HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 193-08FROM:
City of al[o Allto
HONOraBLE CITY COU tY Ma ag Rep I
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
6
DATE:APRIL 7, 2008 CMR: 193:08
SUBJECT:AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO
CONTRACTS WITH DESIGN, COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT AND
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS TO PREPARE THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SPECIFIED SCOPE
OF WORK NOT TO EXCEED $850,000
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the selection of two consultants, Design,
Community & Environment and Applied Development Economics, for completion of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment contract work plan and authorize the City Manager to execute
contracts with the two consultants in a total amount for both contracts not to exceed $850,000.
BACKGROUND
On February 13, 2006, the Council directed staff to develop a work plan to amend the existing
Comprehensive Plan to a planning horizon no later than 2020. The focus of the amendment was to
ensure that sufficient public services are available to serve new housing development and that
sufficient land for neighborhood-serving retail uses is preserved. The Council also directed staff to
evaluate the impacts of increased housing on public services such as parks, libraries and schools and
to incorporate a goal in the Comprehensive Plan that would address the City’s commitment to reduce
global warming.
Staff developed a draft work plan consistent with Council direction that was approved by the City
Council in June 2006; however, the budget for the work plan ($800,000) was not approved until June
2007. The Council also extended the timeframe for the amendment from two years as originally
proposed to four years to limit the amount of funding to be provided by the General Fund to
$200,000 annually, totaling $800,000. Late last year, staff circulated a Request for Proposals (RFP)
for a consultant team to work on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Five consultant teams
submitted proposals. Interviews of the consultants were held in mid-March.
DISCUSSION
Staff is recommending approval of two separate consultants for preparation of the Comprehensive
Plan anaendment work program. Design, Community & Environment (DC&E) would act as the lead
CMR: 193:08 Page 1 of 4
consultant responsible for the bulk of the contract work plan and Applied Development Economics
(ADE) would be responsible for preparation of the economic analysis. Both firms were the
unanimous choices of the interview panel which was comprised of Planning and Public Works staff.
DC&E has significant experience in completing General Plan/Comprehensive Plan updates for cities
and counties throughout California. The firm integrates comprehensive land use planning with
environmental review, enabling efficient and effective project management. The firm stresses
community involvement and public participation as cornerstones of its work. The firm also has
considerable experience preparing Environmental Impact Reports concurrently with plan
development. The interview panel was particularly impressed with DC&E’s experience with
sustainability programs and principles and the firm’s innovative public involvement skills.
Attachments A and B are a summary of the draft work program submitted by DC&E as part of its
proposal and a draft schedule for completion of the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
ADE specializes in fiscal and retail analyses for general plan updates. The firm provides in-house
expertise for the economic analysis and is skilled at public participation processes which will be
critical for successful completion of the amendment. ADE proposes to prepare a fiscal analysis
showing both the current economic situation and the trends in public revenue levels and demands for
municipal services. ADE’s proposal includes conducting economic and market studies to identify
opportunities to shift the land use mix to better generate revenues needed to support public services.
ADE has been an innovator in combining fiscal analysis and economic development strategy. The
firm stresses its effective communication of complex economic development issues to the public in
terms of describing how the tax base provides the revenues needed for services to the neighborhoods.
The work plan for the Comprehensive Plan amendment approved by Council in 2006 is summarized
below. A more complete description of the work program is shown in Attachment C and was
included in the RFP sent to consultants last year.
Revise base conditions and update growth projections:
o Incorporate recent trends in planning/new data into base conditions and identify a
realistic growth rate for development through 2020.
Update the land use map and designations and rezone accordingly:
o Prepare land use evaluations for the East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way/ West
Bayshore area and the existing Fry’s Electronics site and adjacent properties. The
focus of the potential land use changes will be in these two specific areas; however,
an overall evaluation of land use patterns within an area generally bounded by
Highway 101, E1 Camino Rea!, Embarcadero Road and San Antonio Road will be
required.
o Evaluate existing land use definitions and determine appropriate uses.
Review and modify appropriate Comprehensive Plan text:
o Re-evaluate vision statements to determine relevance; current vision statements
should serve as the framework for the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
o Scan all policies and programs for relevance and clarity.
CMR: 193:08 Page 2 of 4
Focus on modifying policies that currently allow conversion of non-residential land
to residential uses to prevent loss of potential tax dollars and ensure sufficient retail
Add or strengthen policies and programs that limit the loss of retail serving uses
Revise existing Housing Element to update Housing Inventory and modify policies
and programs where appropriate
Address sustainability by incorporating relevant concepts from the City’s Climate
Protection Plan and underscoring the City’s commitment to global warming
Identify general areas for new parks and community facilities
Enhance and integrate a pattern ofwalkable neighborhoods
Update
o
o
the environmental analysis
Prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the amendment
Provide thorough analysis of service needs to schools, parks and libraries resulting
from project growth through 2020
Integrate CEQA significance thresholds used in the EIR in an appendix to
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The consultant team ~vill be augmented by staff in completing the work program. City staff will be
primarily responsible for the Housing Element preparation and identifying areas within the current
Comprehensive Plan where text changes are needed.
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVIEW
At its December retreat, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) requested additional
review of the work program prior to Council consideration of the consultant contract. The PTC had
last reviewed the work program in April 2006 and three of the current Commissioners were not on
the PTC at that time. The PTC discussed the work program on February 27, 2008 and focused its
discussion on how to successfully engage the public in participating in the amendment process since
the Council had identified PTC meetings as the major forum for public input on the amendment (see
Attachment D for the PTC meeting minutes). Individual commissioners also had several suggestions
for modifying the work program, including undertaking an evaluation of the future reuse of Cubberty
in terms of Comprehensive Plan policy; preparing specific plans rather than land use plans for the
two study areas; identifying sufficient community center space; reducing the timeframe for
preparation (to two years) and limiting the horizon year ( to 2015) for extending the Comprehensive
Plan; and evaluating uses and linkages on Stanford University lands.. Although the PTC does not
participate in consultant selection, it did encourage selection of a consultant team that had both
strong public participation skills and knowledge and experience with sustainability issues.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The Council approved a budget of $800,000 in 2007 for the amendment process over a four year
timeframe at $200,000 per year. The current proposals from the two consultants would require an
additional allocation of $28,222 from the General Fund since the total cost of both proposals is
$828,222 which exceeds the original approved budget of $800,000. The estimated cost for DC&E’s
proposal is $729,742. The estimated cost of ADE’s proposal is $98,480. Staff is recommending
increasing the budget al!ocation by $50,000 to cover any additional consultant contract work.
CMR: 193:08 Page 3 of 4
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The consultant work enables the Comprehensive Plan to be updated to focus on current City policy
and adequately reflect the City’s vision consistent with the goals of the existing Comprehensive Plan.
The updated plan will provide an effective guide for future growth in the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The selection of the consultants is not considered a project under CEQA; the Comprehensive Plan
update will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIN). The work program
approved by Council in 2006 called for staff to submit to Council the significance criteria to be used
for the EIR for the Comprehensive Plan amendment when the consultant contracts for the
amendment are considered by Council. These criteria are included as Attachment E and are based on
current City policy and the CEQA Guidelines. These criteria are currently being used in all City
environmental documents including the Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center EIR.
The work program calls for the criteria to be included in an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan
and subsequently to serve as the thresholds for significance for all discretionary review in the City.
Incorporating the criteria within the Comprehensive Plan should provide a level of consistency,
predictability and objectivity in the City’s assessment of environmental impacts.
ATTACHMENTS
A. DC&E Work Program Summary
B. DC&E Proposed Project Schedule
C. Scope of Work for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
D. Planning & Transportation Commission Minutes 2/27/08
E. Environmental Criteria (Significance Thresholds) Used by the City of Palo Alto
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
JUL_!E API
Chie~Planning &
STEVE EIV~LIE
Director ofrPlanning & Community
Environment
Official
EMI~~HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 193:08 Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
TABLE 4-1 WORK PROGRAM SUMMARY
Task A: Project Initiation
1.Kick-off Meeting and City Tour 5.Project Website
2.Refine Public Outreach Program 6.Planning and Transportation
3.Review Background Irfformation Commission Meetings (Ongoing)
4.Base Map Preparation
Task B: Existing Conditions
1.Transportation White Paper 4.Sustainability White Paper
2.Economic and Fiscal White Paper 5.Community Services White Paper
3.Housing and Employment White
Paper
Task C: Concept Plans
1.Area Tour
2.Stakeholder Meetings/Outreach
3.Neighborhood Workshop #1: Issues
Identification
4. CommunityViz Model Preparation
5.Neighborhood Workshop #2: De-
velop Alternatives
6.Develop Alternatives
7.Alternatives Workbooks
8.Neighborhood Workshop #3:
Select Preferred Alternative
9.Final Concept Plan for
Comprehensive Plan
Task D: Community Workshops
1.Community Workshop #1: Open
House: Background and Issue Identi-
fication
Youth Workshop
Community Workshop #2: Sustain-
ability in the Comprehensive Plan
4.Community Workshop #3:
Economic Development
5.Community Workshop #4:
Land Use
Task E: Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment
1.Background Information Update in
Existing Elements
2.Goals and Policies Update in Exist-
ing Elements
3.Addition of Sust~nability-Related
Goals and Policies Throughout the
Plan
4.Administrative Draft
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
5.Public Review Draft Amendment
PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES
46 DESIGN, COHHUNITY &ENVIRONHENT
ATTACHMENT C
Scope of Work for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Introduction:
The City of Palo Alto’s Planning and Community Environment Department is soliciting
proposals from qualified consultants or consulting teams with expertise in updating
General Plans to prepare an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The focus of
the amendment is to extend the current Comprehensive Plan’s horizon year, update the
land use map, modify and add text focusing on policies and pro~ams relevant to issues
of existing Council concern, revise the Housing Element and prepare the environmental
analysis.
In addition to having ka~owledge and experience in revising Comprehensive Plan
elements, the consultant or consultant team shal! also have experience in preparing area
studies and Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). The City is seeking a multi-
disciplinary project team of qualified firms and individuals and anticipates that the
consultant team will be composed of a prime consultant and appropriate subconsultants.
The City will accept a proposal as responsive if it covers only a portion of the Scope of
Work and any proposer should be aware that the City may decide to request changes to
the composition of the consultant team based on the evaluation of all proposals.
About Palo Alto:
Palo Alto is a community of approximately 62,500 residents located 35 miles south of
San Francisco and 14 miles north of San Jose. The City of Palo Alto was founded more
than 100 years ago and is name after a majestic coastal redwood tree located along San
Francisquito Creek. A charming blend of old and new, Palo Alto’s tree-lined streets and
historic buildings reflect a California heritage. A mix of business and residential areas
anchored by a vibrant do~vntown defines Palo Alto’s unique character. At the same time,
Palo Alto is home to Stanford Research Park, recognized worldwide as a leader in
cutting-edge technological development. Palo Alto’s proximity to Stanford University
adds cultural and educational opportunities for area residents. Characteristic of Palo Alto
is the attention paid to open space and parkland provision and protection. Palo Alto has
over 35 City-owned parks and nearly one-third of its 26 square miles is open space.
Palo Alto is strategically located and easily accessible to major transportation routes and
facilities, including Interstate 280, Highway 101, and the Dumbarton and Hayward-San
Mateo Bridges. Alternative transportation options are provided and encouraged in the
City. Commuter rail transportation is conveniently located and the Palo Alto University
Avenue stop is one of the most used in the CalTrain system. Numerous bike paths are
located throughout the City and the City provides shuttle ser-vice.
Reason for Am endment:
In early 2006 the City Council was concerned that with four years still remaining before the 2010
horizon of the Comprehensive Plan was reached, the City had already exceeded the City’s 2010
housing development projections. The Council was concerned that the Comprehensive Plan did
not envision the loss of sites providing critical revenue-generating retail services to convert to
housing leading to a possible imbalance of housing and retail necessary to serve residents’ daily
needs, nor did the Comprehensive Plan envision the growing imbalance bet~veen housing and the
provision of public services integal to housing, such as parks, libraries and schools. As a result,
the Council directed staff to work with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to
develop a work plan to amend the existing Comprehensive Plan to no later than 2020. A major
focus of the amendment would be to ensure the provision of sufficient public services to serve
new housing development and the preservation of sufficient land for neighborhood-serving retail
USES.
The Council direction for the work plan included the following elements:
¯Revise base conditions and update ~owth projections
¯Update the land use map and land use desi~aations
¯Review appropriate Comprehensive Plan policies and progams
¯Update the environmental analysis
Staff developed a work plan consistent with Council direction and structured the work progam
to use the PTC meetings as the venue for public participation and input in the amendment
process with quarterly progess reports submitted to the City Council through the duration of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment process. The work pro~am was approved by the City Council
on June 6, 2006; however, the budget, for the work was not approved until June 2007.
Background Information:
The existing Comp Plan xvas prepared during late 1990s, adopted in 1998 ~vith a horizon
of 2010 and identifies the physical form of the City through 2010. The current
Comprehensive Plan was the product of an over five-year effort that involved hundreds
of Palo Alto residents and other interested parties. The document was written by
synthesizing extensive public input, ranging from broad visions for the City’s future to
detailed progams for specific sites supplemented with maps, text and gaphics to create a
plan that articulates the City’s aspirations and expectations for the future.
Since 1998 development has occurred throughout the City particularly housing
development not anticipated in the plan. The continued growth experienced throughout
the City raises potential conflicts with some of the policies of the existing Comp Plan.
The City Council determined that updating the plan is needed now to ensure that Palo
Alto’s quality of life continues to be protected as the City grows, emphasizing
neighborhood preservation, a strong economy, ample-parks and recreation, improved
mobility for all modes of transportation, and the protection of the City and region’s
natural resources and environmental quality. The Council direction is to ensure that
Comp Plan continues to serve as the policy framework for a ~vide range of decisions
concerning land use, development, design, and public investment priorities.
Scope of Work:
The amendment should allow the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1998 to continue to
serve as an important long-term roadmap for cormnunity ~-owth and act as a day-to-day
decision-making tool affecting the welfare of current and future residents for the next 5-
10 years. The focus of the amendment ~vould be to ensure the sufficient public services
are available to serve new housing development and that sufficient land for
neighborhood-serving retail uses is preserved. The Council direction for development of
the work plan included the following elements:
Revise base conditions and update gowth projections:
o Incorporate recent trends in planning/new data into base conditions and
identify a realistic gowth rate for development through 2020.
Update the land use map and land use designations:
o Prepare land use evaluation for East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way/West
Bayshore area, existing Fry’s Electronics site and adjacent properties. The
focus of the potential land use changes will be in these two specific areas;
however, an overall evaluation of land use patterns ~vithin an area
generally bounded by Highway 101, E1 Camino Real Embarcadero Road
and San Antonio Road will be required.
o Evaluate existing land use definitions and determine appropriate uses.
Review appropriate Comprehensive Plan text:
Re-evaluate vision statement to determine its current relevance; vision
statement should serve as the framework for the amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Focus on policies that allow conversion of non-residential land to
residential uses
Add or strengthen policies and progams that limit the loss of retail
serving uses
Revise existing Housing Element to update Housing Inventory and modify
policies and progams where appropriate
Add a new Sustainability Chapter
Identify general areas for new parks and community facilities
Enhance and integate a pattern ofwalkable neighborhoods
Update the environmental analysis
Prepare Environmental Impact Report for amendment
Provide thorough analysis of service needs to schools, parks and libraries
resulting from project ~owth through 2020
Integrate CEQA significance thresholds used in EIR in appendix to
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The goal of this amendment is to provide a revised Comprehensive Plan that:
¯Addresses the key issues facing the city today
¯Is supported by current, accurate, and comprehensive data
¯Provides a framework for shaping and managing the City’s future gro~x~h
Maintains a focus on the physical and economic aspects of the City
Incorporates best practices with regards to urban desi~o-n, transportation,
enviroamental stewardship and sustainability
Addresses sustainability
Provides a framework for future development within two areas in the City
Is clearly organized and easy to read and
Is graphically attractive, highly visual, and easy to use.
Project Approach:
The selected consultant/consulting team will work in partnership with the Department of
Planning and Community Envirom:nent staff. The consultant will also work closely with
the PTC, community ~oups, and citizens of Palo Alto. It is anticipated that the City staff
will take the lead ~vith regard to public notification and outreach with consultant advice
and support; will prepare the Housing Element and ~vill oversee review of existing
policies and prowams; but the consultant team wilt be responsible for overseeing
preparation of the document, developing the data analysis and the area plans and
preparing the environmental analysis. The City of Palo Alto will also take the lead in
initial data collection and ongoing availability of data and GIS resources. The consultant
shall prepare land use forecasts for both housing and employment tl~rough the planning
horizon based on economic studies and realistic gowth projections. The consultant team
will be responsible for the quality and comprehensiveness of their written and ~aphic
materials; however, the City wilt be responsible for the final editing and formatting of the
document.
The consultant work will include the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report to
support the goals, policies and objectives of the amended Plan. It is desired that the EIR
~vould be prepared in concert with the amendment as the process pro~esses rather than at
the end of the document completion in order to promote cost efficiencies and to expedite
the overall process.
As part of the amendment process, the City is interested in either creating a new
Sustainability Element or incorporating sustainability policies into existing elements
particularly as they relate to sustainable development practices, including solar and geen
building desig-n and strategies to reduce geenhouse gas emissions based on direction
from the City’s recently adopted Climate Protection Plan. Policies and implementing
strateNes for economic development and retention shall be incorporated into existing
elements, particularly as they support the City’s Economic Development Strategy with a
focus on neighborhood serving uses and tax generating uses and redevelopment/reuse of
infill properties including identification of incentives to encourage redevelopment.
The planning process will be managed by the City’s Chief Planning and Transportation
Official. The planning process will be overseen by an internal core working goup that
will meet on a regular basis. The City Council will receive quarterly status reports
throughout the amendment process. The PTC’s role will include ongoing review and
comment on the General Plan amendment but will not be directing the consultant’s work.
The following documents will be required at the culmination of the work:
¯Amended Comprehensive Plan
¯Envirolmaental Impact Report and all documents necessary for EIR certification
¯Two area studies
Public Awareness/Community Participation Process
The City is seeking an innovative and expeditious community participation process.
Given Palo Alto’s strong co~nn~itment to public outreach, the consultant team should
have extensive kno~vledge and experience with organizing meetings, workshops and
round table discussions for public participation. The amendment process must include
significant public participation, including consensus building and possible conflict
resolution around key issues. Most likely to be concerns for the community are the
~owth capacity for future development, particularly housing development, and locations
for housing intensification.
The proposal should describe, at a minimum, the consultant’s experience in each of the
following areas and a facilitation process for thorough and extensive community
involvement:
¯
¯
Working with planning commissions, councils and the public.
Utilizing techniques such as 1) study sessions 2) workshops and 3)
presenting information through a variety of media including web-based
technolo~es.
Using on-site sketch desig-ns and chart strategies to depict future scenarios
with realistic simulations.
The City encourages the consultant to provide suggestions in the proposal for additional
outreach strategies and opportunities. City staff will be responsible for meeting
coordination, set-up and noticing; the consultant team will be responsible for meeting
facilitation and presentations. The urban design consultants are expected to work closely
with residents/businesses/neighborhood associations within each study area in
preparation of the area plans, and neighborhood meetings will be held regularly in the
two study areas to engage the community and ensure adequate neighborhood
participation as each area plan is developed. PTC meetings will provide the forum for
discussion/input regarding the overal! changes to the Comprehensive Plan specifically
related to all other revisions.
Submissiolt Requirements:
Proposals must include a cover letter, a description of the consulting firm’s capabilities
and services, a discussion of the firm’s expertise relative to the background and
experience requirements contained herein, and resumes of qualified professionals who
will be responsible for completing assiN~ed tasks.
Cottsultant Selection Process
The tentative process for selection of the consultant is:
(1) Technical review of proposals and selection of finalists;
(2) Interview of finalists;
(3) Final Consultant selection by the City.
The consultant will be required to complete the tasks to update the Comprehensive Plan
~vithin a budget of $800,000. The update process is projected to be accomplished within a
three year period.
Selection Criteria
1.Understanding the City’s needs and issues to be addressed
2.Qualifications and experience of consultant team members
3.Availability of consultant team members
4.Experience with public participation
To complete the ~vork items identified, consulting teams should include expertise in the
following disciplines:
Land Use Planning
Urban Design
Public Participation~acilitati0n
EI2R preparation
Economic Development
Important Dates:
o RFP available--December 2007
¯Deadline for Proposals--January 31, 2008
¯Consultant interviews--February 2008
¯Recommendation to City Council--March 2008
The amendment process will begin in the first half of 2008 with the selection of the
consultant team; a public review draft of the amendment should be ready by late 2009,
followed by public hearings and adoption in mid 2010.
ATTACHMENT D
Planning and Transportation Commission
February 27, 2008
Verbatim Minutes
EXCERPT
o Comprehensive Plan Work Program: Update on status of Comprehensive Plan
Work Pro~arn and consultant selection process:
Ms. Julie Capor~no. Chief Plannin~ and Transportation Official: Thank you Chair
Holman. First of all I want to explain why you have received a revised Staff Report.
Yesterday at our pre-Commission meeting Vice-Chair Garber asked w-here the four botd
items were and the last I saw this Staff Report it had bold items but somehow in
reformatting it lost them. So what we have done is put them back in so you know where
the bold items are. None of the other language has changed in the document.
I just wanted to go over the background a little bit. If you remember at your Retreat in
December when we were talking about where the Comprehensive Plan process several
Commissioners request that we review the adopted work plan with you prior to its going
to Council when it goes as part of a consultant contract selection process. I think Chair
Holman had mentioned something about new Commissioners and I realized afterwards
that there are three of you who have never seen the work program and for the other four
of you this is a refresher for you. So I believe that Commissioners Tuma, Ke!ler, and
obviously Commissioner Fineberg this is nevv- to you.
This was last seen by the Commission in May of 2006 and at that time the Commission
had suggested two additions to the work program that you saw and those were
incorporated. One of them is to rezone accordingly under the update of the land use map
and land use designations. If we change any land use designations the Commission
requested that we rezone at the same time any properties. Then the second thing that you
requested was that you implement and expand Program H-29 of the Comprehensive Plan
which was to discourage any reduction of existing housing units through loss of renta!
units. That was incorporated as part of the work program but it has since been deleted
because the Attorney’s Office determined that Program H-29 is not legal. So we have
eliminated that as part of the work program because we can’t pursue it. When we amend
the Comprehensive Plan that will come out.
The work program that is before you was approved by Council in June 2006 however,
nothing has happened with it because the budget for the amendment was not approved
until June of last year. Subsequent to that time we have developed the RFP. We wend
out the P,_FP for consultant selection. We received six proposals and we have scheduled
interviews for next week and the following week of the consultant teams. The consultant
selection is slated to go to Council on April 7 and as you probably know the consultant
selection contract review is not pate of your purview and it is the responsibility of the
Cib- Administration.
So I just wanted to go over briefly the work program. First of all, the Council’s focus
was to ensure that sufficient public services are available to serve new housing
development and that sufficient land for neighborhood serving retail uses is preserved.
This is kind of an out~owth of all the housing development that occurred in the early
2000’s, probably 2002 through 2005. The existing Comprehensive Plan had assumed
about 2,400 units would be developed by 2010 and at that time we were exceeding that
number as far as development applications and approvals. So that was the reason for
moving forward on the Comprehensive Plan at that time.
I had Roland check today to find out where we are with that number. We obviously
approved quite a bit of development but actually what has either been developed or is
under construction is just about 2,400 units. Some of those units that went through the
approval process, because of the housing market right now they have not acted on those
development approvals.
The other thing that the Council had expressed concern about in relationship to the
increased housing was what the impacts of that w-ould be on punic services such as
parks, libraries, and schools. So the main elements of the adopted work pro~am were to
revise the base conditions and update the ~owth projections. Again, this gets back to
that issue of the 2,400 anticipated units that were to be developed by 2010 and to look at
what do you want to do between now and 2015 or 2020? The Council kind of left it open
to us, which would be the horizon year. We are aiming for 2020 but depending on what
our consultant team recormnaends it may- be less than that. If we go to 2020 it doesn’t
mean that ydu can’t revise the Comprehensive Plan before that it is just the same thing
may happen if the anticipated development starts to change. It may necessitate changes
to the Comprehensive Plan earlier.
The next thing that we are going to do is update the land use map and land use
designation and rezone accordingly. The focus of land use designation changes would be
in the East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way/West Bayshore area and the Fry’s Electronics
area with adjacent properties. The Commission probably remembers that recently we
applied for and were granted a priority development area status under ABAG for the
Fry’s area, which means that they are recognizing that because of its !ocation near transit
we can focus jobs and housing in that area. We probably after the Comprehensive Plan
process and we have better knowledge of what the land uses would be we are going to
pursue more detailed analysis and maybe get some funding from ABAG and MTC to do
a much more detailed plan for that area.
The other thing that we will be doing is evahiating existing land use definitions and
determining appropriate uses. One of the areas we wil! probably focus on is should we
change the Zoning Comp Plan like the Ordinance to limit housing in certain areas? Right
now the Comprehensive Plan allows housing in most areas and we might want to be
pretty definitive, maybe even more definitive about what some of these land use
designations allow and don’t allow. So that is what we were thinking of when we
inchided that.
Then the second major componen~ is to review and modi~ the Comprehensive Plan text.
We will !ook at all the vision statements to determine their applicability and
appropriateness now. Right now I have Staff who are looking at scanning the programs
for relevance and clarity, and kind of updating that. That wilt be coming back to the
Planning Commission hopefully in June or July and then it will go to Council. What we
are hoping to do is we will have certain aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that we have.
said are still relevant and we don’t need to do any-~hing or we have updated them. Then
the areas we need to focus on wil! be left for the process.
We will also be revising the Housing Element. When we came to the Planning
Commission originally this wasn’t on our work schedute because we didn’t know the
timetine for requirements for new Housing Elements. It was shortly after we went to
Council that we found out and then we took the work pro~am back to Council at one
point and included this item.
The other three items that Council added to the work pro~am were to identi~- general
areas for new parks and community facilities, and enhance and integrate a pattern of
walkable neighborhoods, kind of a cormectivi7 component. Then they also had wanted
us to incorporate a goat addressing the City’s commitment to reducing g!oba! warming.
We have since changed that toadd a sustainabiliu chapter since in the ensuing year and a
half sustainabilit), has become such a major issue for this communiU-. When we go to
Council that will be identified for them and it still addresses the issue but it just addresses
it much more substantia!ly than what they had originally envisioned.
The final major component is to update the envirommental analysis that was done and we
will prepare an EIR. We are going to provide analysis of service needs to schools, parks,
and libraries from project grov,~h through 2020 or 2015 depending upon the horizon year.
That is not necessarily a requirement or the detail that we hope to go into for EIRs. Then
we are going to take the CEQA sig-Nficance thresholds that we use in the EIR and include
them in the Comprehensive Plan as an appendix. This will document the thresholds that
we currently use to ensure consisten~ application and transparency.
So that is the overview of what we are going to be studying. The public outreach that we
had identified, the Council had recommended that the Plarming Commission act as the
major forum for punic input particularly on the plan overal!. Obviously we will be going
to the two neighborhood areas for those two neighborhood studies. What we are
suggesting that you do tonight, obviously if you have any comments on the work
program we would appreciate those and we can include those in the Staff Report to
Council. However, we won’t be making any recommendations to change the work
program because this is the work program they adopted. This is the work program that
we are basing the consultant contract on. So if-they elect to make any changes they can
do that but at this point we won’t be recommending any.
We are hoping that maybe you would start the initial discussions about the public
outreach because once we get the consultant onboard we will be coming back to you with
them and t~ing to figure out exactly what we need to do to make it effective for the
public and efficient for everyone. We also wilt be coming back with a detailed timeline
at that time. Right now-we don’t know all of it there is some question about when we are
going to be doing stuff. So until we get the consultants onboard we won;t have that
timeline. So we are hoping that maybe we will be coming back to you in May- or June. It
will be dependent upon the contract execution. So with that I open it up to any of your
questions or comments.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: Actua!ly, Julie, I was thinking it would be a really good idea
tonight to talk about the punic outreach element. The way the Comprehensive Plan w-as
originated and put together required so much public input and it required a big cornmittee
of people who worked over a long period of time that I think it might be a little urmerving
in some ways to the communib to think that for amending and revising and updating, etc.
they wouldn’t be as involved. So one of the things that I find really difficult is reading
the City ads, the punic notices in the newspaper. Unless you know to !ook for them,
unless you know specifically what you are looking for you can’t see it. So I am just
wondering if in that $200,000 a year that we are allotted that w-e are allotted extra money
for advertising either online or in display type advertising to peak people’s curiosity and
interest. I don’t even know if We are allowed to do that.
Ms. Capor~no: I don’t think the online advertising wilt actually cost us particularly on
the City’s website. We are also hoping to w’ork closely with PAN, Palo Alto
Neighborhoods, to make sure that a!l the neighborhood ~oups are aw-are of an?- sort of
meetings and actually get feedback from them as to what would be most efficient and
helpful. So any suggestions that you have.
I forgot to mention two things. I think this was distributed to you. There has been some
question about the amount of detail and the kinds ofplarming that ,,,,-i!l go into these two
areas. Right now this is the detail that we are anticipating. This is a plan that is in the
Comprehensive Plan currently and it really is a land use circulation map. Then when that
is developed the Comprehensive Plan could include a program that would recommend a
more specific area plan such as SOFA to be developed for a particular area. So at this
point that is what we envision. There is no way that we would be able to do much more
than this leve! of detail given the amount of work that we are anticipating and the budget
that we have and the timeframe. The timeframe will probably not cause quite as much
concern it is just a matter of the budget and the consultant contract itself.
The other thing that I forgot to mention is that Commissioner Fineberg sent us some
questions this afternoon. I didn’t have a chance to get back to you so if you want to just
go thi’ough them ask the ones that you think you still want to get answers to or if you
want me to go through them I can, whatever would w-ork for you best I wi!l be glad to do.
Commissioner Sandas: I still have the floor and I have another question. The other thing
that I wanted to mention that I, as a Planning Commissioner, have great difficulty with
are the questions that the public at large have about zoning and the distinctions between
different type of zones like CS, CN, R-l. There are very few people that I have come
into contact with who know anything about those things. I really think that as a part of
our public outreach when we are showing maps and we are showing area plans and so
forth that we are really clear as to what the different zoning areas are and why. Initially
in the Comprehensive Plan there were reasons why different areas were zoned different
ways. I think that we need to create some context for peopte in terms of the public
outreach.
Ms. Capor~no: I just want to add that in either March or April we are having a consultant
come down to discuss new- urbanism with the Council. The Commission obviously will
be invited to kind of give some context to the background and foundation of our
Comprehensive Plan both generally and specific!lly as it applies to Palo Alto. Some of
what you are talking about too, just kind of the tand use issues and how they relate to
each other will be discussed at that tim_e to provide particularly the new Council Members
with some back=o-round. Obviously the public and anyone else, new Commissioners, wi!l
be invited as I said.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: Two things. One is a couple of follow up comment on the issue of
public outreach. Because we are going ~o be using PTC and study sessions as the vehicle
for outreach we shoutd think about if there are ways that we could relax our usual rules
for study sessions or someho~v make it a little bit more interactive like you would
)pically do in outreach. In this setting in a study session it doesn’t realiy lend itself to
the kind of dynamic that we would want to create. It also goes to as the notice goes out.
There is one thing about the regular Ptarming Commission meeting information but a
whole separate thing is really going on while we are doing this. One thought I had in
terms of outreach is maybe some outreach to the press to have them write about it to
bring it to people’s attention that this fairly significant process is about to get kicked of~
as maybe free advertising if you witl.
On a separate issue having to do with the Housing Etement can you give us some idea,
let’s say- we were not doing the Comprehensive Plan Update, we would still have to do a
Housing Element to comply with ABAG, right?
Ms. Caporgno: Yes.
Commissioner Tuma: Okay. How much else are going to be able to get done for these
dollars during the time we are looking at Housing Element? Does this really take up atl
of the air in the room during that phase or is there really anything else going on?
Ms. Capor~no: The way- the scope of work that we included in our RFP that we sent out
was that Staff is going to be primarily responsible for the Housing Element since we
know locations of sites. Obviously they feed into each other and the consultant team is
going to have to be working on that. I think that the consultant team will be looking at
these two areas, urban design components and kind of the land use issues for the two
areas of some general urban design issues that might relate to each of these areas, but the
land uses and the Housing Element would mainly done by Staff. There is one component
of the Housing Element that takes a lot of time that probably the Commission isn’t that
interested in but it is the tech document that has all sorts of data about what we
accomplished in the past and a variety of affordable housing programs that we have and
any sort of impediments to housing that are currently in our processes. So that b-pe of
information the City is much more familiar with than the consultant team would be.
Commissioner Tuma: Just to go one step further on this issue, the $200,000 a year does
that include not only consultant time but Staff time?
Ms. Capor~no: I am sorry I didn’t hear the question.
Commissioner Tuma: The budget for this process is $200,000 a year for four years,
right?
Ms. Caporgno: Correct.
Commissioner Tuma: Okay, does that $200,000 include Staff time as well as consultant
time?
Ms. Capora-no: No, it is just consultant.
Commissioner Tuma: Just consultant, okay.
Ms. Capor~no:
going to be the
going to eat up
.And, probably the most expensive aspect of the consultant contract is
EIR because usually they are about $400,000 to $500,000. So that is
a lot of the contract funds.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller to be followed by Commissioners Lippert and
Fineberg.
Commissioner Keller: First could you tell me the timeline of the Housing Element?
Ms. Capor~no: The Housing Element is supposed to be completed by July of 2009. We
will be receiving our final Regional Housing Needs Allocation in June of 2008. So they
give you a year to complete it. Obviously the way our timeline works when the Council
increased the timing for this they don’t jive because w-e v~411 be completing the
Comprehensive Plan a year and a half to two years after the Housing Element is due. So
we included in the scope of work for the consultants that we need some feedback as to
how to make this work. If we are a little bit late with the Housing Element, I think last
time we were about a year late. So it is a possibili~ that we can extend beyond the July
2009 deadline but there still is going to be some additional time given the schedule that
the Council directed us to adhere to with the $200,000 per year it would extend beyond
even that. So we need to talk to the consultant team and this is going to be a discussion
item with the Council I am sure. Two of the proposals that we have received actually
recommend accelerating the schedule. I am assuming that the consultants would like to
be in and out regardless of the Housing Element issue. They don’t want to drag this on
for an extended period of time if it can be done in a shorter period of time.
Cormr~issioner Keller: What is the time range over which the Housing Element applies?
In other words, what is the period?
Ms. Capor~no: It covers 2007 through 2014.
Commissioner Ketler: Okay so it goes from 2007 to 2014 and the Housing Element
won’t be approved by the City until basically ~vo years or so into the period.
The EIR is tied to the Comprehensive Plan and not the Housing Element, is that correct?
Ms. Capor~no: That is the critical par~ why we can’t get the Housing Element done any
sooner than the Comprehensive Plan. The EIR is going to cover both the Comprehensive
Plan and chapter four of the Comprehensive Plan, which is the Housing Element.
Commissioner Keller: It looks like from your Staff Repor~ that you originally asked for
$300,000 more than the Civ Council acma!ly approved. If the same $800,000 ,,,,ere
doted out in a compressed timeline rather than over fore" years would that allow more
work to be done by consultants in the same amount of time being that the temporal
overhead woutd be reduced?
Ms. Capor~no: Yes, I believe so. Right now I think we could probably get it done in
three years because it is four fiscal years and right now we have six months of this fiscal
year, two fall fiscal years, and then six months of the fourth fiscal year. So it really
would be three years but if we could accelerate it more that would meet the Housing
Element requirements much better. I think from what we have heard from people
generally the sooner the better.
Commissioner Keller: The Housing Element is going to expire as you said in 2014?
Ms. Capora-no: That is correct.
Commissioner Keller: How does the timing of the Housing Element ending and
presumably there would be a new Housing Element from 2014 to 2022 or something tike
that. How does that affect when the Comprehensive Plan is reasonable to end whether it
should be through 2015 or 2020?
Ms. Caporgno: I guess you could do it either way. It would seem to me that given the
fact that we won’t have done a complete overview or update of the Comprehensive Plan
through this process, this is more of an amendment just looking at the existing
Comprehensive Plan and extending, that probably the 2015 date is maybe more viable.
We w-ere trying to get as much longevity out of the Comprehensive Plan when the
Council said up to 2020. If we developed this Comprehensive Plan ’Amendment through
2020 and in 2014 when we do the next Housing t~lement it was decided that it is not
going to work for too much longer and we should do a complete update there wouldn’t be
any-~hing that would prevent you from doing that, but you would have the abili~- to
extend beyond that. However, if we start going with 2015 then it is a given that in 20!5
we are going to need to update the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Ke!ler: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: First of a!! I would like to echo my fel!ow Commissioner’s
question or comment regarding punic outreach. I think before Commissioner Keller,
Tuma and Fineberg had joined us on the Commission we had talked about having some
public outreach sessions. In fact, doing the majority of them maybe on Saturdays as half-
day sessions and to try a little more inibrmal setting where it might be done as a
roundtable or actually breaking us up into a Commissioner per ~oup in a workshop type
format. So I just want to make sure that that doesn’t get lost.
Going back to your list here on I guess the adding of the sustainability chapter addressing
the City’s commitment to global warming. This is going beyond the City’s new
sustainability ordinance in terms of the LEED checklist and then finally having LEED
requirements, is that correct?
Ms. Capor~no: This is more of a policy statement. So we would probably be using a
variety of documents that have been prepared by the City. This is still to be determined
but maybe have a separate chapter that deals with sustainability or w~ithin each chapter
have some component that deals with sustainability. I think the consultants that we have
discussed this with and just generally planners in different cities that have been doing this
too it has been done either way and we have to determine, and we will probably be
getting your advice, on what would be the more effective way of doing it.
Commissioner Lippert: Well, there are two components to this. One is I guess the City"
has begun to make a commitment towards reducing the carbon footprint of development.
We do have our own City utility. Is it appropriate to think about perhaps engaging the
Utility Advisor)- Commission as part of this component? There is a saying a kilowatt
saved is a kilowatt not having to be produced. So the idea here is that I think by engaging
that group in this chapter or this section it might be helpful
The second part of it is that the state now has state law that is beginning to require cities
to reduce their carbon footprint. How does that new legislation work into that? You
don’t have to answer me that is a question that I am having.
The last comment I wanted to make is it says here add a new sustainability chapter
addressing the City’s commitment to gtobal warming. Because City’s is capitalized what
you are really talking about and I think it might be the other way around. It is city with a
small ~c’ meaning the residents of Palo Alto as a community our commitment to reducing
global warming.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Fineberg.
Commissioner Fineber~: Julie, thank you. Some of my questions have been answered
but let me go ahead and ask a couple of the higher priority questions. In my question
number one you have atready given us some infot~.ation about the Comprehensive Plan
element, timing, and the scope of the work, the Housing Element Update, and ABAG
goals. What is the timing of the Stanford Development Agreement with the other three
pieces?
Ms. Capor~no: Curtis you might want to jump in here but I believe that the Development
Agreement is anticipated to be completed at the end of this year. What land use changes,
general policies that come out of that Development A~eement would be included in the
Comprehensive Plan ’Amendment but they are separate. There can be amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan that are made while we are in the process of reviewing it. It is not
that it is static until this process is completed. So ideally you look at every-thing
comprehensively at one time but in this particular case the medical facility and shopping
center wil! be going forward. The Development A~eement is more - there are some
changes that wi!! be made to the Comprehensive Plan as a resutt of the Counci! approving
this but a lot of this has to deal with a more detail than would go into the Comprehensive
Plan any~vay.
Commissioner Finebera: Are there pieces, information or goals, that in Order to
effectively negotiate the Development Agreement we need to know, either this body or
Council, would need to know what does the future Comprehensive Plan !ook like or what
are the future Housing Element goals? I am wondering if they are happening in the most
optimal sequence.
Ms. Capor~no: I don’t know. As I said maybe ideally you would do all of this at one
time but I think in this particular case they have applied for this Development Agreement
and these changes we are expediting it in conjunction with state requirements.
Commissioner Fineber~: Thank you. Would there be any advantage then to the Ci~ to
expedite, as Commissioner Keller had mentioned, if the funding were to come forward in
a more expeditious manner would there be advantages to all parties for having the work
plan sped up rather than what I am characterizing as the slow- track?
Ms. Capor~no: I think so particularly because of the Housing Element. For no other
reason but for that a!one that would be advantageous. When the Council made the
determination to delay- it and it was really a budgetary issue and there wasn’t really a
discussion about what the do,,~’nside w-ould be as far as planning issues.
Commissioner Fineber_~: Okay-. Two more quick questions. Can you characterize a little
bit about what the differences would be between overall land use patterns and either
specific area plans or the coordinated area plans, and why are either being selected for the
two areas you have identified, and then whether or not anything happens at Ca!-Ventura?
Ms. Capor~no: I gave you Cal-Venturajust as an example just to show that this is the
kind of detai! that we envision coming out of both of the area plans for both East
Meadow Circle extended area as we!l as the Fry’s site. It is kind of more of a vision of
what the land uses would be for each of those areas, and kind of general circulation
patterns, will the land uses work, and pedestrian connectivity- issues. Then if in fact the
Council elects when they approve the Comprehensive Plan Update, and we may as a
program include recommendation that a specific area plan also be prepared like SOFA
for one or both of these areas. Then the Council if they approve that part of the
Comprehensive Plan then they would also at some point have to budget for preparation of
the area plan or plans. As with Cal-Ventura we have never received funding so that is
why nothing has been done other than what you see before you. There hasn’t been any
funding allocated by Council to do an?thing more definitively than this.
Commissioner Fineber~: So what would trigger Council to then say let’s fund Program
L-30 or let’s do two specific area ptans? Is that something Staff would bring to Counci!
or would this Commission recommend it?
Ms. Caporsno: It could be recommended when the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
goes to Council. Then it really comes back to each year’s budget. The reason I assume
this Cal-Ventura hasn’t been funded, there may be a variety of reasons but there are other
items that they feel are more important to be funded. So it comes back to the General
Fund and what ale the priorities each year.
Commissioner Fineber~: Okay, my last question. The work program you presented to us
was approved by Council over two years ago. Do you have a sense or what can you say
about whether it still remains a timety and effective work program or has the baseline
changed at all? Does Council need to review the work pro~am again or if you hear
nothing it is good?
Ms. Capora-no: Well, I don’t know really. I can just tell you that we haven’t heard
an?thing to indicate that there is a change but there are four new Council Members. Now
one of the Council Members was part of the Planning Commission that approved the
work program. I know that there have been various questions since the budget was
approved in June. Our Director has indicated that there has been some desire expressed
on the pal~ of different Council Members that we begin to move forvvard with this and
they are anticipating the consultant contract coming before them. Now when they are
refreshed with the work program whether or not they will decide they want to make any
changes I don’t know. I haven’t heard anything and I think the impetus to provide retail
is still a desire to make sure that there are sufficient City services for existing residential
development and is still very foremost in their work items and of importance for the city.
Curtis, you might want to weigh in on that too.
Mr. Williams: That is correct. There are somewhat different circumstances now than
two years ago particularly from the standpoint of the housing market and the residential
market being a very different picture than we were seeing at that point and that is what I
think the work pro~am reacted strongly to, some of those projects and the accelerated
rate of project we were seeing at that time. So even though that has slowed I think those
issues are still pretty paramount for the City to address now and hopefully get things in
place so that if things pick up again we have something to work from at that point. The
same thing with the retail end of it and even more so maybe tln_an two years ago we have
the need to protect and enhance a retai! environment and potential sales tax revenues.
Ms. Capor~no: I was just going to add one other thing. We haven’t actually talked to
them about the Comprehensive Plan Update but in discussing the ABAG numbers with
Council it doesn’t sound like they have decided that they want to embrace a lot of
housing and that they feel the preservation of neighborhoods and schools and services are
extremely important. In the interim period of time from the time they adopted the work
program to now we did implement some rezoning to ensure that some properties that
were used for commercial purposes but were on sites that were designated and plarmed
for residential development were changed to ensure that that commercial development
was retained.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, do you still have questions?
Commissioner Ketter: Yes I do. You mentioned eartier that there were a lot of Housing
Elements that were in some sense approved but for which construction has not yet
commenced. You said that of the construction that commenced there weie somewhat,
not much, but in excess of the 2,400 housing units that were in the Comprehensive Plan.
When do development approvals expire if the construction is not commenced? Do we
have a reason to believe that this housing will not be built?
Mr. Williams: Most of our approvals ha;,-e one-year timeffames with one-year
extensions. So two years on the outside before it would expire.
Commissioner Keller: So do we have reason to believe that these approved housing
developments will actually not be built?
Ms. Capor~no: I guess it is hard to tell. Some of that like the TK/CJL component hasn’t
gone forward yet. They have not broken ground on that. So some of it may be the
phasing of it and that they are slowing down on some of it. I don’t Roland if you want to
go through it.
Mr. Williams: The 195 Page Mill is one that at this point looks like it is not going
anywhere. It may be a new owner and we will if they come back with a similar project or
not.
Ms. Capor~no: Also the Essex project was adjacent that we had assumed would go
forward and the police building was approved for that site. Roland if you want to just go
through it.
Mr. Roland Rivera. Senior Planner: We did anticipate 525 San .’Antonio. It was a lot
subdivision that was approved about six years ago that has not moved forward and a
couple of small ones. I think what Julie was mentioning was some of these entitlements
for example the 345 Alma Plaza has entitlement but has no at this point gone for a
building permit.
Commissioner Keller: I think as far as the TK/CJL I drive by there pretty often and it
looks like there is a lot under construction there although I am not sure if BRIDGE
Housing has started construction.
Ms. Capor~o-no: They have received the funding so I think they broke ground or are about
ready to.
Mr. Williams: The private side, the BUILD part of it, is under construction. The
affordable BRIDGE component is not under construction yet but that is where
Schwarzenegger came out and announced that Prop 1C funds were being made available
to support that project in addition to a number of others throughout the state. So we do
expect that wilt be moving forward. A lot of the CJL site is under construction. I think
the podium is under construction and then on top of the podium is where the housing
would be going. So don’t know that the housing units themselves are under construction.
Commissioner Keller: Well the whole project is under construction. So based on the
approvals that have happened do you have an idea how many housing units you expect to
be built in the 1998 to 20!0 timeframe?
Ms. Capor~no: There are 7! that are entitled but no building permits have been issued.
W~hat we were talking about as far as the ones that are either under construction or have
been built from 1997 through 2008, which is the timeframe of the Comprehensive Plan
that is 2,458. I thinic at one point we were talking about 2,700 or 2,800. I think people
have not moved forward because the phasing of these projects has slowed dov~m. My
understanding of the Vantage Echelon project that is slow a little bit as far as the selling
of them. That is what I heard but I am not certain of that.
Chair Holman: I think Roland had something to add.
Mr. Rivera: Also in relation to your question about what is project from present to 2010
when the current Comprehensive Plan ends we were originally anticipating about 250 to
300 housing units. At this point we are looking at about !38 that are currently in the
entitlement process that we are anticipating to be approved by 2010.
Commissioner Keller: It looks like during this Comprehensive Plan period we did
somewhat go over the amount in the EIR. What would you suggest we do next time if
that were to take place?
Chair Holman: Can I just add on to that by saying it shouldn’t happen? So maybe if the
question were phrased rather than what would you suggest or recommend if we surpass it
next time maybe how would you address being able not to surpass what has been
evaluated for the EIR because that actualty is I believe illega!.
Commissioner Keller: Well, I am happy with it either vv-ay. Perhaps the best way is how
do we make sure that the amount of housing units that are built is covered by the EIR and
that we don’t go beyond it. Let me put it that way.
Ms. Capor~no: I think if we were to establish some sort of monitoring or annua!
reporting. I know that we were tracking it but there wasn’t anything that said you have
gone to a certain point and the Council needs to initiate this process. Maybe as part of
this update we develop some sort of process for tracking that we would do each year and
it would go to Council.
Commissioner Keller: Would a concept like rationing market rate housing units based on
the pro rata annual allotment of market rate housing units from the Housing Element,
would something like that make sense?
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, I think we are getting into a fine grain area that
really is beyond the scope of this item. So I have been generous in letting ?-ou go but it is
beyond the scope of this item. Commissioner Fineberg, you had a question?
Commissioner Fineber_~: On the issue of housing count I would like to see, maybe not
tonight but in the future, discussion on what will go into the housing count. There have
been a number of contentious issues on what does get counted and what doesn’t get
counted, what happens to single family homes built on bare lots, what happens to the
houses that were in the Comprehensive Plan’s EIR that were bnilt on Stanford land, and
different people have Staff versus residents all expressing I would say a great deal of
common sense and passion and have different ideas about what should be counted. I
would love to see some coming together and definition of what we count and what we
don’t count.
Chair Holman: I have just a couple of questions. One is a part of the housing update, H-
29. I have been told that the City Attorney’s Office has said that there is case law that
says that that isn’t legat. I have no idea why it isn’t lega!. If we could just get some kind
of information about that that would be great. I presume that is okay.
As a part of this Comprehensive Ptan Update and establishing where we are would that
include potentia!ly looking at baseline traffic counts? We are looking at areas that are
potentially going to have a lot of activity going on and there has been discussion in the
past about what Pa!o Alto uses as baseline counts versus what different people interpret
to be what CEQA says you are supposed to do and what other cities use as base count.
So would that be a part of what might be looked at here2
Ms. Capora-no: I think that as far as the criteria for what we consider to be sigr~ificant, is
that what you are asking about or just the evaluation of the amount of traffic generated by
different types of development?
Chair Holman: Wha~ would be used as the baseline? Would that be part of what would
be looked at as a part of the Comprehensive Plan Update for the areas that we will be
studying? In other words, some places use existing conditions, some places use if a
property has been vacant for awhile, some cities use what the potential ‘‘,v-as or what the
previous condition was vchen the site was occupied. So the question is would that
consideration be open to discussion as a part of this Comprehensive Plan Update?
Ms. Capor~no: That is why I was talking about the significance criteria because that is
really what you are !ooking at when we evaluate traffic for individual projects. What we
are going to be doing here for this analysis is looking at it from a model perspective
because obviously it is not a near term analysis it is a long-range analysis. So we have to
decide on ,,,v-hat model we are going to use and we may- be using the VTA model. This
concept of how we do traffic is probably not something that will come out of the
Comprehensive Plan but we will be looking at including in the Comprehensive Plan. as I
mentioned before, currently what are criterion are for level of se~ice and that sort of
thing will be inserted in the Comprehensive Plan and maybe subsequent to that we will
have some evaluation as to any sort of modifications to that. At this point that is not part
of the program.
Chair Holman: Okay. Then akin to a question that Commissioner Fineberg had asked
and one that I had raised with Staff previously is this was pushed out to a four-year
program because of budgetary reasons. Staff has indicated that there could be some
efficiencies and some rationale for shortening that timeframe. I know you said that you
aren’t going to change you recommendation to the Council did I understand that
correctly?
Ms. Caporgno: Vv5at I had indicated is we weren’t recommending any changes to the
work pro~am. As far as the timing, in fact I had indicated we are going back and forth
internally about should it be 2015 or 2020. They didn’t rea!ly adopt anF’thing as far as a
specific ending date. The Council just said up to 2020. So it was kind of left to Staffand
the consultant team as to what would be the most prudent timeline. I am sorry you are
talking about how quickly we are doing it. W-hen they changed it to the four years we
probably aren’t going to go back and recommend anything. We can put in our Staff
report ,,vhat you’re recommending but we I don’t think are planning on recommending a
tighter timeframe for completion.
Chair Holman: However, if we make comments recommending your comments or make
suggestions or recommendations based on your comments that would be agreeable it
sounds like.
Then lastly as far as questions are concerned it is again aMn to Commissioner Fineberg’s
seventh question and one that I had raised previously as well. It has to do with the
timeline. Does Staff have an idea about if we actually can afford to w-air four years to do
this given that we have had changed conditions out there that the price of land keeps
going up? So if we new parklands, if we need new neighborhood centers can we really
afford to wait four ?’ears especially considering we are already tw-o years behind when we
were supposed to start any~-ay? The financial impact of compressing this schedule and
the financial impact of waiting, can we really af*brd to do that?
Ms. Caporgno: I think that if there was an opportunity for us to acquire parkland or a site
for a community center obviously we could sti!l do that there is nothing that precludes us
from doing that. The advantage of the Comprehensive Plan is to look at the city as whole
and decide what are the more appropriate locations for parks and community centers.
Now we can’t specifically identi~ centers and parks unless we are able to purchase them
and I think this is what we were envisioning doing, that in this genera! area it is park
deficient so it would be good to have a park but we can’t say it is on this property unless
we have the ability to acquire the site, the same thing with a community center. It is just
more of a comprehensive look at it but there is nothing that would prevent us if an
opportunity arose for us to acquire something. So I don’t think that we will be missing
anything that significantly.
Chair Holman: Except that as you say we would be advantage by having done the
Comprehensive Plan so we would be able to better evaluate w-hat would be a prudent
purchase or not from a planning standpoint. Ct~is.
Mr. Williams: Just a couple of things sort of on the flip side. One is I think the Council
is probably going to have to ask the question if they think about expediting things of
whether we can afford to expedite things because we are in a tough budget situation as it
is. I don’t begin to know where additional money would come from to move it faster.
The second thing is that I think frankly a lot of the timeline is driven by public
participation and it is hard to envision the kinds of things we are trying to do getting done
much faster than that and still keeping the level of public participation that I think the
community is interested in doing. So what we have talked about before is maybe w-e say
it is going to be faster and then maybe it actually does happen in the three years that we
are looking at it happening. So maybe if that is the strategy that is fine but I just don’t
want to mislead anyone into thinking that we can move faster than will allow for
adequate public input to a couple of significant area studies as well as some really key
community issues with community services and retail and revenue and such.
Ms. Capora-no: Can I just add one thing? When we came to the Commission previously
and discussed this the Commissioners that were here at the time thought we were realty
ambitious and probably would never achieve a tw-o-year timeframe. So I think if we can
do it witMn three years for Palo Alto that would be quite a success. Given tb~e fact of the
public participation that is going to be needed for this and trying to find a way of doing
that very expeditiously but enabling as much participation as possible.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma to be fotlowed by Vice-Chair Garber. Comments I
presume at this point.
Commissioner Tuma: No, they both just answered the exact question I was going to ask,
why not?
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber, comments.
Vice-Chair Garber: Yes, if I may. I find my comments divide themselves into a couple
of different categories.
Chair Holman: I apologize. I am going to interrupt Vice-Chair Garber. You are looking
for comments or a motion on this item?
Ms. Capor_o-no: We were not looking for a motion because you wanted to see it again and
you wanted to discuss it. So what I plan on doing is summarizing your comments and
including them in the Staff Report or CMR that goes to the Council.
Chair Holman: Good enough, thank you. So sorry Vice-Chair Garber.
Vice-Chair Garber: No worries. First of all comments regarding the work plan and the
bullet points in the Work plan. They divide themselves into sort of two categories in my
mind. First of all our recommendations to Staff about how to think about those and the
second of which are really addressed to the City Counci! for inclusion or exclusion of
those bullet points. Then there is another piece, which has to do with process. So to that
end let me work backwards.
I would agree with the comments that have been made regarding the process that the
outreach to the public be as inclusive as possible and include groups both neighborhoods
as we!l as potential stakeholders, and potentially and ideally including the schools to be
made a part of that process.
I think there is also in the same sort of general process comments the general suggestion I
think I am hearing here is that if the environment has changed from two years ago when
these priorities were first created that causes them to be reshuffled I think that should be
within the Staff’s purview to make those readjustments. I think in particular here housing
is raising its flag. In particular it may cause how cash is allocated over this period of time
to be managed slightly differently in order to address some of those issues. I will leave it
to Staffto figure out the best way to make use of the City’s resources there.
The other comments related to the work plan relative to recommendations to Staff on
how to organize them, in particular trader filled-in bullet number three which starts,
Review and modify appropriate Comprehensive Plan text. It would seem to me that as
part of the conversation there, enhance and inte~ate a pattern of walkable
neighborhoods, that may be the appropriate place to have the discussion regarding a
neighborhood center in College Terrace. I don’t know if that can be made part of that or
if that fits there but that is one suggestion.
Relative to comments more directed towards City Council in terms of things that are in
addition to the work plan that is here and it would be under the second bu!let point which
is, Update land use map and land use designations and rezone accordingly, I would like
to suggest that the Council consider including in this although it may be larger than the
small pot that we already have here an evaluation of Policy L-2 which is the connection
that the City has with Santa Clara and Stanford as well as Pro~am L-27 which is the
importantly the link between the Universib" Avenue and the Stanford Mal!. That area of
town represents some potential high impact positive impacts economically to the City
that could benefit from ta~ng a look at how those spaces are used and what those
linkages can be especially as we are in the middle of the conversation with Stanford
about their other developments. I think there is a synergy there that can be taken
advantage of in particular there is the opportunity to look again at the study that was done
between the City and Stanford for creating an entertainment district at the end of
Universib to operate as that link.
I wilt leave that for the moment and come back if necessary-. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: I am pretty much in a~eement with ,,vhat my colleagues have
said and I would tike to add just a couple of other things. We don’t really have any input
in the consultant selection process but in the selection process itself some of the things
that we have raised in here I think might be worth pursuing in the interview process and
asking the consultants how they might deal with some of those things. So that you begin
to understand that they would be able to meet our needs. VV-hat I am specifically looking
at here in terms of the public outreach process, finding out how they have gone about
doing those, and successes that they have had in the punic outreach process.
Also there is the new chapter on sustainability and most of these consultants I am sure
have had experience with Housing Elements and walkable communities and
transportation, etc., etc. Sustainability is really relatively new and again I would sort of
flush that out with them and find out what their thoughts are with regard to that and see if
there is some compatibility there.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: I would align myself with the comments of the previous two
Commissioners adding a couple of things and emphasizing one in particular. The one
that I want to emphasize is the comment that Commissioner Garber made with respect to
making sure that the outreach includes the schools community. I think keeping in mind
the way that I think of that is not just the school district itself but the active parent
communi~- within the schools community... We don:t see the same folks here that we see
over at the meetings at 25 Churchill. So thinking of ways to reach out to that community
and get them involved in the Comprehensive Plan not just the district officials but the
parent community there as well would be good.
I would like to see some sort of a cap or a ration or some sor~ of number that we cannot
exceed in terms of the number of building permits granted that matches up with the total
EIR numbers that are evaluated for purposes of the next go around. I don’t know within
legal confines how we can do this. I think that is a worthwhile endeavor. That is it for
no’vv.
Chair Holman: Other Commissioners, comments? Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: First I would like to also agree with the comments of the three
Commissioners that preceded me. Also with respect to schools I think there should be a
discussion with the Palo Alto Unified School District whether district ~owth might
indicate that additional land is needed for schools and whether there is any desire on their
part to acquire a school site such as in the East Meadow Circle area. That might be an
opportunity for a school site, I don’t know.
Also, to the extent that we can take into account school impacts I would like to
understand that better with respect to the Housing Element. I think that is perhaps the
singte biggest impact of the housing that we build and the nature of the housing we build.
I would like to understand a little bit more differentially what kind of housing causes
what kind of impacts2
Based on the comments about the Housing Element I would encourage an end date of the
Comprehensive Plan revision of 2015 rather than 2020 precisely because we are in a
whole other Housing Element at that point. I think that that becomes more problematic.
With respect to outreach I think that it will be good for the Planning Division to have
interest lists that people can subscribe to for various topics. Just an email list that people
can subscribe to like Frank’s Weekly Memo or whatever. That we come up with a dozen
or half a dozen or some number of general lists and when something comes along on that
list we notify- of when such a meeting is taking place. I think that would do a lot towards
helping deal with outreach in general so people would be aware.
With respect to traffic counts I would acmatly be interested in the baseline traffic counts
be based on actual counts that were made no more than five years prior to the application.
With respect to the second bullet of the border of San ’Antonio Road I suggest that that
border be extended to the ciV boundary when the city boundary extends beyond San
Antonio Road. I think pret~’ much al! along from 101 to Alma Street the city border does
extend beyond San Antonio Road. I don’t understand why that little strip of land isn’t
included.
My final comment for now, I will make some more later if I have the opportuni~-, is I
would like to express a concern about the process being occm-red for Cubberly. The
reason I am expressing a concern about that is because the Cib Council is taking
discussions about having the City Counci!’s eight or so acres being used for Foothill
College with the presumption that the remaining space will be usable for City purposes
by lease. I would not be surprised with the amo~at of housing that is being built and the
fact that the school district’s expansions of Gunn and Paly are based on the mid level
projections of what housing is expected to be, based on housing, and that the housing
being built in South Palo Alto is likely to exceed that considering that there are more
family oriented than the housing that was previously built around the SOFA area. That
during the reasonable life of the Foothill College project will be turned back into some
sort of school. So I think that a more comprehensive look a~ that and I am not sure
exactly which body should do that but I think that we are entering into this in a way that
map not be as far sighted as is appropriate.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: In reviewing Commission and Board and Council agendas I
believe there is a City School Liaison Commktee meeting coming up. I was just
wondering if it would be possible to somehow bring up the whole timeline and the
portions that we were talking about previously with regard to getting school input and
t~ing to do it at that meeting, make it visible at that point. Maybe ask how we might
engage the school district at t that point because they only have those liaison meetings
twice a year.
Nir. Wi!liams: No, they have them monthly I think and they had one this morning I think.
Commissioner Lippert: Maybe that was the one that I just saw.
Mr. Williams: What we will do is I will talk to Steve, he goes to all of those pretty much,
and tatk to him about scheduling something or someway to convey communicating to
them this timeline and if they want to put it on their agenda to talk about it that would be
fine, and what the best ways they think to get input from the school district are.
Commissioner Lippert: That would be great.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Fineberg.
Commissioner Fineber~: I think it is wonderfu! and a delight that I can say that I agree
with all the comments of all the Commissioners that have spoken so far tonight. I think
that is quite wonderful.
I a~ee that public input is vital. I think that we also may want to consider a way to get
input from the public about how we can best reach them. It is very telting when I look in
the room tonight that here we are talking about how to engage the public and we have
two members of the public here. So I think we really need to look and Samir mentioned
going out through the schools. That is something that I think we haven’t done
tradi;ionally. Niaybe going out through other affinity groups, different nonprofit
volunteer ~oups, or other places where people con~egate especially where the
Comprehensive Plan will touch them or the amendment and the updates to the
Comprehensive Plan will touch them.
t think that it is imperative that we pause just long enough with the work plan to make
sure it is what we need and the right thing to do in today’s conditions. That may be
something that Council simply !ooks at and says yes this is good, or maybe there needs to
be a bit more discussion about what to tweak and that may indeed bring in other bigger
issues of things that need to be added, changed, reprioritized. In that view of possibly
there might be changes I would like to see some priori) given to revisiting the guidelines
and the rezoning along E1 Camino. Our baseline has changed. There have been a
number of issues w-ith walkability, setbacks, sidewalks, height, eveNone -knows what
those are and is the work plan update an appropriate time to revisit that. I would like to
see some consideration before the work begins about whether the two areas that wil! be
undergoing a ~eat amount of change should be left as tand use evaluations or specific
areas. I am not sure leaving that decision for later makes sense because if you do a land
use evaluation you have done your work I am not sure I understand why later you would
then implement a specific area plan.
I would like to also echo Commissioner Keller’s comments about reviewing the
methodology for traffic counts. I think that count is a bit problematic especia!ly the
punic perception of it. It may just be that there needs to be some lay- language put in our
public outreach about how it is done. I am not sure that the way we are doing it yields us
the results we want and need going forward. So that’s it thank you.
Chair Holman: I am reminded that we have no cards from the public here so I will open
and close the punic hearing. I, like Commissioner Fineberg, haven’t heard anF’thing that
I disagree with. I guess I would emphasize that I would hope that we w-ould target a two
and a half year timeframe. I know Staff says that three years is probably about the fastest
they could do it given input but I am concerned that if we target three years we wi!l be
five years. We were going to be done in four years and now we are two years later and
haven’t started. So I am going to suggest that we target a two and a half year timeline.
The same comment about I w-ould have thought there would be several members of the
punic here because there are severa! issues with Tentative Maps that people in the public
have commented about yet there is no one here to speak to that. So I don’t know what
the best way is but I would suggest that Staff put some questions out about what better
descriptions. It may well be the descriptions that we are putting in the notices. ~Vhile
they are legally satisfying they not be descriptive enough to get people informed about
what we are really discussing. So when something like the Comprehensive Plan Update,
Tentative Maps, those kinds of things I think the language may be the holdup on getting
participation. I think some questions to PAN, Chamber of Commerce, whatever.
One question that I have that I didn’t ask earlier is this is the identified area for the
Comprehensive Plan Update that was identified. Is there any anticipated development in
some other part of town that is not covered by what this work plan is aside from we know
that Stanford has its proposals out there, but are there any others anticipated?
Commissioner Kelter mentioned the issue of south of San :Antonio. That whole
Charleston area has for some time been discussed and I haven’t heard an?thing reatly
recent given how the market has changed. Is there an?thing else that Staff has gotten an
inkling of about large change or development?
Mr. Williams: I wouldn’t say so. I think when you talk about basically South Et
Camino, East Meadow, East Bayshore, it seemed like a couple of years ago there was
some discussion about Embarcadero east to the Baylands and that but it doesn’t seem like
much at all has been brought up going out there at this point. That area down near
Charleston, the industrial sort of area, is pretty quiet as far as we haven’t seen parcels
getting merged together or drastically different developments or anything like that or
heard about them. So there are probably things and I think we are going to cover it
relative to maybe some of these land use issues particularly relative to retail and
protecting retail that cover more than just a specific area. It covers kind of al! of our
retail corridors to try to develop more strategies to do that but not really in response to
any specific potential development proposa!.
Chair Holman: Thank you for that update. I would still suggest that we include that area
south of San ,.amtonio because markets can change quickly and cities cannot respond fast
enough. So I would suggest that it still be included.
As far as neighborhood centers, which have been a topic of conversation lately and one of
my passions, Vice-Chair Garber mentioned College Terrace. I would say- any-~vhere up or
down E1 Camino would be ripe and potentially some place on San ’Antonio but less likely
but certainly South E1 Camino.
I think I will add one thing that has to do with the process again. I think we could be
better informed. While I agree with you Julie that having a slower process wouldn’t
preclude us from purchasing some land or working with a developer to do something but
having this plan done sooner does better enable us to make a more comprehensive and a
better thought out approach to development and what the ciU should be as we change and
evolve. I wi!l stop there.
I think Commissioner Keller had a light on and then Commissioner Lippert does as well.
Commissioner Keller: I agree with the comments regarding E1 Camino and particularly
with respect to the Grand Boulevard. I believe there have been some materials on that
and I saw a presentation of that at the Joint Venture Silicon Valley. So making that
available would be worthwhile.
With respect to the East Meadow- Circle and its wings if you will towards Fabian and
towards West Bayshore I would underscore the interest in including San ’Antonio Road
towards Middle field because that is a zone ~hat could potentially be redeveloped.
Considering that one of the principles of retail is putting it a~ your border so that your
neighbors can come visit you Mountain View has done an excellent job of doing that
over by Costco and the new- Charleston Center or whatever it is called. I would see a
wonderful opportunity to encourage the triangle between San :Antonio and 101 and
Charleston turning into a retai! center to work in concert with the adjacen~ retail on the
Mountain View side.
That gets to a related issue which is that I think the Commission should pay attention to
what is going on at the 101/San Antonio!Charleston interchanges in particular the plan as
I understand it and as there is money for it about realigning the 10 !/San Antonio
interchange so that rather than entering that 101 from Charleston with that crazy
interchange that is the same as the exit ramp onto Rengstorff, instead going onto San
.Antonio Road. I think that requires particular attention and I think that being that we are
the Planning and Transportation Commission we should do that. That also involves
taking another look at the intersection of San .’Antonio and Charleston.
Continuing with the transportation theme high-speed rail may or may not happen.
Caltrain electrification is more likely to happen even if Caltrans high-speed rail does not
happen. That means over some period of time there will be more and more trains going
on there according to the Caltrain 2025 plan. Therefore I thi~k we need to start thinking
about how we handle that, whether it is in terms of grade crossing and how we might
accommodate them, whether it is taking Caltrain and high speed rail and putting it
under~ound under Alma, or whether it is moving it to E1 Camino and making it along
there. I think those are the ~kinds of things we should start exploring. I am not sure that
that should be done as part of the Comprehensive Plan revision but that is certainly
something that I think we should be consideration. _At the appropriate time I think we
should also consider the Palo Alto Multi-Modal Station as some have mentioned
particular in the case that high speed rail is approved. That will require significant
attention because I am hoping that we will lobby for high speed rail having a stop at Palo
Alto and making that a multi-modal station being a high speed rail stop and the
implications for that.
My next to last comment is that with respect to the Cal-Vent~tra stuff and the priority
development area and all that consideration not only should we talk to the appropriate
residents but we should particularly make outreach to CAADA, the California Area
Development Association. I think that is critically important for the loca! businesses to
be involved.
I wilt finally end on the note of civic engagement. This is a priori) for the Council and
therefore I think it should be underscored as a priority for us to figure out how we can
better engage the public to provide input to the Planning Commission. I am one who
believes that if we can engage punic better in issues when they come to the Planning
Commission then they will be able to be addressed better in our deliberative process than
when it gets to the Council where the Council has limited time and limited energy and
limited a~tention to put to the matters that we have already considered in detail.
Chair Holman: I see no other lights. Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: I just wanted to add one other thought and this is just building on
Commissioner Garber’s thought with regard to centers of community and Chair
Holman’s comment with regard to San Antonio. Cubberly has been recently looked at as
being redeve!oped. Even though that probably has tegs of its own I think it is worth
looking at in terms of the Comprehensive Plan and policy.
Chair Holman: Okay, ifI haven’t overlooked anybody else? Okay. Does Staff have
something to add? Julie.
Ms. Capor~no: I know this issue about San Antonio and the line where we are or aren’t
going to inctude any of that area that is still up to be determined yet. So there was
nothing that was realiy definitive which is generally that area. So definitely south of San
,amtonio Road can be included. It was just kind of more generally this is the area we are
looking at but it wasn’t that there was an actual line and we include an?thing other than
that.
Chair Hotman: We might differ in what it should be but we should at least look at it.
Commissioner Keller
Commissioner Keller: I don’t want to heap on this too much but I want to identi~: that in
the paragraph in the second bullet, which is the bu!let on the top of page two, it refers to
the East Meadow/Fabian/West Bayshore area and then it refers to an overall evaluation of
land use patterns. So what is going on is that there is the specific area of focus and then a
more generic issue of land use patterns. I am suggesting that the consideration of land
use patterns of course go to the city border but I am also suggesting just to be painfully
clear that the land use evaluations for the East Meadow Circle, Fabian/West Bayshore that
also include San Antonio Road. It is in the first as well as the second not merely in the
second.
Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioner Fineberg.
Commissioner Fineber~: I am not sure if one more quick question is out order but just
for clarification, my memory, which can be faulty, was that the work plan over the next
year was going to also include Staff updating the status of programs and policies. Maybe
I am missing it but is that in this document and what is the difference?
Ms. Capor~no: You mean as far as the work program? It is in here under the Review
and modify appropriate Comprehensive Plan text, scan al! programs for relevance and
clarity. We wil! be bringing back to you the procures and policies and talking to the
various departments that are responsible for them and tving to update where we are with
all of them. We will bring that back to the Commission. That is what I had said earlier
and maybe May or June that xvill be coming back to you.
Commissioner Fineber~: Would it help if that said something like update on status so
that that extra component of knowing whether it is to be scheduled or to be delayed or
has been done, is in there?
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller is going to get the last comment or question.
Commissioner Keller: Just for the record, of the two people in the public one is right
now leaving and the other is a member of the press.
Chair Holman: With that we will close this item and move on then to approval of
minutes for the meeting of January 30, 2008
ATTACHMENT E
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA(SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS) USEDBY
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
Aesthetics (Visual Resources)
A visual impact is considered si~o-nificant if the project will:
Substantially decade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
sun’oundings; or
Significantly alter public view sheds or view corridors or scenic resources (such as
trees, outcroppings or historic buildings along a scenic roadway); or
Require substantial terrain modifications that de~’ade the visual character of the
site; or
Allow for new development that would violate existing Comprehensive Plan
policies regarding visual resources; or
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ~vould adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area; or
Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21
Air Quality
An air quality impact is considered significant if the project will:
Violate an ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation as indicated by the following:
1. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds
per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic
gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter
(PM10); or
2. Carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air
Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or
20 ppm for one hour (as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, ~vhich would
be performed when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100
tons per year; or b) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links
operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline
to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways
by 10% or more); or
¯Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; or
¯Expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air
contaminants (TACs) where:
1. Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individua!
(MEI) exceeds 10 in one million; or
2. Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index ~eater than one (!) for the MEI; or
CMR:218:02 Page 1 of 6
Does not implement all applicable construction emission control measures
recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (Table 2); or
Conflict with or obstruct ~vith implementation of the 2000 Clean Air Plan, the
2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, or the 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy.
Biological Resources
A biological resources impact is considered significant if the project will:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations; or
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, including
federally protected ~vetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; or
®Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
cola-idors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; or
Result in a substantial adverse effect to any ’°protected tree" as defined by the City
of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10) or
® Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community plan.
Cultural Resources
A cultural resources impact is considered significant if the project wilt:
Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National
and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory; or
®Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory;
or
Cause damage to an important archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5 of
the CEQA Guidelines; or
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries;
or
o Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature, or
.Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City
Council resolution.
Energy
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a) and Appendix F (Energy Conservation), EIRs
must include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects ~vith
particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary
consumption of energy. Impacts are assessed based on an evaluation of consumption of
CMR:218:02 Page 2 of 6
energy by the project. Development generally results in the consumption of energy in
three forms: 1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles; 2) bound energy in
construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or
processed materials such as milled lumber and glass; and 3) operational use of energy by
future businesses for transportation, equipment operation, and cooling of buildings.
Construction materials and the operational use of energy should be addressed.
Geology. Soils and Seismicity
A geologic or seismic impact is considered significant if the project will:
Expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic
~ound shaking, seismic related ~ound failure (including liquefaction), landslides,
or expansive soil; or
Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques; or
Be located on a geologic units or on soil that is unstable, or that ~vould become
unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse; or
Cause substantial erosionor siltation.
Hazardous Materials
Note: Some of the thresholds below can also be dealt with under a topic heading of
Public Health and Safety if the primary issues are related to a subject other than
hazardous material use.
A hazardous materials impact is considered significant if the project will:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment as a result of the
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials; or
Create a sig-nificant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment; or
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances or ~vaste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; or
Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous
materials contamination, emissions or accidental release; or
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing
hazardous materials contamination by exposing furore occupants or users of the
site to contamination either in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals
developed for the site or from location on listed hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; or
¯Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires; or
CMR:218:02 Page 3 of 6
¯Result in a safety hazard from a public airport for people residing or working
within the project area; or
¯Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response or evacuation plan.
Hydrology
A drainage and water quality impact is considered significant if the project will:
Substantially impede or redirect flood flows through placement of structures
within the 100-year flood hazard area; or
¯Substantially degrade or deplete ~ound water resources or interfere substantially
with N’oundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the loca! ground~vater table level; or
¯Substantially increase the rate, volume, or flo~v duration of storm water runoff or
alter the existing drainage pattern or the site or area, including altering the course
of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site, including increased in-stream erosion;
¯Significantly increase the rate, volume, or flow duration of storm water runoff in a
manner which would result in new or increased flooding on-or off-site, or
exceedance of the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems in
local streams; or
Provide substantial additional sources of pollutants associated with urban runoff or
otherwise substantially de~’ade surface or wound water quality; or
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving
flooding by placing housing or other development within a 100-year flood hazard
area or a levee or dam failure inundation area; or
~Result in stream bank instability; or
®Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Land Use
A land use impact is considered sigT~ificant if the project will:
Adversely change the type or intensity of overall existing or planned land use
patterns in the area; or
Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the
surrounding area, including density and building height; or
Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or
scientific uses of an area; or
Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farrnland of statewide importance
(farmland) to non-agricultural use; or
¯Conflict with any applicable City land use plan, policy or regulation (including,
but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan, coordinated area plan, or the City’s
Zoning Ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect; or
CMR:218:02 Page 4 of 6
Physically divide an established community.
Noise
A noise impact is considered sig-nificant if the project will:
Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or
more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB; or
Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area,
thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB; or
Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB; or
Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45
dB; or
Result in instantaneous noise levels of geater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in
other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater; or
Expose persons to or generate excessive ~oundborne vibrations or groundborne
noise levels; or
,Expose people to noise levels in excess of established state standards; or
Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime back~ound Leq at sensitive
receptors by 10 dBA or more.
Population and Housing
Population and housing impacts are considered significant if the project will:
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing ne~v homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure); or
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere; or
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere; or
, Create a substantial imbalance betvveen employed residents and jobs; or
, Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections.
Public Service
A public service impact is considered significant if the project will:
Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional fire,
police, recreational or school facilities, such as stations, parks or schools in order
to maintain acceptable performance standards.
Transportation
A traffic impact is considered significant if the project will:
Cause a !ocal (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service
(LOS) D; or
CMR:218:02 Page 5 of 6
¯Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the
average control delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more, and the
critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more; or
¯Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F; or
¯Cause a regional intersection already operating at LOS F to deteriorate in the
average control delay for the critical movements to increase by four seconds or
more, and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.0! or more; or
¯Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis bet~veen the design queue
length and the available queue storage capacity. Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at
intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane &ops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on
ramps; or
¯Cause a freeway segment (for each direction of traffic) to operate at LOS 1= or
contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F; or
¯Impede the deve!opment or function of planned pedest~-ian or bicycle facilities; or
¯Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion; or
¯Create an operational safety hazard; or
¯Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more on a local or collector residential street;
or
®Result in inadequate on-site parking capacity; or
¯Result in inadequate emergency access.
Utilities and Set-v’ice Systems
A utility impact is considered significant if the project ~vill:
¯Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control
Board; or
¯Require or result in the construction of new sto~n water or wastewater facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects; or
¯Result in a deterrnination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has
inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments; or
¯Need new or expanded entitlements for water supplies; or
¯Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity; or
¯Result in adverse physical impacts from new or expanded utility facilities required
to provide service as a result of the project; or
¯Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a utility facility due to increased
use as a result of the project.
CMR:218:02 Page 6 of 6