.Water.Issues Update-. ..................14 New Business:~20 a.comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan . . o ~ .....20 b.Ente~r se Funds Tr sfer Policy RFP ..........25 c.Utilities Energy Risk Management Program Policies ..............~ , .........25 City Council Referrals ...................4 a. Public Benefits Program .................4 Reports of Officials/Liaisons a.BAWUA Report ........... b.NCPA Report ........................ c TANC Report .¯o . ¯o ° o . Next Meeting: october 7, 1998 ...............32 Adj ournment ........................32 25(1 H~ailton Avenue. Palo Alto. 94301 ’E 415329.2277 FAX 415.321.0651- Kir_~7~LS]ICK%: In terms of the two bond measures passed, in reruns of the next fund ralslng, what you have talked~to us about on the variety of ways they could raise money, is there anything further on that? Ms~_~Ea~ch~e: BAWUA has been pushing on-that quite a bit. We have sent’ them letters and have said, we would like to help you investigate these alternative financing methodologies. Here are some that we think you might be looking at. Please ~tell us if it is worth our while to even look at these, or please tell us which ones you wamt us to look at. We want to be prepared and ready and be thinking about it as BAWUA. We sent that letter to San Francisco, and they took about six months to respond, in which they basically said, we are not ready yet to think about these alternatives. So BAWUA has decided to hold off on pushing that and are hoping again that~ this financial plan that they come out with, which will be a 10-year pretty detailed plan, will definitely go beyond the Measure A and B bonds. It will also look, more v~guely, 20 years out. SoI am hoping to see something at that point which will describe their financing options. -They will go beyond A and B in the 10-year horizon. Vice Chair Johnston:Thank you very much. Mew Business a. Comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan ¯. Comprehensive Plan. We will now hear from "Ken Schreiber on the ~~: My n~me is Ken Schreiber, and I am Deputy City manager. Joining me tonight is Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official. You have received a copy of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the proposed .Implementation Plan that we have prepared. The.issue in front of you tonight is to review and comment as yo~ wish on the proposed Implementation Plan. The intent of the Implementation Plan is to have a set of Council policies that can be translated into the city’s budget process for the General Fund and the Capital and Utilities Funds, and then a mechanism to monitor the progress of the Comprehensive Plan over the course of years. It is.obvious that there are a lot of.things that go into the city’s budget procesS, not just the Comprehensive Plan, but the effort here is to try and have a formalized way for considering the plan. In preparing the "proposed Implementation Plan, staff came up with a variety of formats before settling on one. One of the ongoing problems we had was trying to avoid an unrealistic specificity. We are not in a position to cost out all of the policies and programs.So our budget impact numbers are in relatively broad category ranges. MINUTES UAD980902:bllFinalPage also have gone with reasonably broad timeframe ~anticipations -- zero to seven years, eight to twelve years -- except for the planning division, which I do not believe affects any of the utility items. We have been a little more precise because o£ the City Council-adopted work program. So we tried to work with a more precise timeframe, and we just felt that we conveyed more precision than we were able to justify and defend. So you have this in front of you, and we anticipate that all of the boards and Commissions will review this document, and hopefully return it to the- City Council sometime in late October or early November. We would like to have Council review occur this calendar year. That will facilitate using this document in the preparation of the next budget for 1999-2000. The preparation for that starts right around the turn of the year. So we are pleased to respond to your questions and basically to make note of your comments. We will then get together the comments of all of the boards and Commissions and provide them to the Council. Vice Chair Johnston: Let me make a general observation. From my review of the Comprehensive Plan, and particularly the proposed Implementation Plan which. I know was a lot of work, as you had to go through each program and figure out the timeframe, I don’t want you to take my following-[~omments in the wrong way, because I appreciate all of the work. However, as ~ look at it- as ..it relates to the Utilities Depart~.ent, I frankly do not find a lot of impact or relevanc~, partly because Utilities, unlike other departments, has its own" funding~ mechanism. You have looked at every prog£am that has been identified, and you have looked at a tim~frame which is very important for you, but in each case, for the utilities, it is ongoing-. So although it is a.. very important role for most of the qity, I have a little bit of a difficult time in understanding Just how does it interact with Utilities. Perhaps you could respond to that.in a general way before getting to more specific questions. ~T_~: You .are right. Almost all of the Utility-specific programs are in the tiny category of "Ongoing." What that means is that work is currently being done in that area. It does not necessarily mean that the level of work is what the Council might envision in terms of either not enough being done, which, is more likely the case in a lot of areas, or too much being done. But in any event, there is some work going on in that area. There are only a few programs that are in the zero to seven category.Analysis of long~term infrastructure,landscaping, only two that jumped out at me that seemed directly related to utilities. I feel that the members of the Commission should feel free to comment on particular programs, if you feel there should be an increased implementation emphasis, even if it is ongoing right now. That is certainly a fair set of comments to transmit to the Council. You may also have some comments on other parts of the implementation plan that / you feel have some relationship to your .charge and may not be narrowly defined. Co/~nissionerGrimsrud: I guess the kind of things we will provide are the things that relate to the utilities, like technical issues., etc. One of the things I would like to comment upon is. some of the tree issues. We have talked about trees in the past. Chairma/1_Ey_er~: First, could I make some general comments I have not seen the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety, although I have been hearing about it for a number of years. I notice in this overall Palo Alto map that the~e is the section in East Palo Alto that is not marked as belonging to Palo Alto, the Faber/Latuneister tract. I would think that this map; to do justice to what we own, ought to indicate it. It says that it is open space, and that is the one comment. Your other maps tend to track that and show it in detail. One other thing I wanted to ask about. In your cover letter, it indicates that an implementation plan for housing is mandated by the state, but for no other depar~nents of the city. So I am wondering if the Council decided that there should be an implementation plan for the whole Comprehensive Plan, or how did that happen? That is a lot of work, and I ~m not sure, ~n my mind, whether it is right or not. When ~ look downstream five or ten years and try to guesstimate about costs, etc., that th~ngs happen eve~tually due to priorities .and economics and money, etc. Can you tell me a little about how that decisiod was made? Mr~hreiber~ The decis~ to. pursue the Implementation Plan was par~ .of the original Comprehensive Plan Work program that the Council reviewed in 1992. The Comprehensive Plan effort with the Citizens Advisory Committee, etc~, started in very late 1992 and early 1993. So it is coming up on six years ago that that decision was a part Of the overall work’program. It was the feeling at the time, and remains the feeling of staff, ’that we need a mechanism .to tie the Comprehensive Plan, which is a .very. basic city policy document, into the budgetprocess. That is not to say that the Implementation Plan is going to be the static document. We expect, and part of not.wanting to be overly ¯ precise, to reinforce that. This isgoing to change over time. You may well have situations occur where nonoComprehensive Plan priorities supersede a lot of things in the C0mprehensive’Plan, and Comprehensive Plan priorities are pushed off for several years. That is perfectly fine. That is a very legitimate role for the Council to play. The problem that we have run into in the past, which almost all jurisdictions in California have run into, is that if you do not have a tracking mechanism, if you do not have a way of periodically reviewing the status of implementation, certain things just fall by the wayside. It is either that .there is no.t enough staff time, or enough resQurces, whatever else, but there as not a conscious decision made to take MINUTES UAD980902:MI Final Page 22 ogra~ X and say, we are not going to do that one. The way it tends to work is, you come back five or ten years later and say, well, we never did get to that program. That is not a good way to make city policy, in my opinion. If any particular Council feels that that program is really high priority and they want to fund it, they should have the option of seeing that option in front of them, or conversely, saying no, that really is not that high a priority. We can delay that a couple more years. We have been doing this in a very de facto process, and that has been a concern of staff -- that a lot of policy decisions essentially get made in the negative by not doing something, or we make choices as what to do, but there has not been a good mechanism for the Council to review that and set the policy direction that the Council appropriately sets. Commissioner Grlmsrud: In line with what you have just said, I do like this tabular format. It is very easy to read. It is systematic and concise and has a lot of information in it. I would agree that if I were a Council member, something like this ~ould be easy to follow up on, and one could add things. I started to talk about the trees. I remember a couple of years ago, we ~ere talking about some programs that had some energy . We kind of shot it down because, it reallywas not cost- effective as an energy measure. I do not feel ~e are~totall~agains~ the utilities putting in some money to make the substations and utilities more attractive. I’see h-ere that y~u do not have anything~ under utilities. I guess what I am saying is that possibly, even as a public benefit program, there could be possibly be some infusion from utilities On ~rees. I was talking .about the shuttles earlier. There could .be some opportunities for’shuttling and also the parking, such as at the Elks Club parking lot, and .run people to the city in an electric vehicle. There are possibilities like ~hat. I would encourage the Utility Department and the Planning Department to discuss those kinds of things. Also a comment on the Natural Environment section and the discussion about urban runoff control programs and controlling stormwater pollution. It caughtmy eye that these were operated by the Utilities, and the sewage and wastewater is a utility. To be more specific, maybe you ought to put in this specific utility, we have oversight with the electric support that I talked about previously. We are a different Mr~eiber: As a stormwater utility which the runoff. : The only other thing that interests me is that in the Natural Environment section, there is standardized _ process for evaluating impact of development on the storm drainage MINUTES UAD980902:MI Final Page 23 " /"/ system. I came to the ’Planning Commission last Wednesday about an issue of restricting second-story additions but allowing more footprint , and I said this particular neighborhood is very sensitive to stormwater. In other words, there were houses that came within inches of being flooded. I got absolutely no response from the Commission. What I would encourage is that maybe there needs to be some coordination between decisions on zoning and land use planning and the public works department as to what are the implications of some of these ~° housing and land use decisions. I would encourage forecasting based on what we think additional development is going to do. There are three types of flooding. There is creek flooding. There is saltwater flooding, and there is the storm drain problem. In our neighborhood, the storm drains stop working when Adobe Creek gets about half full. At any rate, I would encourage doing some forecasts and a benchmark model as against this storm we had in February. ~ would make sure that there aresome mitigation measures. The issue also is that there are lawsuits going on after this latest~ flood. If the city is aware that we have a flood problem, it also litigation measures. Mr. Schrelbe~:I can. assure you that on the issue of the single-story¯ overlay,would be the first person to raise the issue of more imperviou~ .surface having flood impacts. I cannot remember a lot of Planning Commission meetings that issue Dot coming up. That. is why Commissioner Grlm~rud: We should get together and talk .about ~hat particdlar issue som~ other time. It is a good one~. That ~retty much completes my c6mments. In-general~ it is probably a document that I will put~on my self andstudy it a lot more. It isa very nice one, and this plan here is very workable and concise. Ck~iz~: I went .through the Implementation-Plan and e~pecially the utilities. As has been mentioned, it prettywell tracked what the utilities are doing, and I am pleased to see that there were not any big challenges to discuss. But I did find a couple items. Paul has touched on the tree issue, and under Natural Environment and your N-17, 18, 19 area,there ought to besomething in someo~ those programs that mention what the utilities-will be doing on tree planting. When we discussed all of that years ago, there was quite a debate, and we came down with approval for the electric utility paying for prope~ tree planting, etc,’ under power lines, and that we were not going to ask the utilities to pay to take over the arborist’s job but to support tree care from a utility standpoint. We felt that there should be cooperation as far as trimming to clear the lines and replanting, as necessary. The utilities might put up the. money, but we would want it done under consideration of a canopy or some group in the city that might be contracted to supervise it and see what should be planted, x think that som6thing should be menti6ned in there that the utilities have indicated.that. MINUTES UADg~0902:MI Final Page 24 ~i~IThen there was another item in M-26 that mentions implementation for drought-tolerant landscaping and the use of reclaimed water for irrigation. I do not see how you can bring that into that program after all of the time we spent on reclaimed water on this Commission, and the Council supporting our~ recommendation~ The reason is the expense. It is a plumbing system, and if you want something in there, it has to be economically feasible for reclaimed water use. I don’t think you are going to find that, the way things looked to us back a few years ago. Mr. Schrelber: certainly on a large-scale system, you are right. think we are doing some of that. "r Chairman Eyerly: Those are all the comments I have. Following Paul’s comments, I think the Comprehensive Plan you have come out with and the budget you have for utilities and this idea of implementation are all very well done. I know you have spent a good many hours on it. It is the best Comprehensive Plan I have seen. Mr. Schreiber: We go back a long time looking at comprehensive plans. Vice Chair Johnston: I really do not have any specific issues. Again, I think the time frame that one is dealing with in utilities is a little bit different. We are in a time period now of a fairly rapidly changing environment with deregulation. A lot of issues are going to come up, .and we will deal with them. We are going to mmve forward, and a lot Of these things are ongoing. .- That completes the comments.Thank you very much. New Business b. Enterprise Funds Transfer Policv RFP - not covered o New Business c. Utilities Ener ’~’ ’ Girish Balachandran: We have talked about energy risk management for several months in the past, and what we are bringing to you tonight is what we have done to date. We have set up a Risk Oversight Committee (ROC), and we have had some policies that were approved by the Risk Oversight Committee. We are in the process of developing some details to flesh out these policies. Those will be coming to you in future meetings. I do not have a prepared presentation but will respond to questions. Commissioner Grimsr!id: In general, everything looks good. On Page 2 under Authority and Responsibility Policy, basically the City Council will have final approval of ~olicies and.ensure implementation. I guess nowhere in here, including the ~Duties and Responsibilities" section,.do I see the City Council or the UAC. I suppose that is because you are MINUTES UAI~9110902:~ll Final Page 25 Attachment E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL :16 October 7, 1998 REGULAR MEETING - 8:O0 AM City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: Meeting called to order at." 8:05 AM Board members: Roger Kohler, Chairman Carol Murden, Vice-Chair Ken Alsman Dennis Backlund Martin Bernst.ein Mildred Mario Susan Haviland Council Liaison: Sandra Eakins Staff." Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner Amy French, Associate Planner Diana Tamale, Office Specialiyt George White, Planning Manager Other: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Hist0rie Resources Board reserves the fight to limit the oral eommtmieations period to 15 minutes. None AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. None UNFINISHED BUSINESS. Public Hearings: None. City of Palo Alto Page I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ’21 22 23" 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Owner Sybil’l Pfluke, Owner, 221 Kingsley, spoke supporting the staff’s recommendation. Historic Resource Board Action: BM Bernstein moved, seconded by Mario to approve the staff’s recommendation and all cofiditions. Vote 5-0-2-0 (Kohler and Alsman abstaining). Other Items. 8.Discussion of current status of draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Survey. No action will be taken. Planning Manager, White, indicated that the Planning Commission recommended incentive package would be agendized for October 21, 1998 regular meeting.’ 9.Discussion of process for assigning HRB Board members to represent the Board at City Council and other Board and Commission meetings. The board decided to go down the list and make changes depefiding on who is familiar with the issues.. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. 10._ Discussion of staff re6omu~.ended newHR.B minutes format. The board agreed to the staff proposed minutes.fofiaaat. 11.Review .and Discussion of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Proposed Implementation Program. ., The board rescheduled this item for October 21, 1998 for their comments. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. ¯ Historic Resources Board representative at City Council meetings: ro~Meeting date Represent.ative o Next Meeting: October 21, 1998 M..eeting adjourned at 10:15 AM. City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ¯ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 October 21, 1998 REGULAR MEETING - 8:O0 AM City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: Meeting called to order at: 8:10 AM Board members: Roger Kohler, Chairman Carol Murden, Vice-Chair Ken Alsman Dennis Backlund Martin Bernstdin Mildred Mario Susan Haviland Council Liaison: Sandra Eakins Staff.’, Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner George White, Planning Manager Amy French, Associate Planner Diana Tamale, Office Specialist Other:Bridget Maley, Architectural Historian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Historic Resources Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Judy Ann Edwards, 231 Chestnut Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306, spoke regarding the Cal-Ventura area and a planned walking tour. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. City of Palo Alto Page I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 910 Ramona Street [98-HRB-110]: Application of Richard & Cynthia Hume for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 (R-1 Zone District). Staff Recommendation: Staff recomrhended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING residence to this structure. Historic Resource Board Action: BM Alsman moved, seconded by BM Backlund to designate the residence as a Con.tfibuting structure. Vote 7-0-0-0. Other Items. MOTION: BM Mario moved, seconded by BM Murden to delay Item No. 6 for time uncertain until Ed Gawfthe Planning Director arrived. Vote 7-0-0-0. Referral from the Planning Commission of recommendations for incentives for historic preservation to be included with the adoption of the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Board members and the staff discussed the historic incenti~;es. The Board forwarded comments for Planning Commission review. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. 7.Review and Discussion of the 1998-.2010. Comprehensive Plan Proposed Implementation Program. MOTION: BM Mario moved, seconded by Alsman toremove Item No. 7 offthe agenda today and the Board’s comments for this item to be forwarded directly to Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official. Vote 7-0-0-0. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. Historic R~sources Board representative at City Council meetings: r~Meeting dace Representative None o Next Meeting: November 4, 1998 AD JO URNMENT. Meeting adjourned at 10:55 AM/PM. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Attachment C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 November 18, 1998 SPECIAL MEETING - 7:00 PM City Council Chambers . Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. Commissioners: Owen Byrd, Chairman Kathy Schmidt, Vice-Chair Bern Beecham Annette Bialson Phyllis Cassel Patrick Burt Jon Schink Staff: Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official Ken Schreiber, Deputy City Mgr., Sp. Proj. Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official Wynne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney Chairman Byrd: I’d like to call to order this Special Meeting of the Planning Commission for Wednesday, November 18. Would the clerk please call the role. The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications. This is the portion of our meeting where members of the public may address the Commission on items not on our agenda this evening. Do we have anyone who wishes to address us in Oral Communications? Seeing none we will close that.portion and move on to Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions. Do any Commissioners have any changes tonight? Again seeing none we will then move to Approval of Minutes. We have before us the Minutes of October 14, 1998. Commissioner Schmidt: I move approval of the Minutes of October 14, 1998. Commissioner Bialson: Second. City of Palo Alto Page i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Chairman Byrd: Any discussion? Commissioner Cassel: I think I have to abstain from the first portion of those minutes until the portion where I entered the meeting which was about 4:45 p.m. Chairman Byrd: Any other discussion on these minutes? All those in favor (ayes) All those opposed? That passes on a 7-0 vote with Phyllis’ seventh vote applying to the portion of the meeting that she attended. We have no Unfinished Business. We have no New Business. We have no Reports from Committees. Although I will ask Commissioner Beecham at some point to report to us on the Council’s discussion of the Historic Incentives. We can either take that now or after the Report From Officials. What is the Commission’s pleasure? Now. Commissioner Beecham would you like to report to us on the Council consideration of our recommendations on Historic Incentive, please. Commissioner Beecham: On the Incentives it was kind of a mixed bag, good news and bad news from the Commission’s point of view. The Council did approve quite a number of the incentives although not some of the major ones that we thought were significant. They did overall approve the FAR bonus of 15 %. They did include, after some discussion, an analysis of TDR. However, they did delete the "use by right" aspect of the FAR. So that will not be a right of historic homes under the incentives as they’ve been discussed so far. They did pass the second item which was on setbacks. They did not pass the third item regarding second units. That was denied. For flag lots, that also was denied. Parking failed on a no action vote, a 3-3 tie, so that is not included. Non-conforming uses, which is an extension of the time that a parcel can be out of use for non-conforming use and still get it back, they did pass. Then all of the other .miscellaneous items, I believe, they did pass with the exception of the Mills Act which was no action. Chairman Byrd: Bern, do you extract from the Council’s individual decisions on each incentive some over-riding themes? Commissioner Beecham: Well, one over-riding theme if one looks at what they approved and didn’t approve is they are very concerned about anything that will impact existing R-1 neighborhoods and neighbors. So anything that might have an impact on a neighbor, second unit, parking, etc., was turned down. They have a lot of concern about that. Another item to note is the Council only had six members present, Joe Huber abstaining, but also Lanie Wheeler and Gary Fazzino were absent that night. So on the discussion of some items that failed for lack of action they may change. Chairman Byrd: Will the Council reconsider some of these incentives once it has a Specific list of properties to which these might applies and once it knows the content of its Historic Ordinance? City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Commissioner Beecham: Well, they can always reassess. At this point, this was not any kind of final action on these items. I expect when Staff comes forward with samples of how this would apply say to ten representative historic parcels they’ll understand how things might work. Then when they get to the final ordinance they can go ahead and, once again, do anything they want to with it. Commissioner Schink: Bern, the Council sort of lost me when they were discussing exempting the garage space. I couldn’t understand what the final action was. Do you recollect whether they allowed it? Commissioner Beecham: On covered parking? Commissioner Schink: Yes. Commissioner Beecham: They took either no action or they did not pass the parking aspects which is to use tandem parking including a non-covered parking space. Commissioner Schink: Okay, because they went back and forth on that. That’s where they ended up? Commissioner Beecham: They had a 3-3 vote on that so that had no action. Chairman Byrd: Other questions or comments? Commissioner Beecham: It was an exciting night. Commissioner Burt: The only thing I wish there had been greater discussion of was how these proposed incentives fit within the Comprehensive Plan elements that pertain to them. Staff has done an excellent job of summarizing those aspects and both in these recent meetings and in previous Council -meetings, for the last two years, there has been almost no discussion of the subject of historic preservation in the context of the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan sheds a great deal of light on it. It is quite astounding the degree to which these issues that we’ve been struggling with have pertinent aspects that are pretty detailed out in the Comp Plan. I’d like to see a greater discussion about context in the future. Chairman Byrd: It did seem that some of Council’s actions in fact contradicted some of the policies and programs contained in the new Comp Plan and I’m sure Council will wrestle with that issue as it further refines the historic program. Commissioner Beecham: I think part of the reason that no action was taken or some items were not passed is for lack of information, at this point, on the type of profile of a typical City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 parcel and’ lack of information yet on how this really would apply to representative samples. Chairman Byrd: Thank you for that Committee of one report. We will not move on to Reports From Officials. We have one item on our agenda tonight which is a review of Comprehensive Plan Draft Implementation program. To introduce this item I’ll turn to Eric Riel. Mr. Eric Riel. Chief Planning Official: I’d like to introduce Ken Schreiber and Jim Gilliland who will be making the presentation on this particular agenda item. Mr. Ken Schreiber. Deputy City Manager for Special Pro_iects: Thank you Eric. In 1991-92 when Staff with some outside help put together the work program for the Comprehensive Plan update we included the preparation of an implementation plan for the adopted Comprehensive Plan. We did that for several reasons. I might add there were relatively few Comprehensive Plans around with any type of implementation document except for the housing element which is required by the state. We did it to have a process whereby the Council could establish implementation priorities. What we had observed in prior years is that implementation priorities were .often times established casually, established in terms of work load decisions by Staff, and there was not an active process of the Council going through the Comprehensive Plan indicating what items were the most important and should be worked on. Second is we wanted some type of tracking mechanism. Third is that Staff wanted a better way of integrating the Comprehensive Plan into the budget process. Prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in June of this year Staff began working on an implementation approach. We tried a variety of formats, a variety of drafts, we had Staff in the Managers office, Administrative Services and Planning working on it. We settled down on the format that you have received in your packet and that you have in front of you. I might add that in front of you also is a second print out of this which prints out the programs by the chapters, Land Use and Community Design being the first in order, but prints them out in terms of their timing. So it goes zero to two and then all the way up to eight to twelve and then ongoing, but it prints them out in a timing approach. You may wish to work off of that tonight as well as the copy you have in the packet which prints them out in numerical order for the programs. In either case the format identifies a lead department or departments. That is not the only department that would work on a particular program in many cases but it’s the department that would have the lead. It identifies timing. For planning division items it identifies timing in terms of three time frames, i.e., zero to two years, three to seven years and eight to twelve years. The more precise breakdown of zero to two and three to seven reflects the City Council adopted work program for the planning division. For other departments the timing is broken down by zero to seven and eight to twelve year categories. We found that trying to be more precise than that really conveyed more precision than we really had. We scraped a number of formats that had three or even four timing categories over twelve years. City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 The material covers financing, especially calling out in very generalized categories additional budget impacts for both capital improvement and general fund operating budget. Again, we did not analyze programs to really try to nail down any type of financial impact. We did not have the time or the resources to do that but we did put impacts in terms of less than 50,000, 50-500K, 500-1.0M, and over a million dollars to give some order of magnitude indication of financial budget impacts. You’ve received in the Staff report comments from other Boards and Commissions. I might add in observing those meetings, participating in them, one of the struggles I think the Boards and Commissions have had is distinguishing between commenting on the implementation priorities which is the task in front of the Commission and commenting on the wording of the programs and the plan content. You saw that in any number of the reports from Boards and Commissions. It is hard to stay out of the conte~nt but we are not amending the Comprehensive Plan. We are looking at priorities for implementation rather than re-wording programs or figuring out what should be added or deleted. Chairman Byrd, in a discussion with Staff yesterday, talked about how to review this. We talked about doing this in perhaps logical sections such as the update of the zoning ordinance, coordinated area plans, etc., in terms of those being themes. We also talked about doing this in terms of the individual chapters, a chapter at a time. The Commission should take a moment to sort out just exactly what their review process is. Finally, a couple of observations in pulling this material together. One is that the Land Use and Community Design Chapter and the Transportation Chapter really contain the great preponderance of the significant new items and new work load items. Major impacts on Planning and Transportation Divisions and the City Attorneys Office are just replete throughout these s,ections. The update of the zoning ordinance being a major item for Planning and the City Attorney’s Office certainly and a number of other assignments in there also for the City Attorney’s Office. Most of the difficult priority decisions that Staff worked with are in these two chapters. Nearly all of the eight to twelve year designations for implementing a particular program are in these two chapters. When you get to the-,remaining chapters, Housing, Natural Environment, Community Facilities and Services, Business and Economics, Governance, there is a higher percentage of ongoing items. Many of these chapters reflect the City’s well developed programs, programs that have brought a lot of pride and recognition to the City whether it be water conservation or recycling or water quality control plant, parks, arts and sciences, so there is a lot of ongoing program maintenance in these chapters with very few eight to twelve year priority items. So it is either ongoing or zero to seven because the magnitude of the new items is significantly less than Land Use and Community Design or the Transportation sections. Finally, an observation that an important linkage that doesn’t tend to jump out in this but which from the Staff’s standpoint is very important is you’re aware of an ongoing effort by City Staff to come up with a major infrastructure planning and implementation program. That infrastructure program and the Comprehensive Plan Implementation need to be linked together. The Staffs that are working on infrastructure and Comprehensive Plan have talked about that. What we’ve tried to do here is to reflect in this document, where it bumps up against infrastructure, the type of priorities City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 that Staff sees for the infrastructure program. As you well know there are many, many parts of infrastructure that are not in the Comprehensive Plan. So the overall context of the infrastructure effort is outside of the Comprehensive Planning process and is just something that certainly the Commission, in terms of its review’of the capital improvement program, and the Council in terms of all its budgetary and policy-making rules will need to struggle with over many years in trying to balance the priorities among these various efforts. Jim Gilliland has attended all of the Board and Commission meetings in some cases where I was not able to attend. So we are here tonight to respond to questions and provide whatever other information the Commission may desire. Thank you. Chairman Byrd: We can have questions of Staff at this point or we can open the Public Hearing and allow the public to speak and then have a dialogue with Staff. Shall we move to Public Hearing? I have one card on this item. If anyone else wishes to speak to this item please fill out a card. Sarah Cane, you have up to five minutes. Ms. Sarah Cane, 832 Kipling, Palo Alt0: I’ve brought you some papers. This is a summary of current and proposed City policies. I’m a long-time resident of Palo Alto and a neighborhood representative on the working group for the coordinated area plan for the redevelopment of SOFA. Although I speak as an individual tonight my views are similar to many if not all of the working group members. In all of our discussions about the coordinated area plan for SOFA we have identified a pervasive enthusiasm for increased park land in our neighborhood, especially given the unprecedented opportunity with the sale of the large PAMF parcel. Twenty-five years ago in 1973 this area was identified by Council as under-served by park land. A micro park on Scott Street was established as an interim measure. Now, 25 years later and with the proposed housing increase of 150-200 new units, the need for open space is dramatically increased. We are also aware that financing is certainly the biggest challenge in making new park land a reality. I am here to show some of the policies and programs from the Comp Plan which the working group has been discussing and especially to urge you to consider all possibilities in creating new funding. Developer fees, assessment districts and land trades are three of the options we would like you explore. As we anticipate continued growth over the next many decades we appreciate your efforts in exploring all ways possible to ensure sufficient green space for the health and well-being of this area of Palo Alto. Thank you. Chairman Byrd: Thank you Ms. Cane. Are there any questions? Any other comments from the public tonight? I will then close the Public Hearing and return this discussion to the Commission. Let’s talk procedure for just a moment. We’ve got an opportunity in front of us to have another one of our multi-meeting marathons but hopefully that will not be the case. In reviewing this item with Staff yesterday it became evident that there is some value in addressing this in terms of the timing priority that Staff has potentially assigned to these issues because we are addressing priorities and what comes first appears to have a higher priority. That’s why I asked that this document be generated. It may be a little tricky for us to base our Ci(y of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 discussion on .this because our notes may be in the other form but unless Commissioners object I think there may be some value in at least trying to go through it from a timing priority. But whether we choose a timing priority or just the straight numeric priority the thought was that we could go through it by element or chapter at a time rather than the laundry list of every single program. Jon. Commissioner Schink: I think there is one other way that we need to talk about this. That is to sort of try to hash out the timing in general. Why do we have to wait eight years for some items? Why do we have to wait three years for others? Is there a role for us here to talk about/complain about why we can’t do it all tomorrow or is this what it is and is it realistic? I’m just wondering if we. should first start just with a discussion of what the general limitations are of the resources the City has to put forward. Do we have any say or influence on that? Start with a discussion of why does it take so long to do some things before we get into the rest of it. In general, I didn’t find the priorities all that out of wack, I was just disappointed it took so long to get to them. Commissioner Beecham: In terms of framing our discussion, I’d be happy also to talk about basically global issues. I’m sure we all have one or two things we want to say or questions on the whole packet. So if we could talk about those first, clarify those, that will guide us into any other detailed issues we’d have section by section. Commissioner Cassel: I wouldn’t suggest we do it program by program by program. I had some questions on each section which may also be questions other people have on that section. So if we look at one section and then the next section and ask any questions we have that may be enough. I had a couple of general questions like explaining a few more items on this top section. Chairman Byrd: As Ken mentioned, a couple of potential global issues emerged. Obviously the issue of re-writing the zoning code shoots through many of these items. There are a number of coordinated area plans that are called for, that seems to be a topic in itself. Jon’s issue of timing is-important. The introductory questions about the headings and what they mean. Maybe one way to do this is just to go down the row and let each of us bring up one of these global issues, ask questions of Staff, and discuss it a little bit and see how far that takes us. Does that make some sense? Jon why don’t you start on this over-arching issue of timing. Commissioner Schink: Let me sort of ask my question and use the re-write of the zoning ordinance as an example. We all know the Planning Department is under-staffed and over- worked. The question becomes why we can’t initiate that re-write sooner? Chairman Byrd: What does this’ chart call for it to take? Commissioner Schink: I believe it starts in three to seven years. I’m hoping it will start in one year and if we’re lucky it will end in twelve. City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Mr. Riel: Let me respond to that question. In August of this year we went to the Council and revised the Planning Division work program. As a part of that reassessment we went back and looked at the previous work program that had been completed for a number of years. Based upon Council’s policy direction in terms of priorities" the zoning ordinance, the way we had it scheduled to start is to prepare a scope of services to require a consultant to prepare a work program for the preparation of the zoning ordinance, and that is slated to start in March of 1999 and continue for six months. In October of 1999 we expect to have the scope of services for the work program completed and then go through the selection of the consultant and acquire the needed resources and dollars to start the zoning ordinance re-write. So if I were to say if we were going tO start it would probably be the latter part of 1999 or early 2000. Commissioner Cassel: This document says three to seven years and you’re talking about actually starting sooner. What does this three to seven years mean? It means it doesn’t get to the public bodies for three years because you’re working on the preliminary data and the consultant and all of that? Is that what you’re saying? Mr. Schreiber: Let me start on. that. In picking the categories in this document we were not trying to pick the timing in terms of when something would be completed and we were not trying to pick timing in terms of how long it would take. What we were trying to identify is at least when and if it would start. Again, for everything other than Planning Division it is either within the first seven years or the years eight through twelve. Some things will take one year, some will take multiple years. Planning Division broke that down more specifically and Eric can respond to the details of that. I just want to make it very clear that we were not trying to talk about either duration of work or the end of work when we use the time frame. Commissioner Cassel: That did not answer the question. Let me ask the question in a different way. If you are starting to divine a scope of work next March for this, is that not the start of the project and is that not within a year? Mr. Gawf: I think that is the start of the project and it does sound like it is within one year. Let me make a couple of comments. One is that I think the revision of the zoning ordinance is important from what I’ve ’been able to gather. I’m glad to see that it is within that time frame because I think we need to start it sooner than later. Secondly, let me add the caveat that I really haven’t had an opportunity to look into our work program, how.we prioritized our work program within the planning department and I will be doing that and I want to take a closer look at it. Any thoughts that the Planning Commission has that might help me or guide me in setting some priorities or looking at the priorities that we have and see if we need to adjust them, I would appreciate that. Again, I think that I am trying to look at it fresh and see if that’s exactly the way we want to allocate our resources. Obviously I need to always check back with the City Council but I appreciate any feedback, support or direction that the Planning Commission could give me. Chairman Byrd: There are a number of different programs that mention the re-write of the City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 zoning ordinance. Is it Staff’s intent to address the subject piecemeal by program or are you going to def’me scope of services that takes the whole document and says let’s start going through it? Mr. Gilliland: We did what everybody’s asking if I can phrase it that way. In doing the work program we outlined that we would need to do a work program for the zoning ordinance update. That was identified as happening in the zero to two year frame so that we can get the consultants on board and get started actually doing the zoning ordinance update. To put down zero to two years for all of these programs and things that deal with the zoning ordinance update would have been very mis-leading. So that is why it is three to seven. We are going to start the zoning ordinance update by getting the consultants on board that are going to help us with how to prepare this zoning ordinance. We all know that in putting this together the zoning ordinance is going to be a little bit different than the one we have now. We specifically said so in the plan. So we really need some very serious consultant help in order to be able to do that. That is what we are going to do within the zero to two year period. The actual start of the zoning ordinance, getting started with meeting with the public and going out and doing that sort of thing and really looking at it, is three to seven years to start. Commissioner Schink:~ I think I’d still feel more comfortable if you’d listed in here one to seven years so we know it’s out there. It’s starting to happen and we recognize that it will be awhile before we start meeting with the public but at least we will know it is beginning. That would really solve a lot of concerns I have all the way through this document if we were starting on that part of the process. Commissioner Beecham: On the zoning code update, I understand you are kicking off as soon as you can on that to get a consultant in, until you get his work plan you won’t know exactly what’s going to happen thereafter. Right now you have a three to seven year time frame, four years, for doing the bulk of the work. My thought is you could finish that by year four or five, is that realistic? Mr. Gawf: Again, it’s very difficult without really looking at the issue. I’ve been involved in at least three zoning re-writes. Four or five years to re-write a zoning ordinance is too long in my opinion. You start forgetting what you started with. I also understand that in Palo Alto there is a great deal of citizen involvement, there is a process we have to go through and there are some other things, but I would hope that it would not be that long. That it needs to be more compressed than that. I can’t give you a time frame that is appropriate that just seems longer than I would recommend. Mr. Schreiber: Let me just clarify again that by saying three to seven years we were not trying to say that the work on any particular program in the three to seven year category would take four years or that it would be finished in year seven. It is simply that the major effort would start within that period. Staff, given the number of programs and not just the ones in Planning but scattered throughout the City organization, have not been comfortable City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 trying to establish both a start year or an end year, or even a length of time for particular programs. To do that for most of the programs would convey far more preciseness and knowledge of what it is going to take to implement it than is the case. We really did not want to try to convey more precision in this document than Staff felt was warranted. A lot of these decisions on priorities are going to have to be within the broader budget process. That will certainly cause things to shift around within every department. So I’m just cautioning against trying to describe more precision than certainly Staff would feel comfortable with. Commissioner Beecham: I understand why you went in the year groupings you did and I’m not arguing with that. Because the zoning code update is so critical to so many items, that in particular I think does warrant a little bit of additional discussion so that everybody knows basically the discussion we’ve had tonight. One is a start, basically immediately, and when will it be done, substantially before year seven. Details won’t be out until you’ve had the contractors work plan but I’m understanding that your goal now is to complete the actual work on it probably in under two years. Once you get the plan done, the funding set and get moving with it. Mr. Gawf: Let me also say that from my experience that two years is actually a fairly short period for re-write of the zoning code. We are probably looking at three years is my guess, from the time you really get in and start it. That’s pretty aggressive. Again, I think you need to be aggressive in doing it so you don’t lose what you started with but three years is probably a fairly realistic but aggressive time frame once you start. Commissioner Burt: Would it be possible or is it the plan to develop a work plan in the near future for the re-write of the zoning ordinance so that we would get a better sense of this time line? Mr. Riel: We do have monies allocated in this year’s budget and we intend to start that in March of 1999. Commissioner Burt: Great. Then also if it takes maybe four years or so from now before we are most of the way through that, what occurs on the various developments that come before the City in the meantime? We have a Comprehensive Plan that sets a somewhat different framework than some of the aspects of the current zoning ordinance. Are we unable basically to address these new developments in the context of the new Comprehensive Plan in the absence of the new zoning ordinance? Mr. Gawf: Let me give it a shot and then I’ll ask Wynne to correct me after I make a few statements. In some cases that indeed may be the case. You can’t approve a development that is not consistent with the zoning of the land. Sometimes the zoning may lag a little bit. I don’t know how many cases there are where the Comprehensive Plan shows something that requires a different zoning category or different zoning land use but if it does, in some cases it may lag a little bit. I’m not sure if there is a recourse. City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Ms. Wynne Furth. Senior Assistant Ci_ty Attorney: I think what you say is correct. I think actually the first big piece of alignment of the zoning code with the Comprehensive Plan that is going to come before you, there are two -- one is the new Historic Preservation Ordinance and as you have pointed out there is a lot of discussion of that in the Comprehensive Plan so adopting that is one phase of the implementation. The second one is going to be the Comprehensive Area Plan for the South 0f Forest area which is a field test essentially of a new procedure and a set of new Comprehensive Plan policies, and probably will give us a lot of insight into how the rest of the code is going to need to be modified. I would assume that in some cases the work program for code amendments will be altered, will be affected by private development proposals. They may shift our priorities. Commissioner Schmidt: I think that sort of answers my question. I think we’ve generally talked about updating the whole zoning ordinance but certain issues will be addressed in pieces and therefore could be adopted as we go along versus at the end of ’x’ years for the whole zoning ordinance. Is that correct? Ms. Furth: It is and one of the first steps is trying to define the progress, the plan for amending the code. That’s the initial step is trying to talk about the approach that will be taken so that the entire task can be done. Commissioner Schink: This sort of leads up to my next question/comment, I feel it is a little unfair because it is like me sitting here piling more work on your plate, but what I see from my years of watching all of these things happen in Palo Alto is the struggle we still have in looking at this chart is balancing it against how much available time you really will have during the next eight to ten years. When who knows what else comes up that may appear on the horizon. There might be some more huge projects or who knows what’s going to happen but Something strange will happen and everyone will have to run off in a different direction. When that happens what falls by the wayside? I’m just wondering if we can add a couple of more columns to this matrix that addresses the necessary revenue stream to see some of these things happen. Are these things dependant upon a continued increase in the budget or can we afford to do these things .without increased revenues? The second question then is, is implementation of these dependant upon additional Staff, using the current Staff and not giving them any new projects or no emergency projects, or no emergency concerns that arise out of the community, and those types of issues? I’d feel better looking back on it saying we covered all the bases if we had that. A little bit of my, I know I sound a little bit cynical, but I think about when I was in high school I was really excited because I read in the Palo Alto Times that Palo Alto was proposing to have all of our utilities undergrounded within the next ten years. Well it’s been a long time since I’ve been in high school. Commissioner Beecham: Part of a continuing general discussion, as Jon brings up budgeting and so on, I’ve got one or two questions. One on the budget and the priorities and the schedule that are in here. How much did Staff use budget requirements both for capital as well as operating to adjust things forward and backward in time? City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Mr. Schreiber: We looked at certainly the availability of Staff. I think every department that worked on this did look at the availability of resources. If I can lump this in with Jon’s first question about addressing the necessary revenue stream, that is essentially a question that can’t be answered. It can’t be answered because Comprehensive Plan priorities and Comprehensive Plan implementation is still one piece of the broader Council policy-making pie. You have a lot of other things going on. If the City wishes to place a great deal of emphasis on infrastructure work in the next ten years that may mean that spending a million dollars for consultants on the zoning ordinance becomes a lower priority because the money may not be there. At the same time another priority decision would be that updating the zoning ordinance is a very high priority and should get precedent over doing something else on that infrastructure list. That is not a call that Staff can make. It probably wouldn’t realistically be made until the Council is confronted with a specific set of questions and trade-offs. So we assumed no loss in Staff, we assumed a reasonable growth in revenue stream but we did not try to become precise enough to pick programs out and say this one really can’t go until year eight or later because of revenue. It was really a question of Staffing and priorities. The educated estimates, at this point in time, regarding the amount of time and effort it would take, and the amount of cost it would incur. Let me underline, those are estimates. Whether they be staffing costs or capital costs there was no way to sit all the Staff down and take the time to digest all of this into the level of detail that I think a lot of us, Commissioners and Staff, would really like to see. I think the effort would have probably led to the lack of the implementation plan because we wouldn’t have had a product coming out. Chairman Byrd: I hear you segueing into" budget which is another one of these global issues, but I want to make sure we close on timing before we get too far downstream on finances. Commissioner Beecham: This is a timing issue question. What I understand you to say Ken, is that you used Staff resources as your timing constraint in terms of getting things out over time rather than capital or operating budget constraints. Mr. Schreiber: No, we used both. The infrastructure planning process is dealing with a variety of Staff led by the Public Works Department, dealing with a lot of infrastructure financing options and alternatives. They certainly entered that knowledge into the mix in terms of trying to identify both the range of cost of some of the capital programs as well as the likelihood of something occurring within a particular time frame. So it was both capital cost as well as Staffing costs or the hours of Staff availability. Chairman Byrd: Other questions or comments on timing? Bern. Commissioner Beecham: As I went through here I counted up how many items were beyond seven years and an inappropriate use of numbers out of 305 programs and policies listed in here I think 36 are in the eight to twelve range. I think it is inappropriate because it gives no idea of how important they are in substance. The vast majority of what you do have in here with the exception of some area plans and some generally relatively minor transportation City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7~ 8 9 0 1 2 3 issues are all going to be done before seven years according to this. I just wonder how realistic that is. If it is realistic then I think we under achieved in our Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Byrd: Bern, you raise an issue that I think is worth some discussion. I heard Ken to say earlier that this timing column does not suggest when the project would be complete but when it would be undertaken. That is an important distinction. I for one think that this matrix would be much improved if a column was added that set a time for the completion of each task. I don’t know a business in the world that doesn’t identify when a project is going to be complete, knowing that deadlines slip and knowing that new information comes, but I’d like to hear some discussion on that. Commissioner Beecham: Let ask Staff, how wrong are we if we do interpret this as completion dates -- within that time frame? Otherwise this is not a useful table for us at all. ’Mr. Gawf: I’ll let Ken or Jim comment on the intent of this document then I have a couple of thoughts as well. Mr. Schreiber: First, you can certainly do that. I don’t think it says a whole lot because it hasn’t been thought through. At the same time I would expect this document to change yearly. The intent of Staff is to fold this into the budget process. I would anticipate that this document is going to look somewhat different two, three, or four years from now. If there is a particular bit of anxiety at the Staff part, I think Mr. Beecham has hit on it, which is that we have probably identified too many items too early in the process. It has been very hard to look at these, and there are a lot of people that have a lot of ownership of any particular program, and say realistically we are not going to get to that for seven or eight years. That was a very tough decision to reach. So if anything what I would forecast over the next five years is that you are going to have more items into those out years. City Staff will not have had a chance to get to them both because of the complexity of implementing programs that are going to be done earlier on, and the zoning ordinance is right up at the top of the list in terms of complexity, but also because there are going to be unknowns added into this. If we would have been having this discussion in the last week in August of 1996 there was no sense at all that we were going to do. anything with historic regulations. Two and a half months later we had a mammoth program in place and Staff priorities were totally wrenched around. That will happen again, I don’t know what it will be, but that will happen again over the next years. Mr. Gilliland: In the first place there are some parts of this that are over-optimistic. There are some things that can’t be done. I would say that a lot of those are not directly related to the Planning Department and other departments are the lead agency. That is what Ken is going for because all of the departments were involved in putting this implementation plan together, it wasn’t just Plarming Staff that did this. The other thing is on your number, as to the number of eight to twelves being 36, now I have not sat down and counted them but I totally trust you. City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Commissioner Beecham: In fact it is not a really important number because you don’t know what tasks those are. Mr. Gilliland: That’s right. What I would emphasize is that a lot of them that are in here as ongoing are things that are already being done. I think the real thing that we need to be looking at is the zero to seven, what we can realistically do. If you think that we’ve over- reached we really want to hear that and it will help us in working with the City Council and other departments to say wait a minute we may have over-reached here on some of this. For the Planning Department per se the intent was, in working with the work program, we are looking at having to do a zoning ordinance update and that is our primary thing that is in here. Something like even the sign ordinance got pushed down a little bit. So I think there is some realism to it but if we’ve over-reached then let us know. I think you are absolutely right that a Comp Plan, if it doesn’t over-reach and get us beyond where we are going, then it’s not a good Comp Plan. We haven’t done the right thing. Commissioner Beecham: I don’t mind if the Comp Plan is over-reaching that’s why I’m surprised to see it’s mostly in the seven year category. The comment I was going to make on Ken’s explanation is only to say that I think you are being too modest when you said that these items have not necessarily been thought through. I think you probably know all the foibles of the analysis and where things are weak, and there is a lot of assumptions and uncertainties within them. But people using this table, they are going to look at these numbers and you are going to have to do a 10t of explaining to get people to realize, if it is really correct, that these numbers don’t necessarily indicate the beginning and don’t necessarily indicate the end of anything. I think the table needs to be perhaps massaged if that’s necessary to insure that at least it indicates at least a reasonable estimate of when these tasks will be finished. Mr. Gawf: If I could just add on to that discussion because part of my concern as I read this was do we have enough Staffl In fact that was one of the little notes I gave Jim. This is pretty ambitious and at least the Comprehensive Plan should be ambitious. Quite often we then get equally ambitious in trying to do the imPlementation and that may not be all bad. But what does create problems sometimes is when we try to be very precise in .what we are going to do. In some ways I think our timing may be too precise. What would really be helpful for me is to say what are the issues that, if we can’t do everything that is in this matrix, you really want us to do. At the end of ten years, 2010 we’re there, we’re looking back and we’re proud of what we’ve done, what are those things that we’ve done that we are proud of. The zoning code update is one, clearly we’re saying we have to do. There is the South of Forest area plan that should be done within that ten years and maybe a couple of more. So there are a few things that, yes, we’ll try on all of them and we’re going to work and do this and that, but there are some things that are so fundamentally important to the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan that we do need to do them in the next ten years. Chairman Byrd: Let me make some opportunities here for other Commissioners. Jon’s had his hand up for some time and then Commissioner Schmidt. City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Commissioner Schink: Owen, I know you don’t want us to get into budget but you can’t separate budget from time and I think this is where we need to talk a little bit about the dollars. If you want to establish priorities here tell me how much money I have to spend and I’ll go through here and allocate the resources. Where I feel a little uncomfortable at this point is I just don’t have any idea what we are talking about. I think that the realistic next step that the Planning Commission needs to do is we need to be informed to a certain degree as to what the resources are that will be available just for planning purposes. Are we talking about $5 million a year, $1 million a year, over a seven or ten year period of time? Then we can come back and say yes, in our mind it is worth spending $1 million on a zoning ordinance update. If there is only $500,000 and you have to spend all the money on that for the next three years then that is a different issue. So I think we need that information at a future meeting as to what the financing available is for these programs in the next ten years. Commissioner Schmidt: We’ve been going around this a little bit. We’ve talked about that the list was developed by looking at, available staffing, and budgeting. We’ve just started to get into what’s important. It seems to me that that’s something that is missing here that is significant here and that we really need to have. We’ve talked a long time, all during the Comprehensive Plan about how important implementation chapter is, and I realize that the Comprehensive Plan is one thing and that the City has lots of other things to deal with but I think we need to attach some importance to the kinds of things we’re doing. I’m sure some of us or all of us looked back at the Comprehensive Plan while we were doing this. I made copies of the introduction that we labored over to say these are the things that are really important in this Comprehensive Plan. It seems to me that it is absolutely necessary then for those issues to tie into what we are doing about implementation. Yes, staffing and obviously budget have to work with it too but we really need to say what is important. It really needs to be spelled out in an introduction to the implementation section. And it gets updated. It notes in the Comp Plan introduction that the Planning Commission reviews the Comprehensive Plan every year to make sure things are okay. We’ve also said that the Comprehensive Plan implementation needs to be tied into CIP those are other things that are done on a regular basis. It is certainly something that can be reviewed annually by us, reviewed annually by the City Council in a short form, not in a long form but just conceptually what’s important. Are things changing? I think, we need to state that in our implementation. Chairman Byrd: I’m afraid I’m not finished yet on this subject of timing. I think that this chart does not define what that word means. We’ve talked about a couple different definitions of it here. I think it’s reasonable of the community to ask of the Council, the Commission, and Staff, when are you going to deliver the items that the Comp Plan clearly identifies as being most important. Or when are you going to deliver the items that implement the Comp Plan? I think it elevates, as we are wont to do in Palo Alto, process over product to say in three to seven years we are going to be well underway on the zoning re-write. I think we need to be able to say to the community, we’ve got a Comp Plan with a twelve year shelf life and we are going to deliver you a zoning code that is consistent with it within four years or five years. So at least we can spend the second half of the life of the Comp Plan working under a City’of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Comp Plan that is consistent with the zoning code. Otherwise all we’re saying is we’re going to get into it. I think one of the lessons of the Comp Plan update process.itself is that we in this town have a genius for letting process get away from us. We spent too much money, and we took too time, and maybe that can inform how we address the zoning code re-write and we can do it faster, and do it cheaper, and get it online so that something is there that is consistent with the Comp Plan. Mr. Riel: I just want to make a comment. In terms of the Planning Division work program, one thing that we indicated to Council in August is that we are going to come back every six months to them and give them a progress report on how we’ve done. So there is opportunities every six months to go forward and obviously change the priorities but also to give them an update. So after March when we start the scope of services and look at the work program I think we are going to be able to better define the time frame. Possibly Council will say, okay, you’ve given us a scope of services and work program, this needs to be your highest priority and we as Planning Staff will say okay, we can do this with certain personnel or we need to hire a consultant or whatever, they need to make that determination in terms of what is their highest priority. They have said, tell us when you’re hurting, when you’re hurting the Planning Division. That’s the reason why we are coming back every six months to give them an update and a progress report. In the past, I believe we’ve gone back on a yearly basis with a work program. So we are doing a check and balance as we go through this process. In the next six months I believe we’ll be able to tell you more in terms of an exact time frame for the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Cassel: You’ve been asking for suggestions and I think I want to follow up on Kathy’s comment. This is listed as an implementation plan in our Comp Plan and in all of our other sections we’ve had an introduction to the actual programs. It is clear that we need an introduction that defines some of these terms. I get the sense that zero to two years means that we’re in the middle of it and it is immediate upon us. That three to five is an intermediate level and eight to ten is "we’re going to get to it but we’re not quite sure when." Some kind of definitions, some kind of introduction, some kind of explanations. I’m having trouble with just understanding what this financing section means in a much more down to earth sense of I don’t know what you mean by existing. What does that mean? Existing money that now is or you anticipate having? Some of these need a little definition in there that will help us out. You are limited in what you can do in an introductory section, you’ve got some of this introduction to us, but if that’s going to be part of the Plan and chapter in our book then that needs to be there. I had a question on what you mean, at some point, by existing money. Operating budget existing sometimes didn’t make sense to me. I have some specific examples down farther in the chapters. Commissioner Beecham: Still on the planning and the introduction idea, Kathy and I met last night and one of the things that would have helped us understand more, she’s mentioned City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 already but clearly what needs to be in the introduction is an explanation of the strategy that has been used, that guided you to this list, and the order that it’s in here. That should include both the strategy of your objectives and maybe your top priorities like what is it we want to get done within the period, and other things are secondary and we can squeeze them in and that’s why their placed as they are. Then also what are the key limiting factors. What are some of the assumptions on staffing? Obviously if the historic preservation came up later on do you have planning in your staffing for something of that magnitude coming up or are you assuming that it’s only routine issues and no other big project like historic or like Sand Hill will be coming up. So what are key assumptions and what are your strategies and what are you key objectives to accomplish? Commissioner Bialson: I get the ~sense that perhaps if we get into a few of the programs by the dialogue that goes on in reviewing the program and your priorities as expressed in the time line that you’ve put on, we’ll probably get to some of the thought processes that Staff went through. I think it would be better to make our comments to address the process that Staff did use. I’m sort of feeling like we’re not really speaking to one another. I feel we’re speaking "at" Staff and they’re speaking "at" us and we’re not coming together. Maybe we need something concrete before us. Chairman Byrd: I had offered the opportunity to tick down the row and give everyone the chance to address the global issue. I don’t think we ever got past Jon’s. What is the Commissions pleasure? Are there other global issues such as coordinated area plans or the relationship to the CIP or other issues that you want to try to address before we get to program by program? Commissioner Burt: I think I can wait on some of the questions I have on the coordinated area plan. I do want us to consider circumstances where delay in adopting a program or a new ordinance might cause us to pass up on significant opportunities. For instance, in the park acquisition issue. If we were to some time down the road adopt what neighboring, cities have done in park developer fees consistent with the Comp Plan of two acres per thousand, if we allow hundreds of housing units to be built in the absence of implementing that fee there is no way to back and recapture that. So we may want to look at the timing in consideration of that proposal. The other consideration I had is the one that we had discussed in our joint meeting with the Council and that is the integration of the Planning Commission’s role as an advisory role on the CIP. In my first months on the Commission we entered into this year’s CIP. A number of issues were brought forward by Planning Commissioners and in many circumstances, Staff’s response was that it was a good concept and if we had considered that at the time we drafted the CIP we would have possibly altered the CIP but since you are bringing it up at this time, it’s too late. That was built into the process, the opportunity of the Planning Commission to bring forth their insights on how to make the CIP more consistent with the Comp Plan is lost unless there is a greater involvement earlier in the process. The example that I would cite is at Foothills Park. We completely re-landscaped the turf on the lower fields, a large area, and there was no consideration to the aspects of the Comp Plan that talk City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 about.native habitats, especially adjacent Ryperian Corridors, and how specifically in the Comp Plan we should look for opportunities when reconstruction is done to reestablish those habitats. The Staff representative from Public Works, I think, didn’t seem to grasp the difference between non-native grasses growing wildly today and reestablishment of native plants. So that’s just one example but I think that there is a real role that the Planning Commission needs to have earlier in the process or we might as well just say there is no role and be frank about it. That’s my thought on the CIP. Commissioner Cassel: I’d prefer doing global comments at the end after I’ve had other input as we go chapter by chapter. Commissioner Schmidt: My important issue really was getting the zoning ordinance done as quickly as possible so we could get into some of the other planning issues that seem relegated to the eight to twelve year area to start. Something we want to talk about some more is coordinated area plans and do we want to take them up again in eight to twelve years as mentioned here. Commissioner Beecham: I think only two more comments and I’m done with my global concerns. One that Annette made me think about, if I’m up here talking at you that’s not the intent. There is a lot of work in here and we are, as we look to seriously review it, frustrated because we don’t know enough of where you’re coming from to understand how you got to where you are, to say okay is that reasonable. So that’s why, at least on my part, I’m coming back saying here’s what we really have to have in order to be in your shoes. The other comment I have is Pat has brought up the idea of the Commission getting more involved earlier on in the CIP, that is a flag I’ve been carrying kind of by myself for a long time. I’m happy to support Pat’s effort with it. Commissioner Bialson: I sort of look at this as Staff asking for us to give them our input as to what is impo~ant. Being realistic, since we do not know what’s going to happen in the future about what our resources are going to be, budget, other demands on Staff time, etc., I view this as telling Staff what we see as important and prioritizing maybe five items and not a heck of a lot more. Giving you a sense of those being very important to us and asking you not to allow Staff, to the extent you have control over it, to be diverted into too wide an area that you have to address. So as we go through these programs, while we may be reacting to the zero to two year and so forth categories, I think at the end of the day what we need to give you is a sense of one to five projects. I agree with Kathy that the zoning ordinance is right up there. Maybe what we need to do is support you as you go before Council with a sense that while you can look at these things and want every one of them immediately, realistically we cannot have that. And what is most important regardless of the other demands on Staff’s time and the budgetary constraints are these items and have those be something that both the Commission and Staff can go to Council with. That’s my global perspective on the document. That’s what I’ll be looking for us to give to Staff unless Staff tells us that there is something other than that that they want. City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Chairman Byrd: I think our discussion of historic incentives added real value to the community when we f’mally prioritized things and we narrowed down what really counted and we came out with this message that the FAR increase was really the guts of it. I like your idea of getting to five. I’d like even better if we identified one, three, I would throw on the table the notion that perhaps from a planning perspective, since we’re the Planning Commission, there is nothing more important than the zoning ordinance update in terms of implementing the Comp Plan. As a result it should get highest priority in terms of dollars and Staff time and community attention. Let’s get it done as quickly as we can. Does anybody disagree with that? Commissioner Burt: I don’t disagree. One of the things that perhaps was part of the Staff’s process here, and maybe it can be explained more, is whether there was a ranking of priority both in terms of importance and immediacy. Certain things may be, over the course of the plan, among the most important programs to be implemented but they may not be the most urgent. In a priority ranking system it is common to use some hybrid of those two aspects. Which among the high importance items are most urgent and they become the highest priority. Mr. Gawf: Actually I was just going to tag along with the comments of several Commissioners that this clearly sends a message to the Staff and the community and it is a general message. I think it also dilutes a little bit because there are so many items here. I think the comment about if there is something that is so important that at the end of ten years if we haven’t done it, we’ve failed, I would like to know that. If there are three or four items, I’d like to know that too. Because I know I can do five items in the ten years. I assume that there are items that I can actually do but I will tell you if I can’t. That I can focus on and I can keep that in front of us over that period of time and I know I’m always shooting for that. Then it also makes a very powerful message when we go to the City Council and say we’ve looked at this, your example of the FAR was a great one. We’ve looked at this and it’s all very important but this is the one that we really need to focus on above everything else. I think that gives more power, if you will, to the implementation of the Comp Plan. Commissioner Schink: I wanted to just make a couple of final comments because unfortunately I have to depart. A number of Commissioners suggested that we need an introduction. I think that Staff has done a good job in the memorandum of getting us 90% of the way there on the introduction and maybe we can fine tune it but that’s a good start. I agree with where we seem to be going as far as establishing a priority but I want to harp again on the idea that we need to get some idea of the revenue that is available because what is a real priority for me is hoping that we might have a shuttle in place in the next ten years. If we’ve only got a million dollars a year to spend and the thing is going to cost three million dollars a year then we might as well cross that off our list. I know we can’t get that precise but hopefully we can have a range that we can work with. I was particularly impressed with what a great job the City did in looking at that revenue that was needed for our infrastructure improvement, showing where we could find that revenue, and how we could plan the whole thing out. It seems to me that if we could come anywhere close to doing the same thing for City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 implementing the Comp Plan it would go a long ways towards helping us realistically establish at least ballpark figures to Work with. Then it would also put an important price on our reactionary behavior that we seem to be so prone to when we decide next year or the year after that we have to cast aside this program to take the money and spend it on some new planning emergency. Then we realize realistically what we are giving up. Those are my parting comments for tonight. Chairman Byrd: Well we’ve each had a shot at some of these thematic concerns. Do we want now to turn our attention to trying to go through this reasonably quickly, chapter by chapter? Does anyone need a three minute break? Commissioner Bialson: Can I just ask is that what Staff wants us to do? Go through on a program by program basis. Mr. Gilliland: I think Staff in general at the table is very appreciative of your idea of let’s name the top five. I would just add to that though individually you may have comments about specific programs or other things that you’ve markedup on the copies that you have at home or that you want to look at over the next couple of weeks. You could get back to us and we would be glad to put those together and bring them back to you or however you’d like to do it. There are some very specific ones in here that could be changed and I could talk to Jon about the ones about the zoning ordinance that might be changed to zero to two instead of three to seven so that it gives a better indication that that is what we are doing right now. There is not one that says do a zoning ordinance update. Commissioner Schmidt: Will anything come back to us before it goes to Council or are you just going to take our comments and go straight to Council? Mr. Gilliland: It is still in your ball court as long as you want to keep it. We’d like to get it to Council because obviously the longer we wait the worse off we are but it is still in your court. If you want to bring it back we’re happy to do that. Mr. Gawf: Jim, let me just add on to that that I think it is important that when we do go to Council we have a product that we want to go to Council. So I’d rather have the right product going to Council than a time. Chairman Byrd: Let’s take a couple minute break and come back and start with land use. Let’s continue our conversation here. Let’s launch into our discussion of element two, chapter two of the Comp Plan which is Land Use and Community Design. Trying to resist the temptation to go through item by item, 100 plus programs, does anyone have any feedback to Staff that takes up Ed’s challenge to identify a short list of priorities within this topic for implementing the Comp Plan? City of Palo Alto Page 20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 3 Commissioner Beecham: Let me start by saying that we can probably all pick the top two. We all probably have three in mind. If we work hard and seriously at going beyond that I think it would be hard to do that tonight. In part because I’ve not gone back and really reviewed them all and considered that aspect of it and I wouldn’t want to give Staff direction without, at least on my part, doing that more thoroughly. Commissioner Burt: I think we’ll probably be able to make some of those suggestions tonight but a tool that I think would be beneficial for all of us might be to have a somewhat more formal method for looking at what should be the priorities. I mentioned earlier looking at urgency and importance and perhaps a third colunm would be the cost/benefit concept. Something may be very costly and timely to implement and yet very important. Something else may be equally important with very little cost or time associated with it and that would consequently move it up in the rankings perhaps. Going through and having a matrix where you might take each of these items and give them a one to five ranking, and you may or may not give each of those colunms equal weight but you can add them up. If something is a one in urgency, a one in importance, and one in cost/benefit, then numerically it would stand out as a high priority. Then a judgment process would still need to come back because a pure formula won’t necessarily give us real good answers. We may say, yes, that got a high number but it doesn’t deserve to be quite that high. It certainly gives a very valuable framework to rationally look through and try to make some determinations objectively as to which are the most important. I’d find that to be a useful tool. Mr. Schreiber: Just to follow up on that. Certainly individual Staff members or even small groups of Staff members can sit down and do that but if this is held over and at the next . meeting we assign the Director of Social and Community Services to attend and cover this item you will get a very different priority listing than you will from the Planning Staff. If the Director of Public Works covers the meeting you will get a third very different priority list. So my question is, if you want Staff to try to establish priorities are you looking for priorities from the perspective of the Department of Planning and Community Environment?. Or are you looking for priorities from the standpoint of the City Staff?. Because getting it from the standpoint of the City Staff will be a far more difficult process and a much longer process. Commissioner Burt: In the context of being able to promptly come back with some sort of priority context I appreciate that it would be very difficult to get it from the entire City Staff. But over the course of this plan and our annual updates that we’re going to be doing, I think in the absence of really pulling together a consensus of priorities we don’t have a rational basis for determining what’s most important. I think we’d have to go through at least a moderately thorough process to come up with a real meaningful set of priorities. I think we are going to be able to make some first stabs at this based on where we are right now but I think over the next year maybe we do need to go through a more formal process to really carry us forward over the twelve years of this plan. Chairman Byrd: Pat, let me make a suggestion. I do want us to move from the abstract to the City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 concrete here. Even though I know our notes are on the format that goes L-l, L-2, L-3, I think that the Staff priorities are reflected in this revised format that has been sent to us because I would presume that if the Staff has identified something as having a timing of zero to two as opposed to eight to twelve that that’s a mote important priority. Maybe I’m mis- reading it. Commissioner Cassel: Can we go down through this, not program by program, but take Land Use and Community Design and see if anyone has any questions on that section, or any interests, or any emphasis that they want to make and then go on to the next one? I think it will go very fast. I don’t have an awful lot of comments. But this is a whole new format that I haven’t seen until tonight and to ask me to go down and make sense out of a new format that I haven’t seen until this evening doesn’t make any. sense to me at all. So I can’t do it. I feel like I’m talking around in circles. Chairman Byrd: Ken, if you could answer my question please. Mr Schreiber: My one observation of that is that I don’t think any of the Plaianing Department or for that matter a lot of other City Staff would fail to put the zoning ordinance update very, very high on the list. That is not in the zero to two category. It wasn’t put in the zero to two category for a series of reasons. One is when this primary work was done last spring and early summer, Planning Staff looked ahead and said historic is going to take a chunk of time, we have a neighborhood compatibility assignment that was felt to be perhaps as difficult as historic if not even more so, there is a need for a work program before we plunge into the zoning ordinance, and when you roll all that stuff together, it says it is unrealistic to put it in the zero to two category. That would convey that we are really going to jump in and get going on this when in reality what we need to do is get the work program in place and be in a position to be into the major effort in that third year. So it is a very, very high priority but the sequencing, timing and preparatory work that is necessary was such that it didn’t end up in the lowest timing category. Commissioner Burt: I would concur with what Ken was just saying although I would state it slightly differently which is that the timing category may more reflect an immediacy or an urgency or just a time sequence and not necessarily should it be taken as synonymous with priority. Commissioner Beecham: Moving forward, I think probably the two things we can do best for Staff are one, somehow either tonight, or in my opinion at the next meeting, we come up with what we think are the priorities in terms of these are things we really need to make sure we get done by the time this is over. What absolutely has to be done and if we haven’t done this item we’ve failed. This is the second item we have to make sure gets done, and let Staff work it through their timing as the Staff have explained how it might be done. Then the second thing is what might be similar to Phyllis’ thinking and others, just take this section by section, person by person, and go through and say here are my questions or comments on Land Use, City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 then move to the next person and just cover it like that. Chairman Byrd: Perhaps we can do that as a group. Why don’t we return to the matrix that was handed out to us originally and we can take it page by page if you like. Does anyone have questions or comments on any of the programs on page one? I think Staff is also looking for commentary. Commissioner Schmidt: I just have a comment and it is applicable in various places. I am happy to see a column in the action section about ongoing public education and outreach. I think in general there are some more programs that should have that aspect. Particularly things that are related to planning and changes in planning. Communication about what our regulations are in simple forms. In L-3 through L-5 talking about things that the public needs to know about, I don’t know if we need to say public outreach should occur when those things are being designed as part of the zoning ordinance but I think that when they’re done things need to be communicated to people. This is just a general comment so ultimately, and in particular the Land Use and Community Design issue, needs to have more public education and outreach. Commissioner Beecham: Also on page one, I’ll probably be embarrassed by the Staff’s answer, under "action" what is "development review"? Mr. Schreiber: Development review is the overall process of reviewing the applications for new development. Any number of the programs are in that category because they are either implemented through conditions of approval, they may be condition through exactions, etc., that ties into that development review process. Ms. Furth: There are certain kinds of development review in which the Comprehensive Plan is essentially automatically, it is self-executing. When somebody, whoever is doing the review, is required to make findings of Comp Plan consistency so the fact that you’ve adopted the Comp Plan means that those factors have to be taken into account without any implementing ordinances when-these items are reviewed. Commissioner Beecham: Thank you. One final basic question. In the timing, zero to one, when is zero? Mr. Schreiber: The time frame started July 1, 1998. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in June and the operating assumption was that we were dealing with the 1998-99 budget year as year one. So we are coming up on halfway through the first year. Chairman Byrd: It is worth reminding ourselves again that timing in this framework Bern, means that we will be active and busy on this subject within that time period but we will not bring it to closure. City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Mr. Schreiber: I might add that we used zero because there were any number programs that were already up and running as of July. So it may be more appropriate to say one to two in the sense of year one and year two. Chairman Byrd: Anything else on page one? Commissioner Cassel: This isn’t necessarily specific to page one but the first example is here. I don’t quite understand the operating budget existing if you are going to establish something. Mr. Schreiber: The assumption is that the particular program can be achieved within the framework of the existing operating budget. The assumption is that you do not need to add additional resources whether they be staffing or capital to the City organization in order to achieve a particular program. Commissioner Beecham: Is that generally to say that it is a very small amount? Mr. Schreiber: It could be part of a current activity. It could an ongoing effort. very small amount that can be absorbed by the existing organization. Chairman Byrd: Moving on, anything on page two? Comments or questions. It could be a Page three? Commissioner Beecham: A question on L-15. Let me re-read this for a moment. It seems to me that probably as Pat was indicating things that might be done easily could be pulled earlier. Staff indicates financing of $50,000 to $500,000. In that respect it’s not much and that might be an item at low cost and low effort could be pulled forward. Chairman Byrd: Anything else on this page? Commissioner Sclmaidt: i agree with Bern. I had the same basic Comments: This falls in the category of it would be really nice to have some planning efforts now or early on to work with all of the building activity that has been going on and possibly will continue in the next few years. Commissioner Beecham: Also the output could be useful for the area plans. Commissioner Burt: As we go through them I would also like to take the opportunity to bring up any programs or policies that might be added to the list of those that are pertinent to the historic preservation issues. Program L-12 may in a way either be compatible or compete with some of the historic preservation objectives. Chairman Byrd: Anything on page three? City of Palo Alto Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Commissioner Burt: Yes. Program L-15, the last line refers to building forms an important street and pedestrian connections to surrounding neighborhoods from the areas. In a recent context we had been talking briefly about a concept of pedestrian arterials that are maybe an under-recognized reality of our community. Where We’ve had discussions and Council has had discussions about lighting priorities, sidewalk improvements priorities, and we have defacto pedestrian arterials that are the routes that pedestrians take to downtown as the favored routes. This timing is listed as eight to twelve, there may be a way to separate a portion of this program and have it in an earlier phase without going through the comprehensive process that is suggested in the program as a whole. So I would like to encourage that. Chairman Byrd: Page four? Page five? Commissioner Beecham: On page five we begin talking about the Cal-Ventura Area Plan in L-30. Also in L-28 an urban design plan for California Avenue. I suspect as we get our feet wet in the SOFA area plan we’ll learn the resources it takes, we’ll learn the value of it i.e., do they produce a valuable output or not. Given that we’ll reassess the whole schedule for the area plans. A short comment on L-28, if it’s not ultimately tied in with an a~i:ea plan is the sense we’ve done the urban design guide for downtown, I would think it would not be difficult to do it for the California Avenue area. Therefore it could be pulled earlier than the eight to twelve period. Chairman Byrd: Staff can correct me if I’m wrong, I believe there are four coordinated area plans called for in the new Comp Plan. Has there been any priority setting for those? I mean clearly there is. the first one we are underway on it. Which one is second? Mr. Riel: Yes, there are four. Unfortunately the other three dropped off of the Planning Division’s work program for the two years. Council specifically asked, when we went through the work program, when can you get to these. There was a memorandum prepared essentially dropping off the Cal-Ventura, South E1 Camino, and the Midtown area plans. Chairman Byrd: So we don’t know for those remaining three which one will come next. Mr. Riel: No we don’t. Mr. Gilliland: In the Comp Plan the priority if you will or the order of them is to finish SOFA, to do University Avenue multi-mode transit center next and that one is partially because the lead is over at Stanford University under grant funding. Next, and these are in the eight to twelve so there is no real priority of the other three and that’s Cal Ave, South of E1 Camino, and Midtown. Most of it got dropped in the last review of the. Comprehensive Plan. So I don’t think there is a specific one that says Midtown in here. Mr. Schreiber: There still is a Midtown coordinated area plan but Jim is right, in the last Council review a lot of detail for Midtown was dropped out of the Comprehensive Plan. All City of Palo Alto Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 ~6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 of the Cal-Ventura, South E1 Camino and Midtown ended up in the eight to twelve category, not that Staff wasn’t sympathetic to the needs but the feeling was, when we put this together, that for the Planning Staff between the zoning ordinance update and whatever other things came along in the next years, to establish one of those as a zero to seven year or a three to seven year priority was simply misleading. I think Commissioner Beecham is correct that after SOFA is completed and over. the next couple of years as zoning ordinance work starts to unfold and you get a better sense of how that is going to go, it certainly is possible that one of these can move forward. We felt it was misleading to put it into that earlier time frame and raise expectations that it might be taken up in three to four years when in reality we did not see the staffing available to take that one on while the zoning ordinance was being worked on. Commissioner Burt: Could you clarify that last aspect on these next coordinated area plans? As it is written, if it were taken literally, after the SOFA one is complete hopefully in the upcoming months, I think it is written that we would not then commence another one for seven years but I don’t think that is necessarily the intention. Maybe you could clarify that. Mr. Schreiber: That is the way it is written. There are area plans and coordinated area plans. The coordinated area plans are PAMF/SOFA, Cal-Ventura, South E1 Camino and Midtown. PAMF/SOFA is immediate and the other three are in the eight to twelve category. You have area plans referred to for the Stanford Medical Center, and for the University Avenue train depot area. The Universiiy Avenue is fairly near term in part because there is a grant available and it is being worked on. The Medical Center was put into the eight to twelve category but I have a hunch that is going to move up by the property owner as part of the Medical Center expansion. To get back to your basic question, yes, after PAMF/SOFA there is no coordinated area plan identified until year eight. As I said, that certainly can be adjusted and we would anticipate that the implementation plan would be reviewed annually as part of the budget process and one could move forward. We didn’t feel comfortable first designating one and then moving it forward given the expectations that would have gone along with that. Commissioner Burt: Follow up. I understand that you didn’t feel comfortable designating which one and exactly what year it would commence. I wanted to get a clarification whether it is currently Staff’s intention to not commence on a second coordinated area plan until year eight. If I might follow on, you’re talking about certain of the coordinated plans like for the Stanford Medical expansion, that being accelerated because they have a process going forward for that expansion. Well, in Midtown there is a great deal of activity occurring that is transforming that area in the absence of the plan. One of my fears is that we’ll have the transformation occur before the plan has been done and then we really don’t have, in reality, a value or a purpose for having the plan. Mr. Schreiber: Just one clarification and then I want to give the question to Mr. Reil. The Stanford Medical Center area may come forward because the property owner will want to bring it forward and do it. Not City Staff but that the property owner may propose an area plan for that area. The other coordinated area plans involve very large amounts of Staff time City of Palo Alto Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 and other City resources. As far as Midtown is concerned there is no property owner that is coming forward right now to do anything in terms of interacting with the City. In that process there is no commercial organization or property owners that are actively involved with trying to bring about an area plan. The Midtown planning’process has essentially died over the last year and a half. Commissioner Cassel: You were talkingearlier about priorities and non-priorities. One of my biggest concerns is that We get to the zoning ordinance and it is very easy to go back because I want an area plan in Midtown since I live in Midtown. I think one of the things that happened to us on the Comp Plan is it didn’t take us five years to do the Comp Plan, it took us five years to do the Comp Plan and everything else that had to be done. Every time something else came up the Comp Plan got delayed or time got taken. I think we are going to have to keep our focus going and say if getting the zoning ordinance done, get it done so private land owners can work within the zoning ordinance and we can get on to other things, we have to keep reminding ourselves which is going to be more important the area plan or the zoning ordinance. I’m really feeling strongly that we need to keep the focus on the zoning ordinance first and then as we can work these others in. They are very important and they are urgent and unfortunately, as much as I want Midtown to be next, I don’t think it is. I think some other areas are going to stick their heads up and need it more first. If we can get one done, if we can get the zoning ordinance done, then we are going to be able to do some of these other things. I just don’t want to see us mixing too many things at the same time. Chairman Byrd: I agree with Phyllis 100%. Even though I think it sends a pretty sour signal to residents of the areas targeted for coordinated area plans. If I lived in Cal-Ventura and I heard it was at least eight years off I’d say what’s my City doing for me lately. I think that getting to the zoning re-write is more important. I don’t think we should initiate another area plan until we have completed the zoning ordinance. It is that important. Commissioner Cassel: Maybe we should stop using the number as two years, three to seven, and eight to twelve, and start to use the terms immediate, intermediate and long term. Some of these things will slide forward as we move along and some of them will slide later but we are getting hung up on whether it is seven years or eight years and we don’t know whether it is going to be seven years or eight years. We know it is going to come before .or after. Commissioner Burt: I’m sorry; just one final comment. I concur that the importance of the zoning ordinance re-write should precede additional coordinated area plans. I hope that the zoning ordinance won’t be seven years and the next coordinated area plan won’t be eight years before commencing. I would like to add just conceptually one other notion. There was discussion about property owners initiating it. For instance the Medical Center. There is another concept of property owners and that is the residential property owners who live in those neighborhoods. I think that we need to think of those property owners in a similar context to the way that we think of the priorities set by the property owners of the commercial land. City of Palo Alto Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Mr. Schreiber: Just an observation before you got too far on that. The current Council policy with coordinated area plans when is, when we talk about property owners that they bring money to the table. I’m not sure that we’re ready to go into residential neighborhoods and ask how many thousands of dollars people are going to put into a program like this. Commissioner Beecham: So for example on the Medical Center, Staff has estimated under $50,000 for the cost of working with Stanford on that. So that is one of your examples of low cost and I presume reasonable payback for it. Chairman Byrd: Let me return us to page five and see if there are other comments here. If not we’ll move on to page six. Commissioner Schmidt: On page six, program L-34 talks about providing better connections across E1 Camino, to bring Ventura and Barron Park neighborhoods together better. It seems to me that that might be part of the coordinated area plan for Cal-Ventura. Am I wrong? Are those different things in different time frames? Should they be together? Mr. Schreiber: The sense was that certainly it could be part of the coordinated area plan but that there were probably things that could be addressed from a transportation, pedestrian connection perspective that could be done separate from a coordinated area plan. Given the results of the school commute corridor studies that the City has undertaken, given the attention on getting people across E1 Camino, especially for school purposes, the feeling was that this one should get a higher priority and be moved earlier than the larger scale coordinated are plan which of course will deal with many, many other things. Chairman Byrd: I’ve got a question on L-35. Won’t creation or consideration of a TDR program be a component of our zoning ordinance work? Shouldn’t that be tied in or does Staff see that really as a separate legislative task? Mr. Gawf: I would actually say that is a separate action. I wouldn’t necessarily tie it with the zoning ordinance update: Chairman Byrd: Okay. Page seven? .Commissioner Cassel: We’re doing a study now on Embarcadero Road on slowing traffic. Now we get down to make improvements to Middlefield Road in Midtown to slow traffic. Does that one not follow on the study that is being done on the Embarcadero Road? If it doesn’t, I think you’re going to find it’s going to raise its ugly head and you are going have to deal with it. Mr. Schreiber: You’ll find in the transportation section that the residential arterial program has a zero to twelve time frame. The feeling being that given the number of residential arterials, the extent to which each one of those will warrant a rather intricate community City of Palo Alto Page 28 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 involvement planning process, plus then the funding of capital improvements and construction, etc., that if we keep at it, it will stretch out over twelve years. If we don’t keep at it, it will take a lot longer than that. So no decision has been made as to what is the road to take up after Embarcadero Road. The L-40 program specifically though was thought of in the light of the coordinated area plan in Midtown. It talks about Middlefield Road in Midtown and that was the connection and that’s why it is eight to twelve. Chairman Byrd: I’ve got a question on L-38. L-38 prompts a global question which is I presume the zoning ordinance re-write will not only include the text of the ordinance but the map itself. That process will include the possibility of not just creating new zone districts but applying them and re-zoning land. Okay, great. Mr. Schreiber: The answer is yes to that. Chairman Byrd: Page eight. Commissioner Burt: Program L-49 is one that perhaps should be added to the discussion of the historic preservation and how it relates to design review. We’ve had this issue of whether design review is appropriate and we have this program which seems to advocate some form of design review in historic areas. So I’d just like to encourage that we add this to the list for Council. Chairman Byrd: Others on page eight? Commissioner Schmidt: I just want to note that program L-46, work with Stanford to prepare an area plan for the Stanford Medical Center which here has an eight to twelve year time frame is likely to change. I think that many people would be interested in having it changed in light of things we’ve read and heard in various places. So just to note that on this page. Chairman Byrd: Page nine. I want to highlight L-51. If we think the zoning code is most important, buried in L-51 is the notion of considering a form code. I think that is essential and I hope that goes into .the scope of work for the consultant. That might be the direction that we choose to take. Mr. Gilliland: When I said earlier that I could give Jon two. This is one of them and there is one in G, in Government’s G-17. These are the only ones that directly say that we’re going to do something about a zoning code. If you wanted to change a priority and point it out specifically those might be the two where you should okay, these should be zero to two because that is really what we’re doing in putting the work program together. Chairman Byrd: Well then I would propose that the timing be changed for L-51 to zero to two in order to inform the work program for the zoning update. Does anybody disagree with that? Good. Anything else on page nine? City of Palo Alto Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Commissioner Burt: There are several that once again hit the historic preservation issue. I’m comparing the Staff summary that was given to us a month or two ago and there might be couple of typos there. On the Staff summary program L-56 seems to be described differently. This is an important one for the context of whether significant resources should be looked at on a mandatory or non-mandatory basis. It says, maintain and strengthen design review procedure for exterior remodeling or demolition of historic resources. Then it goes on to state, discourage demolition of historic resources and severely restrict demolition of landmark resources. So if the landmarks are severely restricted the other category that seems to be implied by the other segment of historic resources would be the historic resources. Here it says to discourage demolition which leads us into the suggestion within the Comp Plan of a program that is somewhat voluntary. So I think that has not been part of the Council discussion and I think it should be added. ~ Chairman Byrd: Anything else on page nine? Commissioner Schmidt: Just to mention that program L-59 says allow parking exemptions for historic building to encourage rehabilitation. Just to note that I believe that Council has not done that and that is the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Byrd: Anything on page ten? Page eleven? Commissioner Burt: Excuse me Owen, still on this historic preservation theme. L-64 seems to address the Mills Act issue. It says, encourage and assist owners of historically significant buildings in finding ways to adapt and restore these buildings including participation in state and federal tax relief programs. Are there other state or federal tax relief programs? Ms. Furth: Yes there are though they often pertain primarily to non-residential structures or at least not owner occupied homes. Chairman Byrd: Is it Staff’s expectation that when the historic program is complete, whenever that may be, that part of its implementation will include going back and amending the Comp Plan to conform the Comp Plan to whatever the outcome is so we don’t have a disconnect between what the Comp Plan says and what the ordinance may finally say? If the ordinance says don’t use relaxed parking restrictions and the Comp Plan says do it, then what? Commissioner Beecham: I think in a normal process when we do something and Council’s ultimate decision is at odds with something in the Comp Plan that is a normal part of the clean up process. It should be done at some point when the Council is finished. Mr. Gilliland: We would not typically, if it says go do a new historic ordinance, we wouldn’t typically go in and delete that after it’s done. Chairman Byrd: I meant the substantive requirements. City of Palo Alto Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Commissioner Burt: I hope that before we’d go through that sequence of adopting an historic ordinance that is in conflict with the Comp Plan that there be a full discussion on what aspects of the proposed historic ordinance are consistent and which are not consistent with the Comp Plan. To date, I haven’t really heard that discussion’from Council. I’d sure like to encourage that that be something that Staff fully air with Council. Ms. Furth: That will be done and that has to be done as part of that review process. As you know there are a number of competing goals in the plan and whether there are any appropriate Comp Plan amendments when they come to their conclusions, we don’t know yet. Chairman Byrd: Let me keep moving us on here. On page ten, other comments? Commissioner Schmidt: There are a couple of missing words, I believe, in L-67. I think we need the words "consistent with" at the end of that before the phrases on the next page. I just checked it in the Comp Plan because I couldn’t make sense out of the two sections. Chairman Byrd: See we really do read this stuff. Page eleven? Page twelve? Page thirteen? Pat. Commissioner Burt: On page twelve we have program L-77 which discusses revising parking permit requirements to encourage creative solutions and then it goes into several examples such as, there has been some discussion in the community about whether in lieu parking fees might be able to be partially allocated toward programs which may reduce the need for parking as opposed to creating parking requirements. I think program T-4 also hits a similar issue and I’d certainly like to encourage that issue be explored and if appropriate, in the context of some of the other discussions that are going on, that it be explored sooner than the three to seven year time frame listed in the timing column. Commissioner Cassel: You want it to be done separate from the zoning ordinance,or do you agree that that comes into the zoning ordinance and thus in the zero to intermediate area years? Are you suggesting a change in priority here? Commissioner Burt: I haven’t fully thought that through. It is one of the potential missed opportunities that I’m concerned with. That if we wait too long we may have a lot of in lieu parking fees that go into a pool and we lose the opportunity to allocate them toward some trip reduction coordinator or toward shuttle systems or toward other creative solutions that mitigate the need for additional parking. Mr. Gawf: I was just going to comment that perhaps all you need to do is consider this comment to the Staff because this is really a transportation type of item that the Transportation Division could look at. I actually like the concept. There is some difficulties in implementing a concept like that but at least the idea of looking more creatively at how we deal with moving people and not just parking cars is an important part of the Transportation Division’s mission. City of Palo Alto Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 We are looking for a new Chief Transportation Official. Part of what I’m looking for in that person is someone who will think creatively. So if it’s okay with the Planning Commission we’ll just take that as a comment to Staff and I will accept that. Commissioner Burt: That sounds great. Chairman Byrd: Anything else on page twelve? Page thirteen. Commissioner Burt: Owen, I understand it is getting late but I just wanted to bring up L-79. This is another program that suggests exploring this concept of pedestrian arterials and placing certain priorities on heavily used pedestrian paths. Chairman Byrd: Anything else on page thirteen? Before we leave Land Use, I’ve heard the Commission say zoning is the top priority. I’ve heard some comment on the coordinated plans and where they fit. I’ve heard about what should be included in the zoning re-write. Does Staff have any other questions for us? To extract from us the guidance you are looking for on this subject before we move to Transportation? Mr. Gawf: No, I think we’ve heard the discussion and I think you summarized at least the top items very clearly. I think we understand that. Chairman Byrd: Then we will move to Transportation. First page of the Transportation programs, any comments? Commissioner Schmidt: We’ve talked about the idea of maybe getting the bang for our buck here and transportation is generally an expensive section to make any real changes. Program T-8, create a long term education program to help change travel habits, that might be something, we do have it in the zero to seven category which is good, but that might be something that is more easily doable. We know that traffic and transportation continues to be very high on everybody’s list of problems they hate to deal with. So if working on that earlier in the zero to seven would do something to alleviate some of these problems I think that would . be useful. Chairman Byrd: I have a suggestion on programs T-1 and T-2. I think that they need to be related to the zoning ordinance update as is T-3 because I think they speak to issues of minimum density and specific locations of zone districts. Other comments on page T-l? Page T-2. Commissioner Burt: I’d just like to point out that programs T-11 and T-12 are perhaps programs that the rapid pace of change in our society has already caused an evolution of what these programs might entail. The rapid adoption of internet commerce and how that relates to the Palo Alto Online program for residents seems to have accelerated or increased the City of Palo Alto Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 importance of these programs. In my neighborhood there has been a great amount of interest in the residential hook ups to the fiber optic loop and it is amazing the number of residents who are conducting business out of their homes through internet commerce today. It has the opportunity to provide appreciably greater trip reductions and changes in our transportation modes than perhaps we envisioned three years ago when this was put in the program. Consequently the importance of providing that online residential service to the residents may be increased if we look at that request in the context of these objectives as well. So I just wanted to point that out. Chairman Byrd: Anything else on page T-2? I can’t let pass the opportunity on T-13 on everyone’s favorite subject of the shuttle to say -- faster! Everyone seems to want it and we seem to have such a hard time delivering it. Commissioner Cassel: There is an announcement at the end of the meeting about the next meeting you can come to on that. Chairman Byrd: Great. My specific question was whether phase two should be shorted. It says three to seven and I know you want to use a consistent set of timing numbers but does this really suggest we’re seven years out from an operational system? Mr. Schreiber: The assumption used in putting this document together is that the shuttle would receive high Staff priority. That the first two years would involve studying what type of system you want and what the expectations are and how much it’s going to cost. All of which are very significant variables. As you moved through that time frame into the third and fourth years, etc., the City would move from the trial stage to making a decision on having an ongoing shuttle. That’s why the three to seven says over $1.0M ongoing expense. That is $1.0M a year ongoing because that was the ballpark number in terms of the minimum that would be needed to establish a shuttle system. It certainly assumes that it will be set up and that trials will be starting within the next year to year and a half. Mr. Gawf: Could I also just comment on it because it is one that I’m just starting to look at. I want to look at the whole range of sort of potentials on it. This anticipates setting up sort of like a mini bus system. Maybe there is a way to do it differently.- I’m not sure. Commissioner Cassel: I think that’s all under discussion. The consultant is hired and started to work and we are already starting to look at those varied issues. So it isn’t like it’s three to seven years out. Mr. Gawf: I think there may be some broader options. There is a study that’s just started and hopefully we can identify some different options instead of just looking at one. Chairman Byrd: Anything else on page T-2? Page T-3. Page T-4. City of Palo Alto Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Commissioner Burt: Owen a quick one on T-3. T-19 is another program that suggests perhaps this priority of pedestrian arterials. I just wanted to cite that one as well. Chairman Byrd: T-4. T-5. T-6. T-7. Commissioner Cassel: On page T-7 one of the things that got dropped state-wide was traffic demand management programs being required. So we don’t really have encouraging that here and we aren’t really changing this plan but it might be noted somewhere along the line, as legislation comes up or doesn’t come up or as we talk to our legislators, we were making progress there before the state dropped that. We are having a lot of development in our industrial park and other areas which has been allowed by our current zoning ordinance. Yet we are getting a tremendous increase in traffic as a result of it. There is no requirement. State-wise we are not allowed to require traffic demand management programs. So I don’t know how we weave that back into the potential for different legislature to allow that. It is sort of on the back burner. Chairman Byrd: Anything else on T-7? T-8. Do any Commissioners have summary comments for Staff around our Transportation Implementation Priorities? Commissioner Beecham: Let me give a summary statement. I’m not feeling well and am going leave. I will provide Staff any other comments I have. Chairman Byrd: Anyone else on summary comments on implementing the transportation element of the Comp Plan? Commissioner Cassel: We can just say that this is an important area and it is one of these issues that may come forward and push other things aside. As the economy is improving people are driving more and until we can get some of these other alternatives we proposed moving and be as creative as we can with that I don’t know what we are going to do traffic wise. We may be limiting ourselves in some strang, e ways to be able to just move our cars around. Chairman Byrd: Anything else on this particular element? Commissioner Burt: I guess we might want to discuss whether we think that the shuttle system deserves to be one of those top priorities of the plan. Chairman Byrd: Yes. Commissioner Schmidt: I’d say yes. Chairman Byrd: If the zoning ordinance is the most important piece of the Land Use, clearly there is great enthusiasm for the shuttle being the centerpiece of the Transportation City of Palo Alto Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 implementation. Commissioner Cassel: Okay, I’ll make a different comment on that. I’m riding the bus now. I’m using it. I just came back from East Palo Alto on a bus and didn’t go home because I missed the bus and the next one was late and the connection didn’t happen. It is not the be all and end all for our transportation problems. Even a shuttle bus won’t be as those of us who are working on that committee are beginning to see just by beginning to touch it. This may be a help and you’re Using the term shuttle bus, and someone else said are we going to look at it broader, and the committee itself is looking at it broader, but itis not the be all and end all to the transportation system. We’ve got to look much more broadly at this. This is something that we need to work at. Something we need to do but we also need to, as was suggested, to be very creative. We have to get the cars off the road and that is much more involved. Chairman Byrd: Phyllis do you have an alternative top priority to distill out of the Transportation chapter? Commissioner Cassel: No, that’s not that I don’t think that we shouldn’t keep working on it, I think we just don’t want to keep ourselves so narrowly focused that we miss working on things as is there some other way you can go to work, by going with a friend, by doing transportation demand management, can you go with you neighbor to drive to the store, can you walk, can you bike. We do not want to leave those options out because if everyone did that one trip out of ten it makes a tremendous difference. Bussing, unless we increase it to some huge amount and I mean a huge amount, is not going to remove cars from the road as rapidly as you think it is. It is going to be important. It is going to help some of us who have to take a bus. Until you begin to do it every day you don’t realize that it is only going to tap an end of that. It is not going to be the miracle that we think. So I think we need to keep working .on more than just the shuttle system. I’m not saying drop the shuttle system. I’m saying be realistic that you are going to need other things besides the bus and keep them high in front of us. An education program for instance which may be able to be faster and cheaper may help us. Chairman Byrd: I understand but Staff is looking for us to identify priorities for the implementation of the Comp Plan. We’ve expressed a lot of enthusiasm for the shuttle and you’ve appropriately cautioned us that it is not the silver bullet. Do you have any additional specific implementation programs to identify as being far more important than the rest? Commissioner Cassel: I think we need to keep the education portion of it very high as to what the alternatives are and what other alternatives are there. I think every household when it says the road is too crowded needs to think about how often it’s driving on it. That is where you’re going to make some big differences. You can make big differences tomorrow if everyone tomorrow thought can I drive one less trip today and those roads would be a lot less crowded tomorrow. City of Palo Alto Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Commissioner Burt: I think this might be an occasion where evaluating the importance of the issued on the basis of cost/benefit analysis may be most appropriate. Where do we get the most bang for the buck? I certainly am very enthusiastic about the shuttle system but frankly I don’t know that it’s our most cost effective program: We may very well see that other approaches are much more cost effective, having a City-wide trip reduction coordinator, perhaps looking at attributing greater cost to parking is an appropriate approach. So I would like to see some preliminary evaluation by Staff in this context. Maybe we can’t do it in the next weeks but I think we need to set our priorities based on where we get the best bang for the buck in terms of trip reduction. Commissioner Bialson: I have a global question. Do we need to come up with priorities for each chapter? Do we say that we have to have something for Transportation? It seems to me that just talking to the shuttle bus issue we’ve shown that we don’t have either the political will or the financial will to move forward on that subject. I agree it’s not the silver bullet but I would try to stay focused on, when I say five I meant one to five, really priority items that we come with. I don’t think going chapter by chapter is the answer. So I would say that we should probably not force something to be determined from the Transportation chapter as being a priority. We are clearly showing that there isn’t consensus on that point. Chairman Byrd: Kathy is next. Commissioner Schmidt: I agree that we don’t need to force something from each chapter but I think something needs to be said about transportation. That’s something that is the second section of the Comp Plan which to me speaks of some priority maybe, maybe not. As I said earlier, that is something people are very concerned about, traffic and transportation. It annoys people every day, parking, driving, all these things. I think we should have a priority that relates to transportation. I think we’ve been talking about things that are reasonable at this stage to say. As a priority I think the shuttle is reasonable. I think education, just drumming it into people that there are alternatives that as Phyllis said, decide for yourself that you can do one less trip. To repeat this to people will make a difference especially as traffic continues to get worse. The other things that we brought up here, just say a general priority, is improving pedestrian and bicycle opportunities that Pat mentioned. Those are things that there are a lot of pieces to do that are probably more affordable than coming up with an excellent around the bay rapid transit system. I think we can identify a priority or some general priorities in the Transportation section and I think we should. Commissioner Bialson: I understand that we need to recognize the importance of transportation issues but what we are dealing with here is an implementation plan. What we acknowledged earlier was there are only so many things we can do and unless it is clear that we’ve got some answer to the issues we may have a problem without a solution, believe it or not, in Palo Alto. So what I’m looking at is addressing the situation of what can we do. What can the Staff do with its limitations as to staffing, budgetary constraints, etc. I do not mean to demean the importance at all of transportation but I’m merely saying maybe we can’t come up City of Palo Alto Page 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 with that as being one of the one to five implementation keys that we are going to give to Staff to pursue and to keep their eye on it. I want to come up with a ball that Staff keeps its eye on. Chairman Byrd: Annette, I think you had it right when you said earlier that clearly we don’t have the consensus on this subject that we had on the zoning code in terms of distilling a priority out of it. I would remind us however, that as we drafted the Comp Plan we looked very closely at the relationship between Land Use and Transportation. Ironically enough working on the zoning ordinance may in part address some of our transportation needs by creating the underlying land use pattern to support alternative transportation. So maybe again our priority is the zoning code. Mr. Gawf: Actually, that was well stated. I think that the two can be wrapped together in some kind of comment. That is an important part of looking at the zoning ordinance to look at how that might affect transportation demand. The other comment I would make is that it is 9:40. Clearly we are going to continue some of these items to December 9. I thought I heard earlier that you were going to come back at a later meeting and sort of focus or maybe firm up the significant areas that .you wanted us to focus on. Given the time we may want to either go a little bit longer or stop. Chairman Byrd: Let take the Commission’s pleasure. It is my sense that the remaining chapters have less controversy or will include less discussion than Land Use and Transportation. We may be able to finish this promptly tonight and not have to come back on the 9th. Should we try a little longer? Commissioner Burt: Owen, I’m a little uncomfortable with feeling that we have to race through these pages. I think this is a very important task for us. I would hate to see us try to move through it so fast that we’ve maybe not given it the adequate thoughtful discussion that we can provide. I’d just as soon try to wrap up. Chairman Byrd: So you’d like to continue it? Commissioner Burt: Yes I would. Chairman Byrd: Other comments? Commissioner Cassel: We could go a little longer with what we are doing. What I’d like a chance to do though, and the reason I would like to come back, is we’re talking now about trying to set, and I think it’s a good idea, a couple of items that are primary items that we want to think about. I’d like the ability, even if we continue on this part of it, to go home and think about which of these items. It’s not that I don’t think the shuttle bus is extremely important but I’d like to find some way to word some priorities in the Transportation section that can have some meaning in a way that Annette is suggesting. I think this is an extremely important area and at the same time I don’t want to pick one little piece of it and have some City of Palo Alto Page 3 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 illusion that it is going to begin to tackle the problems that we are going to have to deal with because, just as the historic resources stuff came forward, transportation is going to come forward. We’re either going to deal with it or we are going to be told we’re going to be dealing with. So I’d like a chance go over that portion of it. Chairman Byrd: So you’d like to continue it? Commissioner Cassel: I’d like to continue to next time that portion of it. Now I’m willing to work till 10:00 and keep going and see how many of these we get done. Chairman Byrd: Well, if we are going to continue this item we may as well continue it now. We’ll have plenty of time next time. I’m hearing a general consensus in favor or a continuance. Commissioner Burt: In the context of revisiting this Transportation element, I’d like to encourage us to take a step back and we’ve talked about an action of the shuttle system that everyone is enthusiastic about, but we also seem to be looking at what’s the real objective or objectives that we are trying to achieve here. We’ve had two major divisive referendums in the City in recent years focused on development projects but really behind that debate has been largely an issue of a public sense of congestion problems and transportation problems as much or more than the development projects per se. I think we should return to defining the objective of reducing congestion and reducing automobile trips within the City. For myself, in order to try to set a priority I need to have a greater sense of where we have the greatest value in these programs. Which programs, for the amount of money that we spend, are going to have the greatest benefit in achieving those objectives. I don’t think we’re quite having that discussion. I think it is dangerous for our to leap forward toward cures to a problem just because viscerally we like a concept. I think we need to do some greater rational analysis and cost/benefit analysis in order to set these priorities. I think the priority of trip reduction is clearly a most important goal for the City and for the Comp Plan implementation. I don’t think we yet have the basis to determine how to best achieve that goal. I’d like to see some additional information to .help make that recommendation. Chairman Byrd: I agree with you but I do want to bound our conversation. We are not drafting the Comp Plan again. We already have these programs to work with and Staff is just looking for some input on how they are prioritized. Commissioner Burt: I’m not talking about re-drafting the Comp Plan in any way. I’m talking about how do we determine which of these excellent programs should have the highest priority. I don’t think we have the basis yet to determine that. Commissioner Cassel: Maybe we need that discussion next time. Commissioner Burt: I agree. Ken do you have any thoughts on it? City of Palo Alto Page 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Mr. Schreiber: I was going to make the observation that I don’t think the resources exist to provide you with what you want without a major delay in this process and probably the hiring of consultants to do some type of analysis. In other words, these are very complicated issues. Much of what we are talking about in the transportation section is really dealing with relatively small incremental changes in the transportation system. That’s the reality. Most people will continue to use their cars for most things. Trying to quantify in any type of cost/benefit basis, Staff can take a pure guess at things and give you numbers but I don’t think that’s what you want. I wouldn’t be comfortable as a Staff member doing that. Phyllis is getting an interesting beginning education of what a $75K consultant contract is going to yield but that is just one very narrow slice of the total range of issues. I really want to dissuade you from thinking that you are going to go through this process in the near future, the way it has been structured, and have that type of information. I think it is much more a sense of what the Commissioner feels are the community priorities. Cost/benefit is one thing but it is also what you feel the community priorities are. Maybe the community priorities really are shuttle buses and maybe shuttle buses aren’t going to get many trips off the road but they have a lot of other reasons to have a shuttle bus. So that is where we spend our money. Chairman Byrd: If we are going to close we may as well close. I don’t believe there is going to be an opportunity for additional Staff work to be performed on the draft implementation program between now and December 9. So perhaps what we can do is go back and look a little bit closer at this document and extract from it some priorities that rely on the data we have and also our sense of the community. Commissioner Burt: Owen, I was not presuming that we would be able to have anything even approaching definitive information on this but I think the dialogue needs to begin on what are the most effective programs. I think it’s something that will evolve over the next year or two. If we are talking about spending millions of dollars on programs and we’re saying that we really don’t have the time nor the resources to determine whether they are very effective, I would feel that that’s not a wise way for us to proceed. I think we need to have a greater evaluation of the effectiveness of these various programs in order to set priorities. I realize it is not a simple task and certainly I’m not looking for something comprehensive at this time. Chairman Byrd: We will then close this item and continue it to our December 9 meeting. That moves us in our agenda to Commission Member Questions, Comments, and Announcements. One bit of housekeeping that we need to undertake at this time is to identify City Council Meeting representatives for the first four months of 1999. Commissioner Bialson: Can I have January? Chairman Byrd: I like that start. Chairman Byrd: I’m due for one. I couldn’t do it earlier in the year. So that would be February. City of Palo Alto Page 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Chairman Byrd: March or April? Commissioner Sctmaidt: I guess I’ll take March. Commissioner Burt: April sounds good. Chairman Byrd: Thank you for your enthusiasm. Commissioner Schmidt: What about Jon and Bern? Chairman Byrd: Bern just went. So we will peg Jon for May. Other reports? Commissioner Cassel: There is a meeting on Tuesday, December 2, at 7:00 p.m. at Senior Center for the shuttle study. They are going to be looking at playing some games and the public is invited. We should be there if this is such an important issue to us. Part of the basic issue to look at is does a bus system serve the people who can’t get around or does it serve to move as many people as you can rapidly between places? If it does both, in what proportion? Difficult questions. What purpose is the bus system going to provide, for whom, and how do you spread the resources if you do that? Do come. Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Are there any other questions, comments or announcements? Mr. Gilliland: Reports from Officials, we’ll go back to that real quick. Just so everybody knows I did get a phone call from state HCD. Our housing element will be certified. Chairman Byrd: That’s great. That is very good news. That brings us to announcement of our next meeting which will be December 9. This meeting is now adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED: 10:00 PM City of Palo Alto Page 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 December 9, 1998 REGULAR MEETING- 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: Meeting called to order at 7:05 P.M. Commissioners: Owen Byrd, Chairman Kathy Schmidt, Vice-Chair Bern Beecham Annette Bialson Phyllis Cassel Patrick Burt Jon Schink - absent Staff: Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official Ken Schreiber, Deputy City Mgr., Sp. Proj. Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official Wynne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney Chairman Byrd: I’d like to call this Regular Meeting of December 9, 1998 of the Planning Commission to order. Would the clerk please call the roll. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chairman Byrd: The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications. This is the portion of our meeting where members of the public may address the Commission on items not on our agenda this evening. Do we have anyone who wishes to address us in Oral Communications? Seeing none, I’ll close that and move to Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chairman Byrd: Seeing none from my colleagues, we will then move to Approval of Minutes. have before us the Minutes of October 28, 1998. Do I have comments or a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 1998. We MOTION: SECOND: Commissioner Beecham: Commissioner Bialson: Motion to approve. Second MOTION PASSED: Chairman Byrd: Any discussion? There is a motion and a second to approve these minutes. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? They are approved 6-0 with Commissioner Schink absent. That brings us to Unfinished Business where we will continue the Public Hearing on Review of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Draft Implementation Chapter. Would Staff like to reintroduce this item? UNFINISHED BUSINESS. Public Hearings: Continuation of Review of the Comprehensive Plan Draft Implementation - Review and recommendation to the City Council on the Draft Implementation Plan for the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. (This item was continued from the November 18 Special meeting). Mr. Ken Schreiber. Deputy City Manager, Special Projects: Thank you. On November 18th the Planning Commission started discussion of a Staff generated document that contains priorities for implementation of the programs and a few policies in the new Comprehensive Plan. The Commission discussed how to try to respond to this document including the need for an introduction. The Commission did some program by program discussion in the Land Use and Community Design and Transportation areas. They identified some top program priorities and also talked about perhaps trying to identify broader themes. There was general agreement that the Zoning Ordinance update was a top, if not the top, priority. Staff certainly shares that sense with the Commission. In preparation for this meeting the Commission has received a couple of things. One is you have received the not yet edited minutes from November 18th as background information if that may help you. Secondly, we re-sorted the programs into three categories and distributed that. The three categories are On-Going Programs and there are 175 of those; the Zoning Ordinance Update and there are 49 programs that relate back into the Zoning Ordinance Update; then there are a group of programs that I’ll call Future Tasks. These are anywhere from the 0-2 year time frame for some Planning Division items to 8-12 years for other items. There are 116 programs in that category. So there are 340 programs, 116 are in the Future Task category. City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Now to be fair if we go back to the On-Going, there are some on-going activities that need some significant infusion of dollars to bring them up to the level of expectation that we think is established in the Comprehensive Plan. Some of these are what I will call relatively routine items. They are in the process, tor example Downtown Urban Design Improvements. There are capital improvement projects underway, there has been money appropriated, there is more money anticipated in the next budgets. So there is a momentum on some of these, they are already underway. Some of them are relatively small dollar items that generally could be fit within the City’s budget without great angst and problems. But of those 175 program, 38 need more dollars. I would say there are probably 12 of those 38 that fall into the category of significant dollars and not yet on a City radar screen in terms of the budget process. So we have 116 programs that are Future Tasks, not yet programmed and probably another 12 or so of the On-Going that need a very significant and not yet anticipated f’mancial infusion. Yesterday Staff had a conversation with the Chair as part of the normal pre Planning Commission meeting process. As part of that discussion we talked about identifying over-arching priorities within each chapter or section of the Comprehensive Plan. That might be an approach which would facilitate the Commission grappling with what are really the highest priorities. What you have in from of you I will term the Schreiber-Gilliland Comprehensive Plan priorities. It doesn’t represent any other City Staff besides the two of us. Between late yesterday afternoon and last night and a little bit this morning, we went through the chapters in the Comprehensive Plan and identified what we thought, were the key or highest priority areas within those chapters. You’ll notice that what you have in front of you starts with Governance, which is the last chapter, and works its way backwards down to Land Use and Community Design. We did that on purpose. We felt that the chapters Governance, Business and Economics, Community Services, Natural Environment and Housing, tend to be easier to get a hold of from a stand point of priorities. And are more manageable than when you get into Transportation and Land Use and Community Design. I think some of the struggle on November 18th related back to starting with the most complicated chapters in the Comprehensive Plan which inherently had the most difficult priority problem. So we did the reverse which may be a way that the Commission might want to approach this if you want to follow the material, if this is- of some use to you. The Commission also received tonight, at your places, a documem called Very Rough Draft Introduction by Commissioner Schmidt. Now, knowing Commissioner Schmidt’s writing abilities from past Commission process and past Comprehensive Plan process, even a very rough draft from Commissioner Schmidt is generally of very high quality. So this something that is probably more than just a few minutes of material tossed down. I’ve started to skim it and it certainly does not meet my definition of very rough. It is much beyond that. So the Commission has that in front of it. I think in terms of how you finish grappling with this, the Commission should consider that at the beginning. I think there are probably at least four alternatives I can think of immediately. You have Commissioner Schrnidt’s Draft and there is an initial identification of priorities and that may be something to start with and work off of. You could go back to the program by program review and City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 distill the comments after that. Again, if that was the case you are through, I think certainly, the two toughest chapters if you go back to the discussion you had in November. You could identify key priorities by chapter, by section of the Comprehensive Plan, and then establish some overall top priorities, and then identify the programs. That goes back to the material that Staff prepared yesterday. We’ve added in not only priorities within the chapters but also a first crack at programs that relate to those priorities. I might add that in doing that, it became obvious that the integration of the Comprehensive Plan is such that for many of these priorities there are programs in other parts of the Comprehensive Plan that are also relevant but we did not try to get to that level of analysis in the short time that we had to do this. Lastly and fourthly, but not in any sense of priority in terms of alternatives, you could focus on the programs that are not part of the budget, the ones to be done in the future that have not yet been put into the budget, the on-going items that need additional money. The ones that we sorted out called Future Tasks and also some of those On-Going. That again would lead you back to things that have greater likelihood of a budget priority discussion in the future because they are things that need to be added into the budget in some way or anther. Either as work tasks or work tasks with some type of significant financial commitment. Jim and I will be pleased to respond to this. Eric is here also and certainly has the background on the Planning Division Work Program and how that relates to all of this. Thank you. Chairman Byrd: Thank you Ken. I think what I’d like to do now is invite Kathy to explain to us her effort, and then when she’s finished with that, have a conversation among us on what we’re going to do tonight before we then go ahead and do it. Kathy why don’t you first describe your document. Commissionei~ Schmidt: Okay. Thank you. Bern and I talked today just generally about the Implementation Plan. After we talked I felt that we need, as I had mentioned a couple of weeks ago, to have an introduction and to put something down that would help outline Introduction and help organize my thinking and maybe some of the other Commissioner’s thinking. What I was trying to do here is to incorporate some of the things we said when we met two weeks ago. Some of the things that came up, and by the way, it was very, very helpful to have the draft minutes from last time. I think in cases like this where we have a continuing review of something it is really extremely helpful to have that so you can tie things together. So I was trying to put an introduction together that ties this back to the Comprehensive Plan itself and then will state some priorities and will bring in the conversation that we had last week. This is just a draft and obviously after we finish the introduction would obviously need to, if we choose to have one, be modified to incorporate things. Anyway, what this in brief says is that at the beginning I think it is useful to reiterate the main themes of the Comprehensive Plan. That is really part of our strategy, helps us look at priorities I think, to look at those main themes. The second part of this talks about the structure. The structure has been described in both written and verbal material that Ken has given us and that we’ve had in Staff reports and this is just the idea that there are lots of programs and that a lot of them are already addressed by on-going work that is being done. The next section, again, just an attempt at some priorities. These City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 are things that we talked about last week, update of the Zoning Ordinance, we talked about a shuttle, a couple of other things that are listed here, coordinated area plans, infrastructure has been mentioned by the Staff. This obviously is something that weneed to discuss and figure out. I think it is important to make a clear statement about priorities in the introduction to this. A couple of parts here are to note that there are some other influencing factors like we recognize that we don’t have the capital resources to do everything. And we don’t really know exactly how much all these things are going to cost and then obviously there are staffing limitations. The next section is to note, that as is already noted in the Plan but should be mentioned again here is, this is a living document and it is part of our duty to review it annually and that time priorities might change. We know that priorities will change over the life of this Plan. And there needs to be some sort of conclusion, I think. Chairman Byrd: Kathy, thank you very much, and Bern also, for putting in the extra effort to generate this document prior to our meeting. I think all of us were struggling at the end of the last hearing to figure out how we would conduct this hearing and this will help. Commissioner Schmidt: I neglected to mention that Bern also reviewed this after I put it together and made some comments. I don’t think I got all the comments in there but I got some of them in there. Chairman Byrd: I’d like to move us on now to a bounded discussion about what we do next. So that we decide what to do before we go ahead and do it. Staff has proposed four different ways to proceed this evening. If Commissioners have preference among those four choices or alternatives now would be the time to give voice to them. I know, in particular in speaking with Pat between our hearings, that he had talked a little bit about the importance of defining a methodology for priority setting before we go ahead and set priorities. Do you want to introduce those ideas now? Commissioner Burt: I commented on them at the last meeting and I’m not sure that in the context of this review we can re-establish a methodology. What I would hope is, because this is going to be an on-going process of updating the priorities annually, that we would in the ensuing years have a more involved methodology that would look at various aspects that drive the sequence and help define what are the most important programs for us to proceed on. We have a sorting according to timing but I think it’s important that we not confuse timing with importance. They aren’t identical, often the most immediate programs are .the most important but they may be ones that just sequentially must occur first, or ones that have low cost for moderately high benefit, or ones that have an urgency for some other reason but they aren’t necessarily the most important and highest priority programs. I think we, in the future, would need to come up with a method that looks at those four different ways in which we might define importance. And then look at how we establish the sequence and not to confuse those two, they .are both important ways to look at the programs but they don’t reflect the same things. So I would be comfortable with us, at the end of this process, trying to put a framework for the future on how we would approach this. Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Staff has presented us its distillation of three or four or more over- arching priorities for each chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. That is certainly one way to frame our discussion tonight. I also tend to agree with Staff that there is some momentum and maybe City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 confidence that may be generated by going in reverse order because it does seem to be easier to start at the back. Do Commissioners have a preference here on how we proceed? Is there agreement to begin with these Staff generated thematic priorities and possibly modify them or would you rather do it differently? Commissioner Beecham: To what conclusion if we do that? Chairman Byrd: Well my understanding from Staff is that Staff is looking for us to provide input and a recommendation to Council about what implementation activities are most important. We’ve got a laundry list of, what’s the full number Ken? Mr. Schreiber: 340 programs. Chairman Byrd: There are 340 programs. We need to distill out of that a couple of over-arching priority themes within each chapter so that the chapter gives guidance to Staff and the community about what’s most important to do in the Comp Plan. The difficulty in this process is if we, as Pat pointed out, if we just sort it by timing well that’s not the only issue at stake. And if we just speak in global terms we’re back to talking about policies and programs and writing a Comp Plan again, and I don’t think anyone wants to do that. So the trick is to somewhere short of going line item by line item through the programs and on the other hand, speaking just in goals and policies, is identifying themes that drive the programs. It’s a hard task. So I’m looking for suggestions on how to facilitate that process. One is to use this document. Anther is to use these re-sorted lists. Preferences on how we go? Commissioner Beecham: I guess I took an engineer’s approach. When we were here last week, and in the past I’d ask for a strategy, what is the Staff strategy and how do you do this and so on, and that’s what I think we’re still looking for and what may come out tonight. But lacking a strategy to try to understand how Staff got to where they came up with these items, I reverse engineered this list. What I came up with was how the Staff did it. The number one item is Staff took all the on-going programs and said here are the programs, these are on-going -- no decision. I don’t know if this is really true, this is just what it seemed like to me of course. Number two, Staff took the Division Work Plan -- there is another 50 items in the Division Work Plan. The Zoning Ordinance, that’s another 50 items more or less -- those are taken care of. So between the on-going, my count was a 175, 50 for the Division Work Plan, 50 for the Zoning Ordinance, that only leaves 75 left. So that cut your work down quite a bit. For those 75 left, Natural Environment, make them all 0-7 except one or two basically. Second, Community Services make them all 0-7. Business only had six, split them between 0-7 and 8-12, a toss up. Housing is taken care of basically, no open issues there. That leaves only Land Use and Transportation. They had a significant number, Transportation more than Land Use. So in my way of thinking, all these other items, there is no decision here. They are taken care of. The only marginal decision that we have are on a couple dozen in Transportation and Land Use. And on those it comes out fairly clear. On Land Use the key items in there really are the area plans. Staff strategy C(ty of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 on that is do one, push all the others in the back, but let’s find out what happens when we do one. After we do one we’ll assess what happens. The other Land Use items are not real significant in the overview, I think. In Transportation there are about 20 in the 0-7 range and about 10 that are in the 8-12. The ones that are in the 8-12 range generally are not major. On the other hand they don’t seem like to me they’d take a lot to do i.e., a bicycle routes in the wet lands, bicycle routes in Stanford Research Park, and things of that nature. So what I asked is "to what end" in your earlier question and what I came up with in that question is there’s not much in here for us. The way the Staff, and the way you’d logically want to get to these things is parcel out what you can that’s already been decided and what’s left? There is not a whole lot that is left. So I’d be curious on how accurate I am in reverse engineering this stuff but I think it is a short process in front of us now. In terms where we want to go, I still remember cIearly what Ed said last time and that is if we have not done the Zoning Ordinance, we’ve failed. I think that is the key issue. If we’ve not done that we’ve failed. There is nothing else I can say in here that resounds anywhere near as strongly as that. No other single issue in here, if we don’t do it, we’ve failed. There are a lot of other things we want to do but that is the over-arching item that, I think we all agree on that, we have to do. Beyond that things shade quite a bit. As I read through the minutes from the previous meeting, I paid a lot of attention to a discussion between Pat and Ken, that talked about cost benefit, in that example I think it was the shuttle. To me that raises the issue on Transportation there are alot of items in Transportation. Some are definitive, a lot of them are study, analyze, consider, look at, those kinds of things. We don’t know how good they’re going to be. We don’t know what impact they may have. We don’t really know what cost there is going to be and how difficult it will be to achieve it. So for me to say what’s the priority in Transportation? As Ken said last time, the community appears to want shuttles. We don’t really the cost/benefit of it. We don’t know the cost/benefit of many things in Transportation. To me, my next step in this is not necessarily on the agenda but I would suggest that, and this would need the clear support of both Council and Staff. I would suggest that the Commission make a strong sub-committee with an agenda approved by the Council in order to get Staff support, to go into detail on Transportation and do the assessment that we really ought to be doing for the priorities. As Pat said, we don’t understand the cost/benefit of these things. As Ken pointed out, we don’t have the information to do that yet. But by God, we sure need to know it before we take off and do something just to do something. So in a rambling fashion, that’s where I am at the moment. Chairman Byrd: Responses? Commissioner Cassel: I sort of left the meeting with the feeling that we were supposed to go home and think about what three or four major items we would like to see emphasized in the next few years or over the life of this Plan, unless we had some specific items in here that we really thought were out of line in the order that it was proposed rather than going back and saying what Bern had said. What three or four items do you think we must do over the next 10 years. So when I did my review I did it in that perspective. City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Obviously Zoning Ordinance first for a lot of reasons. I think it’s the most difficult and it will take us more time than we think because many portions of that are controversial. Transportation came in next for me. I didn’t word it as "the shuttle," I worded it more as Ken worded it, "the development of a local transit system." I did that because in the first few meetings that I’ve attended on the shuttle system, and in my experience of having to use the public transit system over the last year, I’ve become very aware of the difficulty of what’s going on and our total lack of knowledge of what we have, how much it costs, how to get around. We need to go back and look at some of those issues. Some of that will come up with the consultant. They will bring some of that information to us. We need to think of it in a broader sense than just a shuttle that’s going to run us between here and there and back again. It may be spontaneous coming out of the shuttle ~tuff. I agree with you that we need to go back and look at that and if at the end of 10 or 12 years we haven’t one, done something with a local transit system that makes us want to use it, and two with this inter-modal transit station. That’s something that really is significant and we really should work on. Those are two areas and not just think of it in terms of just a shuttle bus but a local transit system and all those pieces that go with it. That was my number two of importance. Commissioner Bialson: I saw the update of the Zoning Ordinance as key just as all the rest of us did. I also saw Transportation coming in as something we needed to determine the cost/benefit of as we discussed. Third I looked at what do we have to address in looking at our priorities and the ability to accomplish them. Essentially we have to look at the limitation of resources we have. Both the fiscal ones such as dollars and also Staff and City Council time and priorities and attention. With regard to that I saw the third priority as being some attempt to improve those resources of the City Council time. One of the things promoted by CPAC and the Comprehensive Plan was the increase in the Planning Commission’s authority. So that we could render final decisions and take perhaps some of the items off the plate of the City Council, allowing them greater time to address more policy issues. So I saw the thrust of our actions at this point in Implementing Comprehensive Plan, as perhaps forwarding, whether by charter or amendment which I understand is the method which would have to be used, some attempt to get to the core issues of the limitation of resources we have. And the only way I could see it was increase our revenue somewhat and I think we sort of addressed the protection and maintenance of Our strong economic base in our Zoning Ordinance. I think that that and the protection of our residential communities can be accomplished through the update of the Zoning Ordinance. How we improve upon the resources then I came to, let’s get some more time and availability of the City Council and that requires that we take on some of those tasks. I’d like that to be considered as one of the themes we might want to address in the Comprehensive Plan Implementation. Commissioner Burt: Just one other theme we may want to be reminding ourselves of tonight is how can we create a product out of these meetings that will enable the Council to go through their consideration of the Implementation Plan without merely repeating the process that we’ve gone through in these meetings. Is there a way that we can give them a product that reduces their need to go item by item through the Comp Plan elements and essentially do the process that we’re doing of reviewing the Implementation Plan. I don’t have, at this point in time, a recommendation on exactly what that should be. I think that a number of things that have been recommended so far seem to be City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 pointed in that direction. I just wanted us to remind ourselves that that’s one of our primary purposes here is to create a product for the Council and what would serve them best, and to continue to consider throughout tonight. Chairman Byrd: This may take less time that I first imagined. These are remarkably helpful comments. What I hear emerging from each Commissioner’s comments is at least a tentative outline of thematic priorities that could be a touch point for going through the Staff two-pager of priorities and/or some sort of the specific programs. The outline that I see emerging from everyone’s comments is number one Land Use, where we all agree that the Zoning Ordinance is most important, but Bern points out in addition that the area plans also have a high priority. Secondly, in Transportation, personally I really like Phyllis’ formulation that the priority is a "local transit system," which says it much better than just a shuttle. I would personally add to that the notion of a Land Use pattern that supports a local transit system which ties Transportation back to Land Use. But that’s just one person’s idea and that may or may not drop off. In addition, I think we should consider as the third point under Transportation, Bern’s suggestion of convening a sub- committee or creating a process to assess Transportation priorities. On this item it is appropriate to use the larger word "transportation" as opposed to just "transit" because the chapter speaks to road improvements and other forms of improvements that are not just transit specific, and to assess all those priorities requires looking at all transportation forms and not just transit. Beyond that I think that in sort of a third big roman numeral, Annette has identified just right, especially coming from us, that if the roman numeral is Assembling Resources to Implement The Comp Plan, that one way that we can assist in that is by suggesting a priority be placed on making the changes that enable the Commission to take on some work load. Although I think if we have a discussion about assembling resources to implement the Plan that’s probably most important for us, but. we might also want to address some of the budgetary andStaff time issues since the Division Work Program does get routed through us for comment. So there’s three items under roman three. Then finally, I couldn’t agree more with Pat, hopefully we can package this in a way that best helps the Council and avoids the need for them to plow through program by program. It sounds like we may not have to .do that either for the reasons that Bern stated. So my suggestion at this point is if Commissioner’s agree that this tentative three-part outline that I just described in at least a working frame work, that we now go back and take that outline and compare it with the two-pager that Staff produced and see where the connections or miss connections are. Does that make sense? My first roman numeral is Land Use and under it I have A. Zoning Ordinance and B. Area Plans. Roman numeral two is Transportation where A. Local Transit System, B. Land Use Pattern That Supports Transit, and C. Assessment of Transportation Priorities. Those three may not yet be in the right order. Roman numeral three involves assembling the resources to implement the Comp Plan which includes the discussion of budget, Staff time, and discussion of Council and Planning Commission time with a view towards moving quickly on the recommendation that Planning Commission increase its jurisdiction. That’s a rough first outline that we can now compare with the City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1, 2 3 Schreiber-Gilliland view of the world. Commissioner Schmidt: If we now go through this outline from Staff it seems to me that these are kind of sub-themes that we had major themes already mentioned in the Comp Plan, these are kind of sub-themes and you have given a working list of priorities that we’ve all kind of already said most of those are things we kind of agree on. So as we go through this list, is this then just to kind of look at some more ideas and if that would modify the list of the three major areas. I’m not quite sure otherwise how we would plug these back into this working list. Chairman Byrd: My suggestion is to go l!ne by line through these.two pages, there’s not many of them, and relate them back to this working outline that’s just been synthesized from our comments. Commissioner Schmidt: Maybe we’re saying the same thing. Just seeing if there are other things that come up. Chairman Byrd: Yes, that may expand the outline or we delete or modify some. Let’s .give it a try and see how it goes. Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, I think that’s something we should go through here. I’m just trying to establish in my own mind what this will look like. Chairman Byrd: As we go through it, let’s go through it with a view towards taking each of the bullet points that Staff has come up with and seeing how it fits with this early tentative outline that we just came up with. Mr. Schreiber: I think you are on the right track. Our intention was certainly not to recommend that you identify all of these priorities for the City Council. Our effort here was to pull out two, three, four key things from each chapter to at least give you a list to work off of, to then try to identify what the top priorities are. This is in response to your discussion last time where you were grappling with how to identify the top priority for the Council. There was a general sense on the Commission that it would be very good to do that. So we are responding to that by giving you something to start talking about, basically. Chairman Byrd: Right now we’ve got tentatively identified six priorities. The Zoning Ordinance, the Area Plans, the local transit system, the land use pattern to support the transit, the process of assessing transportation priorities and the Planning Commission/City Council relationship. That list may expand or contract as we go through this. So why don’t we walk through this at this point. In reverse order, we begin with Governance, Staff has identified three thematic priorities emerging from the list of programs. The first is to enhance communication among residents, organizations and the City. The second is to encourage citizen volunteers. The third is to make Planning Regulations and other City rules more understandable. Do any of those three, which I think Ken is putting up on the overhead, belong on our list or should any of them be integrated into our list? City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Commissioner Beecham: For me, as I look at these, my criteria for putting them on the list are: are they over-arching and are they very difficult? I do that for two reasons. One because I don’t want anybody to think that because it’s not put on this list over here that it’s not important. The short list has got to be those things that, in my opinion, that are going to require a lot of attention and a lot of effort and are not going to be easy and will have a tremendous impact on the City. So to me, that requires this to be a very short, very focused list and won’t include many things that are important because I think they are relatively easier to achieve. So to me a lot of these things, yes they are important, and yes they all made it into the Comp Plan, and these are good themes, but I don’t think that they will be that difficult and require that much focused attention by us and the Council and the Staff to ensure they happen in the coming years. Chairman Byrd: Armette, these three items speak indirectly to issue of volunteer resource time, Commissioners and Council members are volunteers, and the issue of how we make best use of the resource of volunteer time and volunteer leadership time in the community is important. Would you integrate any of these ideas or themes into that over-arching goal you articulated earlier? Commissioner Bialson: I think they are included somewhat in the over-arching theme of looking at the resources we have available for implementing the Comprehensive Plan. I think it would dilute to a certain extent the thrust of what I was speaking to if we tried to incorporate all these things into it. I look at what I was speaking to, that is the Planning Commission taking on more duties, as something that has repeatedly come up over the years and always gets pushed aside. When we recently had a meeting, I believe it was last year with the City Council, looking to what we could do on the Planning Commission to assist them, they again essentially were saying help us. How do you think you can help us? I think if we just leave it with not going into addressing budget and Staff time which we really don’t have anything we can do about those two matters. But one which we can advance/push is the Planning Commission taking on some of the actions that hopefully free up the Council to deal with other issues. Chairman Byrd: There was talk earlier about the Planning Commission expanding its jurisdiction to include review of transportation issues. And just as the second item on our Transportation list relates Transportation back to Land Use, would you add a reference to Transportation jurisdiction in this section to relate it back to Transportation, or is that too detailed? Commissioner Bialson: I don’t think that’s too detailed. I think it amplifies to a certain extent what we can do to assist in this implementation process and can be incorporated by the use of three or four words. I do think that’s a very good idea to again sort of amplify what the Planning Commission is willing to take on. Chairman Byrd: So at this point the suggestions are final authority over certain decisions that wouldn’t go up to Council and then secondly, some review of transportation items. Commissioner Bialson: I think incorporating Transportation clearly within our thrust of what we do would be something that I would suggest. Again, it was brought up at the time we met with City City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Council as to whether or not a separate Transportation Commission was required or this was something that the Planning Commission could do. Chairman Byrd: Other comments on these three Governance ideas? Kathy. Commissioner Schmidt: I think that as we go through these there will be various of them that relate back to the themes that we’ve identified as one, two, three. For example, making planning regulations more understandable, that’s certainly part of the Zoning Ordinance Update. So when we get to the end of this list we still may want to think about these as some minor themes that we would want to include with the Implementation section. Again, it helps us think beyond the scope of major themes, priorities, that this is still helpful information for Council. It could be helpful information for anyone looking at the Implementation section later. Just something to think about. Chairman Byrd: So for now should we make a note next to our Zoning Ordinance priority that one of the tasks there is to make a Zoning Ordinance that is more understandable because it relates back the Governance chapter? Commissioner Schmidt: We could. I’m sort of saying that maybe at the end of this list we might say that this is still a good list that lays out sub-themes in the whole Implementation, in the whole Plan, that is sort of a useful framework to help look at things. I don’t know if we need to go into more detail. I would like to keep our priorities pretty simple too. So I’m not saying we should append that just saying that that relates back to it. One more thing in regard to the Transportation suggestion from Bern. I think that’s an excellent idea to have a sub-committee from the Planning Commission take on looking at Transportation on a regular basis. The idea of looking at Transportation on a regular basis also occurred to me. Bern’s idea of doing it as a sub-committee is a great way to do it. I think we’d also want to make sure that we plan for a regular review of what that sub-committee is doing, whether it’s every six months or annually, to make sure that comes back to the Planning Commission. I am supporting that as an excellent piece to add to what Planning Commission responsibilities might be. Commissioner Burt: As ’I look through the list that was provided to us by Ken what I’ve seen is that I . keep going back to whether we should be looking at programs as priorities or perhaps policies. I’ve been looking back and forth and for instance, in the Governance section we have Policy G-I that clearly addresses Annette’s concern to delegate appropriate decision-making to the Planning Commission. Policy G-2 which is to use advisory bodies and ad hoc committees to assist City Staff and City Council on policy issues. Both of those are under the Goal G-1 which is a public participation goal, effective opportunities for public participation in local government. I know that we have to be wary of just giving the over-reaching concepts as what are our priorities but in many circumstances I see the policies as being a better statement of our priorities than trying to go into the minutia of the individual programs and listing a dozen different programs as priorities. Having said that, there is one program that maybe should have a greater priority. That is G-20 which City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 is develop, use and update when necessary design guidelines for various geographic areas of the City or types of projects to supplement the ARB Ordinance. That seems to be a program that is talking about the very important and problematic issue of design review potential for residential as well as other architecture. So I think that no matter how that program works out I think it has been addressed in the community as a priority and should be certainly included as one of the priorities, and I think within the Governance section, one of the highest ones. Chairman Byrd: Are you suggesting within the working three-part outline that we have that that would be an additional priority under Land Use? We’ve got the Zoning Ordinance Update and Area Plans and Design Review would be a part of that? Commissioner Burt: I think it probably does belong most Of all under Land Use and we should identify it also as a priority within the Governance section. Chairman Byrd: How do you do that without anticipating whether you are in favor of it or not? In favor of Design Review? Commissioner Burt: Yes, whether you are in favor of it at this point in time or against it or undecided, it is very clear that it is an important civic issue at this time in the community. So I don’t think we have to determine the outcome of consideration of that issue in order to be in agreement that it is an important issue. Chairman Byrd: Do other Commissioners have an objection at this point to adding that, Item C, as an item under Land Use? Commissioner Bialson: I’m sort of torn with whether we put it in now and make a speech later saying it’s not appropriate to have in when we do a final review, perhaps at the end of this meeting. I think we’ve all said we want a short list, a well focused list, and one which is going to accomplish focusing the mind of the citizenry and the Council on what needs to be done to accomplish the Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Ordinance in terms of the Land Use issues and the Area Plans I think are key and- are PoSsibly achievable. No one knows what’s going to happen next year or the year after as to whether or not we end up with some sort of design guidelines or some sort of design review of any new residences put up. I’d hate to have us dilute the thrust of this by having too many little issues, not that design guidelines is a little issue, but in terms of what we are trying to accomplish here -- the over-arching issues. I don’t think it is appropriate to put in. Commissioner Beecham: Annette took the broad approach, let me take a narrow point on this. That is that the issue that Pat brings up I think is important for the community. At this point it has literally been stuck in the face of the Council. What I want to do here is hopefully do something useful that they don’t already have. At this point I don’t see that it’s going to be useful for us to recommend they evaluate that issue when it is already on their plate. This I see as focus for the Comp Plan. Again, if we didn’t do that we failed. The issue, number one, is going to be shortly, addressed by the Council. If it isn’t it’s because the Council believes it’s not important and we’re not going to change City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 that. I also see a lot of benefit in doing design review and I think it would have got us out of some other issues we’ve been into recently but I don’t see that as something to be put into this over-arching list of priorities for the Comp Plan. Mr. Schreiber: I just wanted to tag on to some of Bern’s comments and bring back the discussion to really focus on the Comprehensive Plan, Program G-20 relates to Design Guidelines in the context of the Architectural Review Board Ordinance. So it has nothing to do with single family housing whether that be pre-1940 or post-1940 or demolitions, etc. I don’t believe that the issue of single family design guidelines, or design review, except for historic, is addressed as a policy issue in the Comprehensive Plan. I think that is going to take on its own form in the next year or so. My guess will be that you will have it back in front of you as a policy issue. But at this point in time, certainly Program G-20 1 would suggest is not a jumping off point to get into that. If you look at the wording of the program. I think one of the issues we had with other Boards and Commissions was to try to focus and say now, just look at the wording of the program and don’t start re-writing the program. This is not a process, as Commissioner Byrd said, for re-writing the Comprehensive Plan, it is a process for just looking at the existing adopted program. Commissioner Beecham: Thank you Ken, I stand corrected. Commissioner Cassel: I think you were pointed out that this doesn’t apply to single family design guidelines, that’s always on the top of everyone’s issue. But my concern is that single family design guidelines comes under Zoning Ordinance. And Zoning Ordinance we’ve said is high priority. My biggest concern is that they don’t make it part of that process and we lose the comprehensiveness of the subject. It effects a lot of different issues like how close things are going to be to the sides of properties and all kinds of other parts of our Zoning Ordinance. I would presume it’s a high priority item and it comes under the Zoning Ordinance, we’ve already said that that review is high priority. Chairman Byrd: We’re still not clear on what form this list is going to take. One option is for these six priorities, or whatever the final number is, to be supplemented with some sub bullets beneath them. If that happens for example, we can have a sub bullet under Zoning Ordinance that says make planning regs more understandable, which is one of the themes which emerges from Governance. Another possible sub bullet under Zoning is to consider design review. Although I take Staff’s comment that that issue really isn’t contained in this Comp Plan and so may not be appropriate to extract from it at this time. Do we need to resolve this one now. Commissioner Schmidt: I think we can figure that out when we’ve gone through the list. Another possibility is, kind of how I approached it in that Draft Introduction, that there would be a statement of a priority and then just a few sentences that describe.why or what we’re doing here. Chairman Byrd: Okay, let me move us on. What I’m extracting for now from the three bullets in the Staff list under Governance is that we will not be making mention of the first two but that we might subsume the third one under the broad heading of updating the Zoning Ordinance and make some reference to an understandable Zoning Ordinance. City ofPalo Alto Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Commissioner Bialson: I have a problem with that. It says that in our update of the Zoning Ordinance that is going to be our main, or one of our main, reasons for creating a Zoning Ordinance is to make it more understandable and that is not the thrust of the Zoning Ordinance I see. I see it as presenting and creating some sort of framework for ~11 the programs and values that we have expressed in the Comprehensive Plan being stated in our Ordinances. Whether or not they are understandable, to me, is not a major item. In re-doing the Ordinance we want to make them clear, we want to have them advance those values that we see as important. Making them understandable is not one of the main issues for me. Chairman Byrd: I agree with you, and I think that once we work our way through the Land Use chapter four or five other sub bullets under the Zoning Ordinance will emerge that are a higher priority than this, but this one may end up needing to remain on the list in order to integrate the list and relate it back to the Governance chapter even though it has a lower priority. Commissioner Bialson: I think if we have five to seven sub bullets, so to speak, under the issue of the Zoning Ordinance we are again diluting the thrust of what we are presenting to the Council. I would prefer not to have that long a list. I like the method presentation that this Introduction had. I for one, do not see we need a long document. I think it’s going to hurt the importance that we present for each item to have a number of bullets underneath it. I think we’ve got to focus, as we talked about last meeting, on certain over-riding and over-arching issues. Commissioner Beecham: I agree with that and I’ve looked over the list that Ken and Jim had come up with and they are all great programs. At this point I don’t see anything that I’d add to the list that you summarized for us a little bit earlier on your romans one, two and three. I don’t know if we want to find out quickly if others agree with that idea or not, that we simply leave it at what we’ve got it enumerated at currently. Mr. Jim Gilliland. Assistant Planning Official: I think that you will serve yourself best with the City Council in doing a very succinct five or six items. The Council is going to have the same problem going through this document that every other Board and Commission has. What they are looking for from you is a way to say~ what are our big priorities? What should we be telling our Staff to do? The Zoning Ordinance Update we all know, and I’ll use that one because it is the easy one to pick on, and I don’t think you want to list a whole bunch of things underneath it about the Zoning Ordinance. There are 50 programs in there that talk about the Zoning Ordinance Update. They are all there. You don’t want to start diluting it by putting little bullets under it. That is still your number one priority. What Commissioner Schmidt prepared is very, very good and what you started in it was putting those five or six priorities in there, you’ve got the Zoning Ordinance Update. What we need to do now is get the two, three, four and five items. I’ll back up and say that I may regret that I was the one that said maybe you should do it backwards with Business and Economics because now we’ve gotten down into the minutia of Business and Economics where you’d already gone through Land Use and Transportation. Mr. Schreiber: If I could just tagon to that I think Jim is quite right. What Eric indicated at the last City of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 meeting is that the Planning Division Work Program involves, the next year and a half or so, preparation of a Work Program for the Zoning Ordinance UPdate. It was Staff’s strong belief that venturing out into the Zoning Ordinance Update, given 49 programs and probably a large number of desires and hopes that didn’t even end up in the program category, that venturing out into that without a work program is going to be a more difficult and a more potentially helter-skelter process. That would be a work program that I would certainly anticipate the Commission as well as the Council is going to review. In developing that work program the issues of specific programs here, plugging them in and giving them relative weight or not, adding additional concepts beyond what’s in the Comp Plan is all very legitimate. I think you will all have a very interesting time trying to sort out exactly how to approach the Zoning Ordinance because there will be so many things on that list that will need to be addressed. Chairman Byrd: If our experience in going through the Governance chapter suggests that maybe we don’t have to go through the remaining chapters on the Staff list. This, again as I said earlier, may be easier than we thought it was going to be. I had distilled from all our comments a three-part list with some sub-heads under it but in looking at it again it may not be right. So let me throw out a possibly final task for us. I’ve heard six priorities described and if these are the right six then maybe our task is to see if we can even rank order those six. The six are: 1. Re-write the Zoning Ordinance; 2.- Prepare Area Plans; 3. To Establish a Local Transit System; 4. To Encourage a Land Use Pattern That Supports Transit Use; 5. To Assess Transportation Priorities; and 6. To Delegate Appropriate Decision-Making To The Planning Commission. Are those the right six? Commissioner Bialson: I would suggest one thing and that is with regard to Local Transit Systems. I think going back to the point that was raised by Pat, I think you still have to study or assess the establishment of a local transit system. I don’t think we have, at this point in time, enough information to say we should establish it. I think what we need to say is it does need to be assessed. Commissioner Cassel: I think looking at this over 10 or 12 years we are starting already in the study process. I hope at the end of 12 years I hope we have established some kind of system over that period of time. It may not look exactly as people are perceiving it right this moment but we need to have done something over those 12 years. We’ve got a really urgent problem with people moving around this City and if you want, we can add study and implement. But I think we really need to have done something otherwise we can’t do any of our housing or any of our other stuft. We’re really tied to doing something with the transportation system in order to house people, in order to employ them. Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate your point and I think that perhaps study and implement would be the proper terminology. Commissioner Schmidt: I disagree with Phyllis’ leaning to say "implement" we need to do something in the life of this plan. Some comments that we made last time, I think Ken made them, maybe if you City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 look at doing a local transit system is not going to have the best cost/benefit analysis but it is a very public statement that Palo Alto is concerned about getting people out of their cars. It also serves to educate people, it serves to do more than just be some sort of shuttle system. I’d like very much the wording of a "local transit system." I think we just should say implement a local transit system within the time frame of this plan. I don’t think we need to study that. I think it is very important to do some cost benefit analysis of other transit or transportation options. I actually tried to incorporate some of that into the Introduction. I think these ideas can be incorporated into the description of the final half a dozen priorities that we suggest here. Mr. Schreiber: In putting together the Staff sense of priority the wording that I used was improve and increase local transit services. "I did not want to use transit system". Now we may be talking about the same thing but under transit services I would put upgrading Cal-Train’s overall system, local stations, etc. My caution is that local transit system can be very easily translated into a bus system. A local system that the City will make run. And actually transit services there are a lot of things we don’t run. Valley Transportation Agency, Sam Trans routes in Palo Alto that Staff spent a lot of time over the years trying to get those types of services upgraded. Add more frequent routes, better timing, etc. So I’m just cautioning on the use of the word transit system. I think out in the general public it carries a meaning that maybe too narrow for where you are indicating you’d like to go. Chairman Byrd: For purposes of discussion, let me flarow out my rank order priority of those six. Then have us critique it. I don’t think anyone disagrees that establishing a local transit system or local transit priorities is going to be on our list. From everyone’s comments it seems to me that re-writing the Zoning Ordinance is the highest priority. Really of the six it sort of breaks down into three that are getting ready to go and three are going. Number one, we’ve got to write the Zoning Ordinance in order to then zone land and achieve projects that meet the Comp Plan’s goals. Number two, we’ve got to assess our transportation priorities, as Bern says, before we then begin to act and make decisions about what to fund and what to run. I would put as number three getting to delegating appropriate decision-making to the Planning Commission because it is another systemic issue. It assembles resources that we need to implement the Plan. Then you get to the next three which actually begin to change things on the ground. I would put as number four, creating Area Plans, or at least creating that first one and evaluating it. Number five, establishing a local transit system or priorities, however we word it. And finally because it meets Bern criteria of being difficult to do and takes a long time to do, establishing a transit oriented land use pattern that will reinforce that transit system. So there is one way to rank them one to six. Feedback? Bern? Commissioner Beecham: I’m still enamored with how you listed these initially which was un- arranged but categorized. I would be quite comfortable just going to Council saying here are our top priorities, if we don’t do these things we screwed up. If we can come up with a priority list I think that’s great but I don’t think it’s really necessary. On the resources, I would drop that off this list. If we don’t transfer authorities or whatever from the City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Council to this Planning Commission nobody is going to say, "the City failed." It’s not going to be noticed. It’s important to us and I think it will genuinely offer some economies to the City Government but in the scheme of what’s important to the City nobody is going to notice. Commissioner Bialson: I absolutely agree that no one will notice and it doesn’t rise to the, well we have not accomplished what we are supposed to do -- if we didn’t do it we failed, level. I think that that is not the only standard by which we are going to be judged. We should also be judged by whether we started thinking somewhat outside the box. To me, that is how you deal with, I think Owen put it, a systemic issue which is the resources that are applied to issues that face this City. It, to me, addresses a large concern that we have to answer how do we somehow expand without dealing with budget and Staff resource issues. I want a short list. I absolutely agree with you but I would not drop the delegating because I think it goes to a core matter. Hopefully we’ll encourage thinking, as we look at the short list, of how do we accomplish changing somehow the structure of the way these issues are addressed. This may not be the only change in structure we have to go through but I think we have to do it. I do think it belongs on the short list. If you want to shorten the list, and this sort of goes to what Owen asked for, I would drop some of the items with regard to creating an Area Plan. That’s already being done. That is not a priority that is an over-arching one. I would drop that. We are accomplishing that at this time. I think we need to use the language that Ken came up with which is improve and increase local transit services. I think that deals with the issue of having to study and establish some sort of system. It is broad enough language and the way we should be thinking of that issue to address the needs. We then have the Zoning Ordinance, the improve and increase local transit services, the delegating of certain tasks to the Planning Commission, and on the issue of encouraging land use patterns supporting transportation I think that’s something that comes in again under the Zoning Ordinance. That’s not a separate item. If we want to, indicate of the tasks to be assigned to the Planning Commission are not only some of these that remove some of the burden from the City Council but also increase the importance of Transportation so that Planning Commission deals with transportation issues, that can be perhaps, as you put it, a sub bullet. I think we can address by assigning things to the Planning Co .remission, increasing the time availability and resources of Council and two, having Transportation acknowledged to be an important issue by having the Planning Commission have that as part of their area of responsibility. Commissioner Beecham: Can I summarize what you just said? I think what I got out of what you said was a shorter list which is update the Zoning Ordinance, Assess Transportation Strategies - a task to be assigned to the Planning Commission, and Improve and Increase Local Transit Services. Commissioner Bialson: I would also still have besides Transportation, the increasing of the tasks that Planning Commission accomplishes. Otherwise pretty good. Commissioner Burt: I think that for purposes of consistency we either go with a program of making these concise or delineating a bunch of bullets. And I’ve come around toward Bern’s advocacy of making them concise. In that sense, I think the important aspect Annette had brought up about City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 assessment of resources is really the major point. And within that category one of several important resource assessments would be the utilization of the Planning Commission as a resource. I think that there are others that are equally as important, maybe not as important to the Planning Commission themselves, but equally important to the City, i.e., the budgeting, the Staff constraints, but also other resources. We have a limit on present resources to accomplish the programs of the Comprehensive Plan. A number of the programs of the Comprehensive Plan suggest broadening our concept of financial resources, public/private partnerships, other ways that we might bring resources into the goal of accomplishing these programs. So I would be comfortable with this other category being an assessment or pursuit of resources to achieve the goals of the Comp Plan. If we want to very briefly include within that the expanded role of the Planning Commission as one of those that would be fine. I think the over-reaching category would be Assessment of Resources which I thought Annette’s original proposal was. Then it has since focused too much on the Planning Commission role which I think is important but I don’t think is the over-riding issue. Commissioner Cassel: Two things. I agree with Annette concerning encouraging a Land Use pattern that supports transportation. I think that it does go under the Zoning Ordinance. However, I don’t agree in terms of dropping the Area Plan. When I came in this evening I was prepared to recognize that we are hopefully about to complete one within a reasonable time frame, that we are continuing to work on what we call the "dream team," the University Avenue Inter-model Transit area, and that we need to work on. And I would be disappointed if we haven’t completed the South E1 Camino Area Plan and that is going to face us to deal with whether we like it or not. That issue is coming forward and there is a great deal of growth in that area. I would like to see us, in talking about the time frames, 8 year, 10 year time frames, I thought we were going to have to deal with more rapidly than the 8 year line. So I would hate to see us drop that, not because I expect to necessarily get through every area plan, but because it is a way of dealing with some crucial neighborhood problems. Chairman Byrd: I didn’t read them when I was reading out my list, but I did scratch a Commissioner’s name to each one of these six items. It turns out that each one was advanced by a different person. Since I mentioned the Transit Oriented Land Use Pattern let me rise to its defense. I think it should stand alone because it is so difficult and because it is so central to everything else we want to do. We can di:aft low density area plans that won’t achieve our intent of establishing local transit systems and we can write a Zoning Ordinance that wiil guarantee a land use pattern that won’t support transit. I think it’s important to always make that link between land use and transportation. For that reason, I think having that stand out as a priority is perhaps the most central feature of the Comp Plan. So I would strongly urge us to let it stand on its own. The other comment I want to make is that I tend to agree with Pat that expressing the notion of assembling or assessing resources to implement the Planning Commission speaks slightly more broadly than the narrow task of delegating decision-making to us which is clearly a critical component of assembling those resources but isn’t the only one. So it may be worth expanding our notion of that item. Commissioner Bialson: Assembling Resources sounds great but I don’t think at the end of the day we’re going to be able to say we accomplished that or didn’t accomplish that. It’s a sort of feel-good sort of thing. We’re great at expressing but you can’t quantify whether or not you accomplished City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 anything. I’m trying to come up with something that you can say, as you say, if we didn’t do it, we failed. So I just think of the fact that for instance, the City Council while wrangling with the Historic Resource Ordinance is going to have to interrupt its time to deal with an appeal from a fence variance, to me that just doesn’t quite make a heck of a lot of sense. That’s part of why I came up with let’s deal with what’s important at the City Council. Let’s deal with policy and some of these other issues and take some of this off its plate. I don’t want to expand that section. I think it deserves some attention and it deserves specificity. Commissioner Burt: I’m just not sure that whether we can quantify an issue has been the basis for inclusion here. Owen’s important point about linking land use and transportation, I don’t think, is readily quantifiable. On the other hand, I actually do think that at the end of this 12 year period, we may very well be able’ to quantify gathering of supplemental resources that have occurred. They may be readily quantifiable, i.e., grants from the Packard Foundation for a park acquisition, or various other, are certainly quantifiable resources. I don’t really follow that distinction and I still am unconvinced that focus on the important expansion of the Planning Commission role is really the broad issue that we want to say. I think it is a very important one but I remain in support of focusing on expanding resources as a key aspect to being able to accomplish this Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Schmidt: My opinion is that we need to obviously have the Updated Zoning Ordinance. I would like also as Phyllis would to keep the Area Plans listed as one of the priorities. I think it is important to address Transit Services whether it’s improving or increase transit services, whatever the wording is, I think that’s an important one. I do not think that it is important to list giving more decision-making authority to the Planning Commission. I don’t think that should be listed as a priority. I think it can be described in the text of our Introduction as something that needs to be done. But I don’t think that should be listed as a clear priority. As for the link of Land Use Patterns and Transportation actually I’ve already put that in the text under Zoning Ordinance in this Introduction. I could go either way as to whether it needs a separate bullet. I agree completely with you that it is a very important thing but it is kind of hard to grasp exactly what tasks we do to do that. I could go either way whether it gets an explanation under the Zoning Ordinance or has its own separate item. Commissioner Beecham:’ Given this discussion I’d like to make a motion that I hope meets most our support. The motion lists four items unranked. Chairman Byrd: Before you make the motion, the procedural thought that I had next was that we make a separate motion on each of the six points. If you are about to make a motion that groups a bunch of points together it is going to be more procedurally difficult to get us out of here. Commissioner Beecham: Let me try it, I think it will pass actually. Chairman Byrd : Okay, go ahead. Commissioner Beecham: I move that we pass to the Council the four following over-riding priorities City of Palo Alto Page 20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 0 1 2 3 for the Comp Plan Implementation: Update the Zoning Ordinance, Initiate Coordinated Area Plans (perhaps starting with SOFA-PAN area), Assess Transportation Strategies, Improve and Increase Local Transit Services. That does not obviously include assessment of resources, nor does it include establishing land use strategies to support mass transit. That I am assuming will be in the text as Kathy mentioned. Commissioner Cassel: Would you repeat the wording for number 4? Commissioner Beecham: It’s the same wording that Staff has which is Improve and Increase Local Transit Services. Chairman Byrd: There’s a motion, is there a second? Commissioner Bialson: Second. Chairman Byrd: Discussion of the motion? Commissioner Beecham: NO more discussion. Chairman Byrd: Discussion by the Seconder? Commissioner Bialson: None needed. Chairman Byrd: Discussion by other Commissioners? Commissioner Burt: So Bern you did not want to include, I just want to make sure I heard it right because I was trying to follow some of the aspects, you made no mention of assessment of resources? Commissioner Beecham: That’s correct. Commissioner Bialson: I heard that it was going to be referred to in the Introduction. I see as a Seconder the thing that was mentioned by Bern that we would have some sort of introduction akin to what Kathy presented us with. Is that correct Bern? Commissioner Beecham: I did refer to the Introduction and that was more however to the point of supporting strategies for mass transit which Kathy indicated she’s got a comment in here about that. I was not otherwise speaking of a comment in the Introduction for assessment of resources. However, as a side codicil to my colleague here, I did mention to her during our private discussion that I would certainly strongly support increasing the Planning Commission responsibilities. That’ s not part of my motion. Chairman Byrd: Bern, in the interest of using language that suggests we have hard tasks to perform would you consider on the second, instead of initiating coordinated area plans, completing City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 coordinated area plans. It’s easy to initiate them but the task is to complete them and implement them. Commissioner Beecham: I think I like initiate more because I’m convinced we will do an area plan for PAMF/SOFA. I think we’re going to learn a lot from doing that and go from there. Mr. Schreiber: That coordinated area plan has been initiated and is well underway. So to the extent that initiate is a future tense it would not include, I would say, PAMF/SOFA, it would be other ones besides that. Commissioner Beecham: In that case, "complete" sounds fine or "implement." Mr. Riel: In fact it is going to be before you in February. Chairman Byrd: Is that acceptable to the seconder? Complete and Implement. Commissioner Bialson: That would be fine or the term that the Comp Plan used was "use" coordinated plan. I think that might be easier. It is word-smithing. I don’t particularly care. Mr. Riel: Bern, did that include the Introduction or what was prepared by Kathy? Did your motion include this? Commissioner Beecham: By reference, yes. Obviously it needs to be modified and adapted but basically yes. Chairman Byrd: Before we vote on the motion I want to address, if the motion passes, what we do next with it. Do we want then to go through a drafting process and then bring it back on January 13th so we have a document to forward to Council that reflects these four, if the motion passes? Commissioner Beecham: As with many of our motions we request Staff to make our words sound good and come back to us. Mr. Schreiber: I think that what would be appropriate would be perhaps to have a Commission committee, Kathy and maybe somebody else, work with Staff on refining the wording. If the essence is here in terms of this plus your priorities you could then delegate that to a committee working with Staff to put that package together. Commissioner Bialson: I actually volunteer to be on that committee with Kathy. Chairman Byrd: Let’s see where the motion goes first. Commissioner Beecham: Let me modify my motion to include a sub-committee of myself and my two colleagues immediately adjacent to me to take the rough draft as initiated by Kathy and bring that City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 back to the Commission as a whole. Commissioner Burt: Just a comment and a question on the coordinated area plans which I’m an enthusiastic supporter of. In the Comp Plan there are a number of places where there are references to similar but smaller kind of efforts and I just wasn’t sure whether narrowing specifying the coordinated area plans captured these efforts to do specific planning in other areas whether it be neighborhood shopping developments or things like that. Any thoughts on that Bern? Commissioner Beecham: You are right, if I recall four coordinated area plans and then two or three plans slightly differently named. I am assuming that they are all generically in the same family. Commissioner Burt: I think conceptually they are. I’m just searching for verbiage that would capture that broader concept is what we are really referring to. Commissioner Beecham: I would say we should put that then in the text. Commissioner Burt: Or let you work it out in committee. Chairman Byrd: Let me put forward one additional thought for our consideration before we vote. The motion as stated has four bullets, two of which are land use, the second two are transportation. It means we are not speaking in our priorities to housing, the natural environment, community services, business economics and governance. Is that our intent? I for example, had hoped that there would be some reference to affordable housing which I think is a key priority. I don’t mean to introduce one ¯ subject at the expense of others. I use it just as an example. Is this list too short? Commissioner Cassel: I am an affordable housing person. I think that some of those issues are going to come up in our Zoning Ordinance. We’re talking about supply issues. No matter how much effort we put into affordable housing if we don’t increase the supply and put it in some kind of relationship to the amount of jobs in the area, we’re not going to tackle the affordable housing issue. So it’s not that I’m not interested in the housing issues but that we have a grasp on them, we have a mechanism for using under the current available resources, and the issue is even bigger than the financial support that we now have for affordable housing programs. Commissioner Schmidt: I was actually going to bring up the same question that you just brought up Owen. I think that it’s important to keep our list of priorities fairly short. We’ve talked about that a lot. Even in the Introduction, I went back and started with the major themes of the Comprehensive Plan. Those mentioned all or most of the things that you just mentioned. I think it is very important to bring all those things forward and then to say that the whgle Implementation chapter is in support of those things. So I think it needs mentioning, maybe it needs mentioning in a bolder way as part of the introductory statement. But I think we still need to keep our list of priorities fairly short. Chairman Byrd: Any further discussion on the motion? Does it need to be re-stated? City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 Commissioner Burt: Not unless we have a majority that would like to see resources assessment and expansion included. Chairman Byrd: Is that a proposed friendly amendment? Commissioner Burt: It is a proposed friendly amendment. Chairman Byrd: Is there a second? The amendment dies for lack of a second. Seeing no further discussion. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That carries on a 6-0 vote with the next step that Staff and a sub-committee of Bern, Kathy and Annette work to draft a document that expresses the four priorities contained in the motion as well as includes some introductory and context setting language similar to what is contained in Kathy’s very rough draft and bring that back to us on? Mr. Riel: The January 13th meeting for a very brief discussion. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES. Chairman Byrd: Very good. That concludes this item on tonight’s agenda. That moves us on to New Business, we have none. Reports From Committees, we have none. Reports From Officials. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. Commissioner Cassel: Well, the shuttle bus had its public meeting in early December and it will go on for .the study. There is also a public meeting in January. I don’t have the dates in front me because I haven’t had them confirmed relating to the Embarcadero Road traffic calming project. So be expecting that as a Saturday workshop for the public in January. COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. Chairman Byrd: Thank you. We will not have a second meeting in December. will be January 13, 1999.. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED: 9:00 PM The next meeting NEXT MEETING: January 13, 1999. City of Palo Alto Page 24 EXCERPT Of Planning commission Minutes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 January 13, 1999 REGULAR MEETING - 7:O0 PM City Council Conference Room Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: Meeting called to order at 7:05 P.M. Commissioners: Owen Byrd, Chairman - absent Kathy Schmidt, Vice-Chair Bern Beecham Annette Bialson Phyllis Cassel Patrick Burt Jon Schink - absent Staff: Ed Gawf, Planning Director Ken Schreiber, Deputy City Mgr., Sp. Proj. Brian DOlan, Senior Planner Wynne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney Acting-Chair Schmidt: I’d like to call to order the meeting of Wednesday, January 13, 1999 of the Planning Commission. Would the Secretary please call the role. I would first like to thank everyone for bearing with us here this evening in the Council Conference .Room while the Council Chambers are being remodeled. It’s my understanding that throughout the duration of the remodelling project the Planning Commission will be meeting in this room. So whether we have two people attending a meeting or two hundred people, this is where we are meeting. The Community Center rooms are currently busy on Wednesday nights so if you can please bear with us we’ll appreciate it, thank you. There is a TV in the lobby for those who don’t fit in here and we still do have a few more seats for people who do want to fit in here. For any topic that you want to talk about please fill out a card and make sure it gets up to the table. When anyone does speak, please come up to the microphone in order for it to be on tape. Sometimes we pass the microphone around. Tonight we have a lot of people and this is a formal Public Hearing we will ask people to come up to the mike. City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 1.Continuation of Review of the Comprehensive Plan Draft Implementation - Review and recommendation to the City Council on the Draft Implementation Plan for the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. In our packets this time we had a memo from Bern, Annette and myself. We were requested at our last meeting, when we reviewed the subject, to work on an introduction that we discussed somewhat last time and come back to the Commission with an introduction that we would like to include as part of the implementation plan when it goes into the Comprehensive Plan. Are there comments on this? Commissioner Cassel: You did a very nice job. Commissioner Bialson: I want to comment that Kathy did essentially this labor here and she received comments from Bern and I but this is Kathy’s work and I think it is excellent. Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. There were lots of comments. Everybody wrote some of it in reality. I just had started it on my computer so I finished it on my computer. It is multiple authorship here. Commissioner Burt: I thought if was very well done and it captures both our principle trust and gives a really concise and clear overview of the priorities. I had two small changes that I was interested in proposing. One is under priority number one, the zoning ordinance, the last sentence says, "Work on the zoning ordinance began in 1998 and it is hoped that this foundation will be complete within four years." Along the lines of our concurrence that this is something that we’d really like to see happen as rapidly as possible I wanted to know if we could change "hoped" to a little bit stronger wording. I don’t know whether planned or some other verbiage would capture the intention, Ed. Mr. Gawf: Planned, expected. Planned is sort of a good word because this is a planning document. Anticipation or expectation is good, but plan that it will be done within that four year period. Commissioner Burt: Great. The other one that I had was under coordinated area plans. The last sentence of the first paragraph, this is priority number three. It says, "Palo Alto will review the schedule for the remaining area plans based on the experiences with the PAMF/SOFA plan." A lot of our discussion in our previous meetings was how we might be able to move forward as soon as feasible in subsequent area plans as appropriate and feasible. We have all this proposed activity in the South of E1 Camino area, in the absence of an area plan, and yet we have an area plan proposed within Our Comp Plan. Without wanting to be over prescriptive there, possible verbiage that I had continuing that sentence would be: Based on experiences with the PAMF/SOFA Plan and proceed with successive plans as rapidly as feasible. Or something along those lines. Any thoughts on whether that would be appropriate and reflect our desires? Whether it is language that Ed, you accept? Mr. Gawf: I feel fine because I think it does give a little bit of wiggle room that we want. Could you say, "as rapidly as possible or feasible." But it also conveys the message that we should be doing one City of Palo Alto Page 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 and then the next one and then the one after that, and not have a break in time. I think that is my intent, ~at least. Commissioner Bialson: I think what you’re saying is that we will do them as rapidly as feasible. Is that what we’re talking about making that last sentence read as? Mr. Gawf: Yes, at least I take that to also mean that we take them sequentially. We do one, when we’re done with one we would then start on the second one. When we’re done with the second one we would start on the third one. Rather than do one and a couple of years later we might start on a second one. It would be a continuous process of looking at these. Commissioner Bialson: I don’t think in my reading of that sort of language there is sufficient wiggle room to be honest with you. I’m a great advocate of leaving ourselves wiggle room. I think that it may be that the Council or we as the Planning Commission recommend to the Council that we would perhaps have better use for our resources, limited as they are both financial and personnel, to do something other than go into the next coordinated area plan. I think that if we put, as expeditiously or as quickly as possible go to the next plan, I get the same sense you have and that would be that it be sequential and that when is completed another one is begun. I don’t think that is necessarily what we are looking at. I don’t think that is being expansive enough in our view of just what is going to be attracting our attention and demanding our attention as time goes on. That’s my sense. I’m happy with the language we have now. I’d be open some change in it but I don’t like the "as feasible." That takes out the discretionary aspect which I thought was very important in this. Commissioner Burt: My concept was that a lot of the feasibility would be determined by Staff and Ed’s department as well. Commissioner Schmidt: The next paragraph does say that upgrading the zoning ordinance will address many of these issues and preparation of area plans should not impinge on resources that get to the zoning ordinance. So we are putting some qualifiers in there in that next paragraph. Mr. Gawf: I wilt say I was taking the word feasible, that was for me the wiggle room. That is we define at any point in time what is feasible. So before we start the second one we look at the work program and say is it feasible? Our goal is, if it is feasible, that we do continue in some pattern. Commissioner Bialson: I’m comfortable with that. Commissioner Schmidt: I am to because we brought this up. Coordinated area plans are important and we want to do planning before we build stuff. The zoning ordinance is the foundation but we still need the planning too. So if it’s feasible if it fits in. Commissioner Bialson: I guess I’m taking a legalistic perspective. I’m defining feasible a little more narrowly than I think the rest of you are. City of Palo Alto Page 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Mr. Gawf: I wonder if I might suggest we think about an additional phrase. And that is, "proceeding with successive plans as rapid as feasible consistent with other work priorities." .Commissioner Cassel: No, because that is more feasible than I would. I was trying to keep the focus going. I think as Annette says we have a major coming to us that is going to force us to look at this South of E1 Camino area somehow or other. We are going to be focused on looking at it in a very narrow assessment. Commissioner Bialson: I will go along with whatever you folks want but I just don’t see what you’re adding that’s more than what we’ve got here which is, "will schedule the remaining area plans based on the experiences." We may accelerate them. We may decide to run two simultaneously. You are now limiting yourself to sequential. Mr. Gawf: It may be my own thinking of that exact same. I think one at a time is all we can do. And you’re point is maybe sometimes that may be too much. Yet I did read, and maybe that’s an important clarification, I do read the word feasible as wiggle room. Commissioner Cassel: I think it is. I think if we keep coordinated area plans on the radar scope we’ll be doing well. My concern is that there is a potential to drop them and forget all about them. Commissioner Schmidt: So that sentence would say, "Palo Alto will review the schedule for the remaining area plans and based on the experiences with the SOFA PMF plan will proceed with successive plans as rapidly as feasible." Mr. Gawf: Yes. Commissioner Schmidt: Does any one have any other comments? Owen gave me a couple of comments over the phone. A couple of word-smithing here. Back in the introduction on page one, in the paragraph right under the bullet, in the second line, "implementation plan is intended to provide an overall sense of the priorities for future development in support of these themes." Owen proposed that "development" become "public and private activities." Or some other words to indicate that this is not just development in’ the plan that there are other things. Does anyone have any good alternative? Does anyone think we should change it? Mr. Gawf: What about just substituting the word "action" for "development"? "Future actions" in support of these themes. Commissioner Cassel: Yes, fine. Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, thank you. Under Priorities, in the first sentence, "while it would be desirable to pursue every program and policy," Owen would like to add the word immediately there. Is that okay? "While it would be desirable to pursue every program and policy immediately priorities must be established." City of Palo Alto Page 5 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8, 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Commissioner Burt: Is his sense that we don’t want to, right up front say, there are many of the programs and policies in the Plan that we have no hope of ever implementing? Is that his concern? Commissioner Schmidt: Yes, I think that’s his feeling. That the statement as it is doesn’t convey the fact that we actually would like to do all of them. Commissioner Burt: Maybe immediately is over-stating, what about "in the near term"? Commissioner Cassel: Either way. Commissioner Burt: We know we are not going to do them all immediately but we also are not going to do them all in the near term. Commissioner Cassel: We’re going to die on word-smithing. Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. Commissioner Bialson: Or just leave it as it is. I think putting more words is probably not what we are after. Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, I’ve still got the file. A word correction down in the very last line of that to be "because" instead of "since." Commissioner Bialson: Yes. Commissioner Schmidt: Next page, the sentence that we added or changed "hoped" to "planned," he just want to say instead of "this foundation" say "in the zoning ordinance." Commissioner Bialson: Yes. Commissioner Schmidt: .Okay, that’s fine. On the last page, page three, under Resources, right down at the end, the last sentence says, "It is hoped that by acknowledging and focusing on Comprehensive Plan priorities we can avoid distractions and diversions of our resources." Owen suggests that it say, "the City can avoid distraction and diversions of resources." Those are all the suggestions that Owen had. Mr. Gawf: I would make one comment. I read this and I thought it was just a great document. I thought it summarized two meetings that we had where we sort of rambled on in extensive discussions, and I thought it just put everything in such a concise clear way. I’m very impressed. Commissioner Bialson: Do we need a motion to forward this to City Council. City of Palo Alto Page 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 ,1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 MOTION: Commissioner Burt: So moved. SECOND: Commissioner Cassel: Second. Commissioner Schmidt: Alright. Brian? Mr. Dolan: A clarification. Are all of the changes that we talked about incorporated in the Motion? I know at least on one, under Priorities, the question of whether we insert the word "immediately" or not. It seems to be still on the board. Commissioner Schmidt: That’s alright. Mr. Dolan: So all the changes that we talked about are in here. Commissioner Cassel: So immediately is going to be inserted there? Commissioner Schmidt: Yes. Commissioner Burt: Did we vote on that? MOTION PASSED: Commissioner Schmidt: No, we haven’t voted on that. It was moved by Pat, seconded my Phyllis that we forward the implementation plan and our memo and all the comments that we have made to City Council. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed say nay. That passes on a 4-0 vote with Commissioners Byrd, Beecham, and Schink not present. REPORTS FR OM COMMITTEES. Next item is Reports From Committees. Anything? Commissioner Cassel: There will be a meeting on January 24th in the morning and I’m sure you will be getting copies of places and times for the traffic counting project. Commissioner Burt: Is that January 23rd a Saturday morning? Commissioner Cassel: Yes, sorry. Not Sunday morning. I would encourage all of you to come. That will be a public workshop. Commissioner Burt: That’s where and when? Commissioner Cassel: You should be getting that, I didn’t bring that with me. City of Palo Alto Page 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 Commissioner Burt: That doesn’t conflict with the final historic ordinance public meeting, right? Mr. Gawf:, It does conflict with the historic preservation workshop that we’re, talking about. Commissioner Cassel: And the opening of the Stanford Museum. Mr. Gawf: The historic preservation workshop -- you will see it a couple weeks after that. So there is nothing that you won’t be seeing February 10th. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. ¯ Information Report on Downtown Monitoring. Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, Reports From Officials. The first item is the information report on Downtown monitoring. That is in our packet today. Any Staff comments on the commercial Downtown monitoring report? Mr. Dolan: No. Commissioner Schmidt: It is just an information piece. Mr. Dolan: And Jim is actually sick tonight or he would be here to respond to your questions if you have any. If you do have questions feel free to either tell me or call Jim directly. Commissioner Schmidt: This is an information report. We get these basically annually. It says we haven’t had one for a couple years but it is something that came to be in 1986. ° Schedule special meeting to discuss Transportation Planning. Next item is schedule a special meeting to discuss Transportation planning. Is that something that we want do tonight? Is that something that we want to wait. Mr. Gawf: Let me present some options. We are very close to hiring a Transportation Official so I’d like to look at some timing issues. But I’d like to bring to the Planning Commission this issue of the Planning Commission looking at Transportation issues. I would like to do it as soon as possible but I’m probably looking at late February or March time frame given the other work items we have. Commissioner Cassel: We keep struggling with this issue, how much parking and who much not to have and how do we get people out of their cars and into some other mode of transportation and looking at all the pieces together would be very helpful. Commissioner Burt: The other thing is Council had discussion about prospectively assigning us this element of the Comp Plan. It has been in the air now for year but I don’t think they’ve gone through City of Palo Alto Page 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 that formality. Mr. Gawf: I’d have to look at sort of the procedures of how we do this. One of the things I probably would do is I would look at some other cities and how they operate so we have some ideas of the kind of things we might want to look at so we can make a recommendation. I’m doing that right now and I’ll bring the results of that work to you. Commissioner Cassel: We have had meetings before. Commissioner Schmidt: Okay so we will do that another time. COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. Any Commission Questions, Comments and/or Announcements? Seeing none, I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED: 11:00 PM NEXT MEETING: January 27, 1999. City of Palo Alto Page 61