HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7697
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7697)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/20/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Comp Plan: Draft Supplement to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Update: Public Hearing on the
Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report & Revised Fiscal
Study; Council Discussion & Direction to Staff Regarding a Preferred Planning
Scenario; and Council Discussion & Direction to Staff Regarding the
Organization of the Comprehensive Plan
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing on the February 10, 2017 Supplement to the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the purpose of obtaining public and
Councilmember comments consistent with the notice provided in Attachment A as well
as further comments on the February 2016 Draft EIR;
2. Discuss and provide comments on the revised draft fiscal study (Attachment C) that has
been prepared to accompany the Supplement to the Draft EIR;
3. Identify a “preferred scenario” for the Final EIR. Based on the City Council’s January 30,
2017 direction regarding the Land Use & Community Design Element, it appears that
Council is inclined to include the following components. Staff seeks confirmation or
supplemental direction in each of these areas:
A. Estimated housing and population growth would be between Scenario 4 (4,420
dwelling units) and Scenario 6 (6,000 dwelling units). This is based on Council’s
January 30, 2017 direction to:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
i. remove housing sites on San Antonio and replace with increased densities
downtown and near Cal Ave. (similar to Scenarios 3, 4, and 5);
ii. add housing sites on the El Camino Real frontage of the Research Park and at
the Stanford Shopping Center providing adequate parking is maintained
(similar to Scenarios 4 and 6);
iii. consider the addition of housing (and a hotel and conference center)
elsewhere in the Stanford Research Park and near SUMC (similar to Scenario
6)
iv. Include policies to support retail/residential mixed use and pursue
conversion of some non-residential FAR to residential FAR (similar to
Scenarios 3, 4, 5, and 6);
v. Include policies to encourage a mix of housing types including smaller units
and units to preserve housing that is affordable and minimize displacement
of existing residents (similar to Scenarios 2, 3, 5, and 6).
B. Estimated non-residential square footage would be up to 3M square feet similar to
Scenario 2. This is based on Council’s January 30, 2017 direction to perpetuate the
“cap” on non-residential development in existing Policy L-8 with some updates.
(1.3M square feet has already been approved at SUMC and the remaining 1.7M
square feet under the existing “cap” would apply to office/R&D citywide except in
the SUMC area.)
C. Estimated employment growth would be between Scenario 2 (9,850) and Scenario 3
(12,755). This reflects the Council’s January 30, 2017 direction to perpetuate the
interim annual limit on office/R&D square footage via an ordinance that exempts the
Stanford Research Park. (Scenario 2 includes a City-wide annual limit, Scenario 3
includes an annual limit that applies to a smaller subset of the City than suggested
by the Council, and the amount of new employment is determined by the economic
“climate” as well as the amount of new building space.)
D. Transportation investments would include the following, as well as complementary
investments in transit, transportation demand management, and parking
supply/management: (These are based on the January 30, 2017 Draft Transportation
Element.)
i. Small improvements within existing rights-of-way to provide for traffic
calming or relatively small increases in roadway capacity by adding turn lanes
or making other intersection adjustments;
ii. Full grade separations for automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at Caltrain
crossings; Retrofit/improvements to existing grade separated Caltrain
crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists at California Avenue and University
Avenue;
City of Palo Alto Page 3
iii. Construction of new pedestrian and bicycle grade separated crossing of
Caltrain in South Palo Alto and in North Palo Alto;
iv. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements derived from the 2012 Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan as amended over time;
v. The US 101/Adobe Creek bicycle and pedestrian bridge;
vi. El Camino Real intersection and pedestrian safety/streetscape
improvements;
vii. Downtown mobility and safety improvements;
viii. Geng Road extension to Laura Lane; and
ix. Middlefield Road corridor improvements.
E. Additional zoning code amendments and policies advancing sustainability measures
would include the following key items, which are derived from the Council’s
discussion on January 30, 2017 and on Scenarios 5 and 6:
i. Increase hotel FAR from 2.0 to 3.0 downtown and 2.5 elsewhere in the City
ii. Reduce allowable FAR in the CC-2 from 2.0 to 1.5
iii. Maintain the 50 foot height limit in the zoning ordinance
iv. Make greater use of coordinated area plans as a planning tool
v. Adoption of the SCAP goal of a 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 and
alignment of the Comp Plan Update with SCAP principles
vi. Inclusion of Comp Plan policies and programs supportive of SCAP strategies
vii. Protecting and enhancing the urban forest as natural infrastructure
4. Clarify and provide additional direction regarding the placement of programs in the
Comprehensive Plan Update. Specifically, select either A or B:
A. If the Council would like to include the programs in a separate section, direct
staff to:
i. Identify that section as the “Implementation Plan” so that it can be adopted
as part of the plan (staff recommends this term rather than “appendix”);
ii. Organize the implementation programs by goal and policy number to
maintain linkages with other sections of the plan;
iii. Eliminate redundancies and consolidate implementation programs where
feasible;
iv. Identify the relative priority (for example, short term, medium term, long
term) and level of effort/cost (low, medium, or high) associated with each
program;
v. Identify a subset of the programs that are legally required or that implement
EIR mitigation measures and convert them to policies in the Comprehensive
Plan elements; and
City of Palo Alto Page 4
vi. Develop introductory text for the Implementation Plan for later review and
adjustment by the City Council clearly describing how the Comprehensive
Plan will be implemented, the role of the implementation programs, and how
priorities may be adjusted over the life of the plan.
B. If the Council would like to retain some of the programs in each of the elements
as well as in the Implementation Plan, provide further detail and direct staff to
undertake all of the above with the possible exception of item (v).
Executive Summary
As the City Council is aware, on February 5, 2016 the City published a Draft EIR (referred to as
the “February 2016 Draft EIR”) that analyzed four high-level scenarios at an equal level of detail
in order to assess potential impacts of the Comprehensive Plan Update. A related fiscal study
was also prepared.
The City Council subsequently directed City staff to analyze two additional scenarios in order to
broaden the range of potential outcomes and provide additional information to inform the
planning process. These additional scenarios are described and analyzed as Scenario 5 and
Scenario 6 in a Supplement to the Draft EIR, published on February 10, 2017 and which can be
found at the following link: (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/eir/). The Executive Summary in
Chapter One provides an overview and the matrix in Attachment B summarizes quantitative
conclusions of the analysis. A revised fiscal study is also available and can be found in
Attachment C and at this link:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/CompPlanFiscalStudySupplement_2.16.17_FINAL.pdf.
The Supplement to the Draft EIR focuses on the new analysis pertaining to Scenarios 5 and 6
and does not reproduce all of the information from the February 2016 Draft EIR. The
Supplement to the Draft EIR includes information from the February 2016 Draft EIR where the
information has been revised or where it is crucial to understanding the analysis of Scenarios 5
and 6. Comments on the February 2016 Draft EIR are also being accepted during the circulation
period for the Supplement.
The primary purpose of this evening’s meeting is to conduct a public hearing to solicit public
comments regarding the Supplement to the Draft EIR, the associated fiscal study, and the
February 2016 Draft EIR. Written comments are also being accepted until the close of business
on March 31, 2017. All substantive comments received, whether at the public hearing or in
writing, including the comments received on the February 2016 Draft EIR, will be responded to
in the Final EIR rather than at the public hearing this evening.
The other purposes of this evening’s meeting are:
City of Palo Alto Page 5
To provide for discussion and direction to staff regarding the City Council’s preferred
scenario for inclusion in the Final EIR, and
To follow-up on the City Council’s January 30, 2017 discussion regarding the
organization of implementation programs in the Comprehensive Plan Update and
receive additional direction.
Later in this report, staff has provided further discussion regarding these two issues for the
Council’s consideration. Also, a transcript from the February 21, 2017 meeting of the
Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) regarding the placement of
programs in the Plan is provided as Attachment E. The Council’s motion from January 30, 2017
is provided as Attachment F.
Background
The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comp Plan contains the City’s official policies on land use and
community design, transportation, housing, the natural environment, business and economics,
community services, and governance. The Comp Plan provides the basis for the City’s
development regulations and the foundation for its capital improvement program. An update
of the Comp Plan was initiated by the City Council in 2006.
In 2014, the Council received the Planning & Transportation Commission’s (PTC’s) suggested
revisions and endorsed a new framework for the planning process to include broad community
engagement, discussion, and analysis of alternative futures, cumulative impacts, and mitigation
strategies. A community “summit” was held in mid-2015, and a Citizens Advisory Committee
(CAC) was formed to make recommendations to the City Council on policies and programs for
inclusion in the update.
Since 2014, the City Council has provided guidance on the vision and goals for each element of
the Comp Plan Update, and the CAC has completed its review and recommendations regarding
all of the chapters or “elements” of the plan. The City Council is now in the process of
reviewing the CAC’s work, and providing their input on plan revisions to city staff and
consultants.
A final Comprehensive Plan Update cannot be adopted until the City complies with CEQA, which
is a State law that requires California agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts
of their actions and describe feasible measures that can be taken to avoid or mitigate those
impacts. An EIR is used to evaluate a proposed project’s potential impacts on the environment,
and recommend mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The
City has prepared what is referred to as a “program-level” EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168),
which assesses the potential cumulative impacts of development that may occur during the life
City of Palo Alto Page 6
of the plan, considers potential alternatives, and identifies mitigation measures that should be
adopted to reduce or avoid significant impacts. This is the same level of environmental analysis
that was prepared for the existing 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comp Plan.
February 2016 Draft EIR
The February 2016 Draft EIR prepared for the Comprehensive Plan Update examined four
planning alternatives or “scenarios” at an equal level of detail to allow the public and the
Council to assess a variety of land use and infrastructure options. The scenarios collectively
present a range of possible outcomes to inform a final decision about the future of Palo Alto. In
all likelihood, the final Comprehensive Plan Update will not be identical to any one of the EIR
scenarios, but will be a hybrid. The four scenarios analyzed in the February 2016 Draft EIR are:
Scenario 1 is the “business as usual” scenario and shows the results if the City continued
to operate under the existing 1998-2010 Comp Plan with no changes to goals, policies,
and programs. Any new housing built would be constructed under existing zoning and
no innovations in housing or new approaches to address the high cost of housing would
be explored. No new growth management measures are anticipated, and any transit or
traffic improvements would come from the existing infrastructure plan for the City.
Scenario 2 would slow the pace of job growth when compared with Scenario 1 by
moderating the pace of office/research and development (R&D) development
throughout the city. Scenario 2 would also ensure that the modest amount of housing
growth expected under Scenario 1 would be built out as small units and other housing
types appropriate for seniors and the Palo Alto workforce. Transportation investments
in this scenario would include implementation of the County’s expressway plan.
Scenario 3 would implement a growth management regime similar to the interim
annual limit on office/R&D adopted by the City Council in 2015 for the fastest changing
areas of the city and would eliminate housing sites along San Antonio and South El
Camino. In place of these housing sites, Scenario 3 would increase housing densities on
sites Downtown, near California Avenue, and in other locations in the city close to
transit and services. Policies, regulations, and incentives would be designed to ensure
smaller units for working professional and senior populations. Transportation
investments would include grade separating the Caltrain crossings at Meadow and
Charleston by placing the railroad tracks in a trench.
Scenario 4 assumes the most growth in housing and employment evaluated in the
February 2016 Draft EIR, consistent with 2013 Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) projections. Potential policies and regulations would be enacted to advance
sustainability objectives. Transportation investments would include grade separating
the Caltrain crossings at Meadow and Charleston by placing the railroad tracks in a
City of Palo Alto Page 7
trench, and incorporating mix flow bus rapid transit on El Camino Real (with curbside
stations and queue jumping for transit vehicles). Housing sites along San Antonio and
South El Camino Real would be eliminated and replaced with higher densities elsewhere
as well as new housing sites along the El Camino frontage of the Stanford Research Park
and the Stanford Shopping Center.
The Supplement to the Draft EIR: Scenarios 5 & 6
During two City Council meetings in early 2016 (January 19 and February 22), City Council
members indicated their desire to analyze an additional scenario in a supplement to the Draft
EIR, and on May 16, 2016 the City Council provided basic parameters of two new scenarios
(Scenarios 5 and 6).
Scenario 5 involves 10 percent fewer jobs than Scenario 2 (previously the lowest job
scenario), and the same number of housing units as Scenario 3. This scenario is intended
to test the efficacy of mitigation and sustainability measures when applied to relatively
slow growth over the 15 year planning period. Scenario 5 would test strategies designed
to slow the pace of job growth and would replace or supplement the current citywide
“cap” on new non-residential square footage in “monitored areas” with a permanent
citywide annual limit on office and R&D development. This scenario would also
discourage new multi-family housing along San Antonio Avenue and portions of south El
Camino Real and San Antonio Avenue, removing housing sites in these areas, and would
instead adopt policies and zoning regulations to increase residential densities
Downtown, in the California Avenue area, and in other transit-rich areas. This scenario
assumes that Caltrain would be grade separated at all crossings.
Scenario 6 would also involve 10 percent fewer jobs than Scenario 2, and roughly 36
percent more housing than Scenario 4. This new scenario is intended to test policies and
programs to accelerate the production of housing over the 15 year planning period,
while using a performance-based approach to address the impacts of growth. As under
Scenario 4, this scenario would include mechanisms to stimulate additional multi-family
housing on sites Downtown, the Fry’s Electronics vicinity, and on portions of the
Stanford Research Park and Shopping Center fronting on El Camino Real. It would also
include consideration of housing sites elsewhere in the Stanford Research Park and in
the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) vicinity. Like Scenario 5, Scenario 6
assumes that Caltrain would be grade separated at all crossings.
The Supplement to the Draft EIR: Contents
The Supplement to the Draft EIR is organized into the chapters identified in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Organization of the February 2017 Supplement to the Draft EIR
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Section Purpose/Contents Additional Notes
Chapter 1: Executive
Summary
Summarizes the scenarios analyzed in the
February 2016 Draft EIR and Supplement to
the Draft EIR
Table 1-3 presents the
environmental impacts and
mitigation for all six scenarios and
identifies the level of significance of
impacts before and after mitigation.
Chapter 2: Introduction Provides an overview of the Supplement to
the Draft EIR document
Chapter 3: Project
Description
Describes Scenarios 5 and 6
Chapter 4:
Environmental
Evaluation
Analyses impacts in 14 sub-chapters
corresponding to the environmental resource
categories in Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines
The Air Quality, Green House Gas
(GHG), Noise, and Transportation
sections include an expanded
discussion of the effectiveness of
proposed mitigation measures.
Chapter 5: Significant
Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
Lists the significant and unavoidable impacts
of the proposed Plan, as identified in Chapter
4.
Chapter 6: Alternatives
to the Proposed Project
Discusses the “no build” alternative as
required by CEQA and its relationship to the
“business as usual” alternative represented by
Scenario 1. This chapter also explains how the
six scenarios represent a reasonable range of
options, and describes a potential hybrid.
Chapter 7: CEQA-
Mandated Sections
Discusses growth inducement, cumulative
impacts, unavoidable significant effects, and
significant irreversible changes as a result of
the proposed Plan.
This chapter also identifies
environmental issues “scoped out”
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15128.
Chapter 8: Organizations
and Persons Consulted
Lists the people and organizations that were
contacted during the preparation of the
Supplement to the Draft EIR.
NOTES: (1) Where changes to the February 2016 Draft EIR have been made, they are shown in strikethrough and
underline. (2) Technical appendices are provided to support the analyses in Chapter 4.
Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, February 2017
The Supplement to the Draft EIR: Revisions to the February 2016 Draft EIR
As noted above, Chapter 4 contains strikethrough and underline formatting that indicates
revisions to the environmental setting and mitigation measures of the February 2016 Draft EIR.
Tables and figures that appeared in the February 2016 Draft EIR have the same number as in
the February 2016 Draft EIR. Where new tables and figures have been added in the Supplement
to the Draft EIR, they have sequential lettering.
Revisions to the February 2016 Draft EIR were generally made for the following reasons:
Revisions to the environmental setting (i.e. existing conditions and regulatory
framework) information were made to reflect public comments received on the
City of Palo Alto Page 9
February 2016 Draft EIR. Other revisions to the environmental setting were made to
incorporate key changes to the environmental setting since the February 2016 Draft EIR
was published. For example, the Hydrology and Water Quality chapter includes updates
regarding the City’s groundwater dewatering policies, and the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Climate Change chapter includes new text describing the Draft 2017
Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, which the California Air Resources Board released
on January 20, 2017. Although these changes are not required under CEQA, since the
“baseline” for the EIR is the Notice of Preparation publication date of May 30, 2014, the
City included such updates to provide a thorough depiction of the current regulatory
framework pertaining to key issues of community concern.
Revisions to impacts and mitigation measures were made to reflect public comments
received on the February 2016 Draft EIR and to reflect the status of the Comp Plan
Update. Many of the mitigation measures that previously prescribed specific policy
wording have now been re-written so that they identify the most important policy topics
that must be addressed by the Comp Plan Update in order to lessen or avoid potential
environmental impacts. This will allow the City to more easily review the Comp Plan
Update as it is being drafted to ensure that it meets the intent of mitigation measures.
The goal of the revisions to the mitigation measures is to preserve their effectiveness,
but allow the City the flexibility to refine the wording of policies in the Comp Plan
Update to address the environmental impacts.
In two places (Impacts GHG-2 and GHG-3) impacts that were previously identified as
significant and unavoidable are now considered less than significant. Impact GHG-2 is
now less than significant without mitigation, and Impact GHG-3 is a significant impact
that is can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Regarding Impact GHG-2, the February 2016 Draft EIR identified a 2050 GHG estimated
efficiency target even though the horizon year for the Plan is 2030 and there is no
legislative mandate for a GHG reduction plan to achieve the 2050 goal. The analysis for
Impact GHG-2 has been revised in the Supplement to the Draft EIR to analyze
consistency with the plans that have been adopted and legislative targets in place at the
horizon year of the Comp Plan, and to reflect that the City has approved the draft
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) framework since the February 2016 Draft
EIR.
Regarding Impact GHG-3, the analysis has been revised to acknowledge that, through
Mitigation Measure GHG-3, the City’s response to the impacts of climate change for
new development would provide a strong framework for climate change resiliency and
would reduce impacts to the extent feasible.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
The February 2016 Draft EIR found that Impact referred to as “POP-4” would be less
than significant and would therefore not require mitigation. However, the February
2016 Draft EIR included mitigation measures to acknowledge the City’s efforts to
address the existing imbalance of employed residents to jobs. Under CEQA, mitigation
measures are not required for less than significant impacts and the introduction of
Scenarios 5 and 6 provide an alternate way to address this issue. As a result, Mitigation
Measures POP-4a and POP-4b have been removed in the Supplement to the Draft EIR.
Revised Fiscal Study
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) documented the existing fiscal and economic
conditions and analyzed the potential fiscal impacts attributable to the alternative land
use scenarios considered in the Comprehensive Plan Update process. Their initial analysis
was presented to the City’s Finance Committee on March 15, 2016 and has now been revised
to reflect the Committee’s comments and the addition of Scenario 5 and Scenario 6. As
previously, the Revised Fiscal Impact Analysis Report in Attachment C details the
methodology employed for the analysis, study caveats, analytical approach and key
assumptions, and key findings and conclusions, not all of which are repeated here.
In summary, the fiscal analysis assesses the effect of future residential and non-residential
(employment supporting) development on the City of Palo Alto General Fund from 2015
through 2030. The analysis focuses specifically on the effect that population and
employment growth will have on the City’s $171.1 million 2015 Adopted General Fund
Operating Expenditure Budget.1 The Fiscal Impact Model developed for this effort assesses
revenue and cost effects attributable to growth on a revenue-line-item and department-by-
department cost basis. The model holds current operations factors constant, including tax
rates, organizational structures, and governance policies. While these and other factors will
change over time, this analytical approach seeks to isolate the fiscal impact attributable to
residents, workers, and visitors, as well as fiscal impacts attributable to specific land use
categories. The analysis presents year 2030 results in constant 2015 dollars.
The fiscal analysis forecasts the net impact (i.e., revenues less costs) for each of the
Comprehensive Plan scenarios. The attribution of revenues and costs to specific types of
growth provides useful information on alternative paths of growth for the City. The study
finds that the growth envisioned in all six Comprehensive Plan scenarios likely will generate
net revenue for the City of Palo Alto General Fund. These fiscal effects reflect annual per-
capita fiscal net benefits of about $240 to $320 per net new person (including new
residents and workers), with each new resident generating about $340 to $360 and each
new employee generating about $190 to $280.
1 The General Fund is a subcomponent of the City’s total Fiscal Year 2015 expenditure budget of $470.3 million.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Accordingly, this analysis finds that the most significant growth scenarios (Scenario 4 and
Scenario 6) will generate the greatest financial gain for the General Fund. It is important to
recognize that despite being positive, the net fiscal impacts calculated by this analysis are
quite modest relative to the total City General Fund budget. The greatest net fiscal impact
identified, $7.4 million under Scenario 4, represents about four percent of the Fiscal Year 2015
General Fund expenditure budget. Also, the analysis finds that the expected fiscal benefit of a
new resident in Palo Alto is greater than the expected fiscal benefit of a new employee in the
City even though the new resident generates a higher marginal cost burden compared to
local workers. Our consultants will be available at the March 20 th hearing to
provide an overview of their study and answer questions about the analysis and conclusions
if desired.
Discussion
The Comp Plan Update EIR differs from most EIRs in that it assesses multiple scenarios at an
equal level of detail. The scenarios are intended to illustrate potential impacts of policy
decisions that will have to be made as the Comprehensive Plan Update planning process is
completed. By using this approach, the EIR is intended to advance and inform the planning
process, and not to dictate what its outcome will be. As anticipated, the City Council’s direction
on January 30, 2017 suggests that their “preferred scenario” is not identical to any of those
analyzed in the EIR, but is a hybrid of several. Also, the Council’s direction on January 30, 2017
raised an organizational question about implementation programs in the Comprehensive Plan
that requires further clarification. Both of these issues are discussed further below.
Preferred Scenario
Identifying a preferred scenario at this point in the planning process will allow preparation of a
Final EIR that describes the preferred scenario and explains how the impacts of that preferred
scenario (and the Comp Plan Update itself) falls within the range of impacts associated with
Scenarios 1-6.
The preferred scenario that will be described in the Final EIR will not require any more detail
than the other scenarios and similar to them, will consist of primary characteristics and a list of
key policies. The primary characteristics will include the growth in housing, population, jobs,
and non-residential square footage anticipated over the life of the plan, as well as the list of
transportation investments identified for implementation. Attachment D is a summary of the
EIR scenarios and the housing-related policies, zoning code amendments, and infrastructure
investments that staff believes can be used to represent the preferred scenario based on the
City Council’s January 30, 2017 direction. Primary characteristics are discussed below:
Housing & Population. The Council’s direction on January 30, 2017 was to remove housing
sites along San Antonio Ave. and replace them with higher densities in downtown and near
City of Palo Alto Page 12
California Avenue. The Council also wished to include the potential for mixed use (housing,
hotel, conference center) in the Research Park, housing at the Stanford Shopping Center, and in
the SUMC vicinity. With this direction, the preferred scenario would have more housing sites
than Scenario 4 (with 4,420 dwelling units) but less than Scenario 6 (with 6,000 dwelling units).
Non-Residential Square Footage. The Council’s direction on January 30, 2017 was to
perpetuate the “cap” on non-residential development in Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8 as a
cap on net new office/R&D square footage, exempting only the SUMC area that was removed
from the cap in 2011. 1.3M square feet has already been approved at the SUMC and 1.7M
remains under the existing cap. This suggests that the Council’s preferred scenario could yield
up to three million square feet, similar to EIR Scenario 2.2
Jobs. The Council’s direction on January 30, 2017 was to perpetuate the interim annual limit on
office/R&D development on a city-wide basis, exempting the Stanford Research Park. The
annual limit was one of the primary determinants used to define the amount of new
employment in each scenario, since it has proved effective at discouraging new development.
(Another factor was the proposal in some scenarios to regulate employment densities via a
conditional use permit.) Scenario 2, with 9,850 jobs and Scenarios 5 & 6 with 8,868 jobs were
assumed to have a citywide annual limit (with no exemptions). Scenario 3, with 12,755 jobs,
was assumed to have an annual limit focused on the same subset of the City as the interim
limit. Based on the Council’s direction, the preferred scenario would fall somewhere between
these numbers. (It’s important to remember that new jobs occur in existing building space as
well as new building space, so the relationship between new square footage and new jobs is
not proportional.)
Transportation Investments. The Council did not have time to review the list of proposed
transportation investments included in the revised draft Transportation Element on January 30,
2017. If the Council agrees with staff’s recommendation in that document, the transportation
investments in the preferred scenario would include a blend of those in Scenarios 5 and 6,
specifically:
Small improvements within existing rights-of-way to provide for traffic calming or
relatively small increases in roadway capacity by adding turn lanes or making other
intersection adjustments;
2 Transitioning from a cap on all new non-residential square footage to a cap on new office/R&D square footage
would mean that some non-residential square footage (e.g. a new warehouse or new retail space) would not count
towards the cap. However the change in methodology would also mean that any existing space that is converted
from one use to another (e.g. warehouse or retail to office/R&D) would count towards the cap.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Full grade separations for automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at Caltrain crossings;
Retrofit/improvements to existing grade separated Caltrain crossings for pedestrians
and bicyclists at California Avenue and University Avenue;
Construction of new pedestrian and bicycle grade separated crossing of Caltrain in South
Palo Alto and in North Palo Alto;
Pedestrian and bicycle improvements derived from the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
as amended over time;
The US 101/Adobe Creek bicycle and pedestrian bridge;
El Camino Real intersection and pedestrian safety/streetscape improvements;
Downtown mobility and safety improvements;
Geng Road extension to Laura Lane; and
Middlefield Road corridor improvements.
Please see Attachment D for more discussion of the preferred scenario and the components
that staff believes reflect the Council’s guidance. We would appreciate the Council’s feedback
on this material and whether it reflects their preferred scenario. If adjustments are required,
please specify.
Organization of the Comprehensive Plan Update: Implementation Programs
Palo Alto’s current Comprehensive Plan includes implementation programs in each element
(266 total not counting the Housing Element programs) and repeats those programs in a
separate chapter called the Implementation Plan. While only approximately 15% of the
discrete implementation programs (i.e. excluding ongoing programs) from the 1989 plan have
been completed, this organizational structure is familiar to users of the current Comp Plan and
the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) developed its recommendations with the assumption
that this structure would be perpetuated. Thus, there were some concerns when the City
Council voted to move all of the implementation programs (other than those required by State
law) to an “appendix” on January 30, 2017. A copy of the Council’s motion is included as
Attachment F.
The CAC had an extended discussion of this issue on February 21, 2017, and a transcript of their
meeting is attached as Attachment E. In short, a majority of those present at the meeting
wished the Council to reconsider their direction and stated that they would have approached
their work on the Comp Plan elements differently if the programs were going to be presented
solely in a separate section.
This evening’s discussion is intended to clarify the Council’s preferred approach. Currently, the
CAC’s recommended elements contain a total of approximately 410 programs (not counting the
Housing Element programs). The CAC will focus on the Implementation Plan at their March 21st
meeting, and will be asked to provide recommendations for prioritization and streamlining to
City of Palo Alto Page 14
the City Council.
California Government Code Section 65301 states clearly that the required contents of a local
agency’s general plan can be organized in any way (“The General Plan may be adopted in any
format deemed appropriate or convenient by the legislative body.”) Also, while implementation
measures are anticipated in some elements of the plan, the law’s focus is on the agency’s policy
framework, requiring local plans and their separate “elements and parts” to “comprise an
integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency”
(Government Code Section 65300.5).
The elements required to be included in a general plan are identified in California Government
Code Section 65302. In some cases, the statute references “action programs” and
“implementation measures” that must be incorporated before the general plan can be deemed
sufficiently complete. For example, the statute states that the City must identify and annually
review areas that are subject to flooding (CGC 65302(a)). The noise element must include
implementation measures that address existing and foreseeable noise problems, if any (CGC
65302(f)(4). The plan must also “contain an action program consisting of specific programs
which the legislative body intends to pursue in implementing its open-space plan” (CGC 65564).
Each of these requirements has been reviewed by our consultants and has been or will be
reflected in the draft elements reviewed by the City Council and must be included in the final
Comprehensive Plan
With this background in mind, the City Council has two options:
1. Place the implementation programs in the Implementation Plan section of the
document only, but retain a numbering system that allows them to be associated with
specific plan goals and policies. With this approach, staff would recommend that
programs required by state law or as EIR mitigation measures be re-drafted as policies
and included in the elements so the Comp Plan’s compliance with State law is very clear.
This alternative should also involve editing the programs to clarify them and reduce the
total number.
2. Revert to the original structure of the plan, and include implementation programs both
within the elements and within the Implementation Plan section. In this alternative, the
programs should be edited to clarify them and reduce the total number.
A majority of the CAC was not supportive of the first option when it was discussed in broad
terms at their meeting on February 21st and some members expressed concerns that the
policies would be less effective or understandable if they were separated from the
implementation programs. The majority also expressed concerns that a separate
Implementation Plan chapter would not have its deserved status as a legal part of the
Comprehensive Plan (a concern which could be addressed in the adopting resolution). Staff
City of Palo Alto Page 15
believes that either option can be made to work and can comply with all legal requirements.
Also, in both cases, it will be possible to preserve all of the hard work that has gone into
developing program language, and to clearly communicate the constraints on implementing all
of the programs and the need to prioritize and reevaluate priorities over time.
Policy Implications
The Comprehesive Plan is the City’s “constitution” when it comes to land use and development
issues, including transportation and the protection of the environment. The Comprehensive
Plan Update is expected to perpeuate the overall vision and values of the current plan, while
updating some of its goals, policies, and implementation programs.
Resource Impact
The Comprehensive Plan Update has been a time consuming and costly project for the City.
Current contracts are sufficient to complete the project provided in accordance with the
current schedule, which envisions completion of the CAC process in May and adoption of an
updated plan by the end of the year.
Timeline/Next Steps
The Supplement to the Draft EIR is available online on the project website at:
(http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/eir/). Members of the public are invited to provide oral
comments at this evening’s meeting, or at a public hearing being conducted by the PTC on
March 29, 2017. Written comments are also being accepted until the close of business on
March 31, 2017.
All substantive comments received during the comment period will be responded to in a Final
EIR, which is also expected to describe the City Council’s “preferred scenario” based on the
Council’s input this evening. The Final EIR must be completed and certified before the City
Council can consider approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Upcoming City Council discussions and actions are tentatively scheduled as follows:
Table 2. Schedule of Upcoming City Council Discussions & Requested Actions
Date* Topics/Actions Requested
March 20, 2017
Hearing on the Supplement to the Draft EIR, discussion of the
Revised Fiscal Study, the Preferred Scenario, and
Organization of Comp Plan Programs
May 1, 2017 Review of the Revised Draft Land Use & Transportation
Elements
May 15, 2017 Review of the Draft Natural Environment, Safety, and
Business/Economics Elements recommended by the Citizens
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Date* Topics/Actions Requested
Advisory Council (CAC)
June 5, 2017 CAC resolution of thanks
June 12, 2017 Review of draft Introductory Materials/Governance; referral
to the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC)
Oct/Nov/Dec 2017
Receipt of the PTC recommendation and review of a
complete draft document; certification of the Final EIR; and
adoption of the Comp Plan Update subject to re-review and a
report from the PTC per PAMC Section 19.04.080.
*All dates subject to change.
Environmental Review
A program level EIR is being prepared for the Comprehensive Plan Update, as summarized in
this staff report. Public comments are currently being accepted on the February 2016 Draft EIR
and the February 10, 2017 Supplement to the Draft EIR.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Notice of Availability of the Supplement to the Draft EIR for the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan Update (PDF)
Attachment B: Matrix of Impacts with Scenarios 1-6 February 2017 (PDF)
Attachment C: CompPlanFiscalStudyRevised_2.16.17 (PDF)
Attachment D: Preferred EIR Scenario Summary March 2017 (DOCX)
Attachment E: Transcript of CAC February 21 2017 meeting (DOCX)
Attachment F: City Council 01-30-17 Action Minutes (DOCX)
Attachment G: Letters From the Public (PDF)
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND COMPLETION (NOTICE OF INTENT)
OF A SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UPDATE (SCH#2014052101)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been
prepared to assess the environmental impacts of the following project:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
LEAD AGENCY: City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Project Description:
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is the City's governing document for land use and development
decisions. The City is undertaking a Comprehensive Plan Update in order to establish a shared vision for the
future of the community through to the year 2030. The Project will update Plan goals, policies, programs,
narrative, maps and diagrams. Given the long-term horizon of the proposed Plan and the permitting,
planning and development actions that are related both geographically and as logical parts in the chain of
contemplated actions for implementation, a draft EIR has been prepared as a program EIR, pursuant to the
CEQA Guidelines.
A Draft Program EIR was published on February 5, 2016 for a 90-day comment period that was subsequently
extended to 124 days (ending June 8, 2016). The Program EIR analyzed four planning scenarios at an equal
level of detail within the body of the Draft EIR, thereby illuminating potential environmental impacts of a
range of alternatives designed to address the proposed Plan objectives. Scenario 1 is a “Business as Usual”
scenario and assumes the proposed Plan would not be adopted, and change and development in Palo Alto
through 2030 would occur under the existing Comp Plan. Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 each include different
strategies related to the pace of non-residential development and job growth, the placement of housing sites
and densities, desired transportation investments, and sustainability measures. In early 2016, the City
Council directed City staff to analyze two additional scenarios to broaden the range of potential outcomes
and provide additional information to inform the planning process. This Supplement to the Draft EIR has
been prepared to assess the two additional scenarios, called Scenarios 5 and 6. Scenario 5 would lower job
growth below current projections and allow a modest increase in housing in an effort to improve the City’s
jobs-to-employed-residents ratio. Scenario 6 would also lower job growth below current projection and
allow robust increase in housing in an effort to address issues of housing affordability and supply in the City
and improve the City’s jobs-to-employed-residents ratio.
Probable Environmental Effects of the Project:
The EIR will evaluate potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the adoption and
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update, consistent with the State California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project will have potentially significant
environmental effects with regard to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,
Land Use, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation and Traffic, Noise, Utilities and Service Systems,
Cultural Resources, and Hydrology and Water Quality. CEQA requires this notice to disclose whether any listed
toxic sites are present at the project location. This is a citywide project, and there are sites within the city that
are contained in the Cortese List of toxic sites.
The Draft EIR is on file and may be reviewed at the Palo Alto Planning Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th
floor, during business hours. The EIR will also be available for review on the City’s project website--
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org, and at the following public libraries: Rinconada Library, 1213 Newell Rd.,
Palo Alto, CA 94303, and Palo Alto Downtown Library, 270 Forest Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301.
The public review for this Supplement to the Draft EIR begins on February 10, 2017 and ends on March 31,
2017. If you wish to provide written comments on the Supplement or the Draft EIR, please submit these to
Elena Lee, Department of Planning and Community Environment, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301,
or Elena.Lee@CityofPaloAlto.org, no later than March 31, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. During the public review
period, both the Planning & Transportation Commission and the City Council will hold public meetings to take
public testimony on the Draft EIR. The public meetings are tentatively scheduled for March 20, 2017 at 7:00
p.m. (City Council) and March 29, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. (Planning & Transportation Commission). Both meetings
will occur in the Council Chambers, 1st Floor City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue and all persons may appear and
be heard at these meetings. Substantive public comments received at these meetings and in writing will be
responded to in a Final EIR before there is any decision to adopt The Comprehensive Plan Update. Members
of the public are also encouraged to attend meetings of the Citizens Advisory Committee to offer their
comments and suggestions regarding the development of policy language for the updated plan. Visit
PaloAltoCompPlan.org for more information.
If any person challenges this item in court, that person may be limited to raising only those issues the person
or someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered
at, or prior to, the public hearings. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring
accommodation for these meetings should notify the City of Palo Alto 24 hours prior to the meetings at (650)
329-2496.
HILLARY GITELMAN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
West Homestead Road
AlmaStreet
JuniperoSerraBoulevard
E m ba rcader o R oad
StevensCreekBoulevard
Ar astra d ero Road
Arastradero R oad
Rainbow Drive
Fremont Avenue
South Stelling Road
SanAntonioRoad
South de Anza Boulevard
QuarryRoad
Bubb Road
Belleville
Way
El Ca
mino Real
Oregon Expressway
FoothillExpressway
£¤101
SAN
FRANCISCO
BAY
|ÿ82
Stanford
Menlo Park
East Palo Alto
Mountain View
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
%&'(280
%&'(280
Ü
Ü
Baylands
Preserve
Ü
Atascadero
Preserve
Foothills Park
Los Trancos
Open Space Preserve
Monte Bello
Open Space Preserve
Ü
Ü
Ü
Ü
Stanford Station
Palo Alto Station
UniversityAvenue
California Avenue Station
Middlefield
Road
CITY OF PALO ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT EIR
FIGURE 1
PROJECT LOCATION AND CONTEXT
Source: The Planning Center | DC&E, 2013; The City of Palo Alto, 2013.
012Miles
PROJECT
LOCATION
SAN
FRANCISCO
BAY
%&'(280
|ÿ92
|ÿ84
%&'(280
£¤101
Oakland
San Jose
San
Francisco
Los Altos
Menlo Park
Mountain View
Cal Train Stations
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Creeks
Public Conservation Land
California Avenue
Concept Plan Area
East Meadow Circle
Concept Plan Area
%&'(880
%&'(580
%&'(680
SanFrancisquitoCreek
Adobe Cr e ek
AtascaderoCreek Matad
e
ro
Cr
e
e
k
BarronCreek
Comprehensive Plan Update 2014‐2030 Draft EIR Scenarios: Key Characteristics & Impacts * (1 of 2)
Key Characteristics/Impacts 2014 Existing Conditions [01]Scenario 1 Scenario 2Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 [02]Scenario 6
February 2016
DEIR Page
(Scenarios 1‐4)
February 2017
Supplement to the
Draft EIR
(Scenarios 5‐6)**
“Business as Usual” “Slowing Growth” "Housing Tested I""Sustainability
Tested I"
"Sustainability
Tested II"
"Housing Tested
II"Page Reference Page Reference**
City Population 65,685 72,285 72,285 74,120 76,140 74,120 79,765 3‐24,33,38 & 44 3‐19, 3‐23
City & Sphere of Influence (SOI) Population 80,805 90,210 90,210 92,045 94,065 92,045 97,690 3‐24,33,38 & 44 3‐19, 3‐23
City Housing Units [03]28,545 31,265 31,265 32,090 32,965 32,090 34,545 3‐24,33,38 & 44 3‐19, 3‐23
City & SOI Housing Units [04]33,070 36,950 36,950 37,780 38,650 37,780 40,235 3‐24,33,38 & 44 3‐19, 3‐23
City Jobs [05]95,460 110,940 105,310 108,215 110,940 104,325 104,325 3‐24,33,38 & 44 3‐19, 3‐23
City & SOI Jobs 100,830 116,700 111,070 113,975 116,700 110,085 110,085 3‐24,33,38 & 44 3‐19, 3‐23
City Employed Residents [06]31,165 34,697 34,697 35,578 36,547 35,578 38,287 4‐11.29 4.11‐16
City & SOI Employed Residents [07]36,004 40,595 40,595 41,420 42,329 44,182 46,891 4‐11.29 4.11‐16
City Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio 3.06 3.20 3.04 3.03 3.04 2.93 2.72 4‐11.29 4.11‐16
City & SOI Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio 2.80 2.87 2.74 2.75 2.76 2.49 2.35 4‐11.29 4.11‐16
Key Characteristics/Impacts (NET CHANGE)Scenario 1 ∆
(NET CHANGE)
Scenario 2∆
(NET CHANGE)
Scenario 3 ∆
(NET CHANGE)
Scenario 4 ∆
(NET CHANGE)
Scenario 5∆
(NET CHANGE)
Scenario 6∆
(NET CHANGE)
February 2016
DEIR Page
(Scenarios 1‐4)
February 2017
Supplement to the
Draft EIR
(Scenarios 5‐6)**
City Population 6,600 6,600 8,435 10,455 8,435 14,080 3‐19 3‐19, 3‐23
City & SOI Population 9,405 9,405 11,240 13,260 11,240 16,885 3‐19 3‐19, 3‐23
City Housing Units [03]2,720 2,720 3,545 4,420 3,545 6,000 3‐19 3‐19, 3‐23
City & SOI Housing Units [04]3,880 3,880 4,710 5,580 4,710 7,165 3‐19 3‐19, 3‐23
City Jobs [05]15,480 9,850 12,755 15,480 8,865 8,865 3‐19 3‐19, 3‐23
City & SOI Jobs 15,870 10,240 13,145 15,870 9,255 9,255 3‐19 3‐19, 3‐23
Estimated Net New Non‐Residential Square
Footage in Policy L‐8 "Monitored Areas"
2014‐2030 (millions sq ft) [08]
~1.7 ~1.7 ~1.9 ~2.4 ~1.1 ~1.1
Estimated Net New Non‐Residential Square
Footage Entire City 2014‐2030
(millions sq ft) [09]
~3.3 ~3.0 ~3.5 ~4.0 ~2.4 ~2.4 3‐19 3‐11
Transportation Impacts 2014 Existing Conditions Scenario 1 Scenario 2Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5Scenario 6
February 2016
DEIR Page
(Scenarios 1‐4)
February 2017
Supplement to the
Draft EIR
(Scenarios 5‐6)**
City Total Motor Vehicle Trips 432,122 479,198 467,567 475,362 463,255 444,204 457,633 4.13‐47 4.13‐23
City & SOI Total Motor Vehicle Trips 499,013 549,691 538,480 545,826 533,336 514,665 527,293 4.13‐45 4.13‐19
City Total Average Trip Length (miles) 12.31 12.41 12.28 12.31 12.50 12.41 12.37 4.13‐47 4.13‐23
City & SOI Total Average Trip Length (miles) 12.81 12.94 12.81 12.83 13.00 12.92 12.88 4.13‐45 4.13‐19
City Total Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) 5,320,931 5,947,158 5,741,373 5,853,201 5,788,497 5,511,446 5,663,040 4.13‐49 4.13‐23
City & SOI Total Vehicle Miles Travelled
(VMT)6,391,293 7,110,437 6,897,508 7,000,886 6,932,573 6,651,773 6,792,095 4.13‐49 4.13‐19
City VMT Per Capita 33.0 32.5 32.3 32.1 30.9 30.9 30.8 4.13‐49 4.13‐25
City & SOI VMT Per Capita 34.8
35.2
34.0
34.4
33.9
34.3
33.6
34.0 32.9 32.9 32.7
Updated in
Supplement 4.13‐22
City Mode Share for Palo Alto Daily Person
Trips (%) ‐ Drive Alone 61.5% 59.9% 60.0% 59.7% 58.5% 58.9% 58.5%4.13‐50 4.13‐26
City Mode Share for Palo Alto Daily Person
Trips (%) ‐ Shared Ride 22.7% 22.2% 22.3% 22.2% 21.9% 21.9% 22.0%4.13‐50 4.13‐26
City Mode Share for Palo Alto Daily Person
Trips (%) ‐ Transit 5.1% 6.8% 6.6% 6.8% 7.8% 7.6% 7.8%4.13‐50 4.13‐26
City Mode Share for Palo Alto Daily Person
Trips (%) ‐ Bike 2.8% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%4.13‐50 4.13‐26
City Mode Share for Palo Alto Daily Person
Trips (%) ‐ Walk 7.9% 8.1% 8.1% 8.2% 8.6% 8.4% 8.6%4.13‐50 4.13‐26
2013 Scenario 1 Scenario 2Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5Scenario 6
February 2016
DEIR Page
(Scenarios 1‐4)
February 2017
Supplement to the
Draft EIR
(Scenarios 5‐6)**
Daily Transit Boardings To, From and Within
Palo Alto (Including, BART, Caltrain, VTA,
Shuttles, etc.)
44,053 62,177 57,287 61,013 70,045 64,375 66,315 4.13‐69 4.13‐47
Comprehensive Plan Update 2014‐2030 Draft EIR Scenarios: Key Characteristics & Impacts * (2 of 2)
Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
Impacts [10]
Existing Conditions
Enrollments
2013‐2014/2014‐2015
(Capacity)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5Scenario 6
February 2016
DEIR Page
(Scenarios 1‐4)
February 2017
Supplement to the
Draft EIR
(Scenarios 5‐6)**
“Business as Usual” “Slowing Growth” "Housing Tested" Sustainability Tested "Sustainability Tested
II""Housing Tested II" Page Reference Page Reference**
Net Elementary School Students Enrollment
Increase 5,784 / 5,677 (6,227)388
893
388
893
471
1,083
558
1,283 1,083 1,648
Existing: 4.12‐4;
Scenarios:
Updated in
Supplement
4.12‐4 to 4.12‐7
Net Middle School Students Enrollment
Increase 2,720 / 2,932 (2,950)155
466
155
466
188
565
223
670 565 860
Existing: 4.12‐4;
Scenarios:
Updated in
Supplement
4.12‐4 to 4.12‐7
Net High School Students Enrollment
Increase 3,848 / 3,840 (4,600)155
582
155
582
188
707
188
837 707 1,075
Existing: 4.12‐4;
Scenarios:
Updated in
Supplement
4.12‐4 to 4.12‐7
Net Total School Students Enrollment
Increase 12,352 / 12,449 (13,777)698
1,941
698
1,941
847
2,355
1,004
2,790 2,355 3,583
Existing: 4.12‐4;
Scenarios:
Updated in
Supplement
4.12‐4 to 4.12‐7
Parkland Needed [11]2014 Existing Conditions Scenario 1 Scenario 2Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5Scenario 6
February 2016
DEIR Page
(Scenarios 1‐4)
February 2017
Supplement to the
Draft EIR
(Scenarios 5‐6)**
Acres of Parkland Needed by Scenario (ac) @
4 acres per 1,000 new residents
4,384.4
89.3 26.4 26.4 33.7 41.8 33.8 56.3
Updated in
Supplement 4.12‐20
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impacts 2014 Existing Conditions Scenario 1 Scenario 2Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5Scenario 6
February 2016
DEIR Page
(Scenarios 1‐4)
February 2017
Supplement to the
Draft EIR
(Scenarios 5‐6)**
City GHG Emissions (MtCO2e/Year)519,517
520,184
419,914
420,046
416,058
424,733
419,533
428,669
421,842
431,749 404,111 421,952
Updated in
Supplement 4.6‐11, 4.6‐12
City & SOI GHG Emissions (MtCO2e/Year)600,207
601,783
494,458
494,636
485,707
485,133
489,074
488,841
491,095
491,737 463,299 481,379
Updated in
Supplement 4.6‐11, 4.6‐12
Utilities Impacts 2014 Existing Conditions
(Baseline)Scenario 1 Scenario 2Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5Scenario 6
February 2016
DEIR Page
(Scenarios 1‐4)
February 2017
Supplement to the
Draft EIR
(Scenarios 5‐6)**
City & SOI Water Demand ‐ Gallons Per Day
(GPD)4,230,635,205 4,485,942,577 4,485,531,107 4,485,877,531 4,486,224,321 4,485,593,230 4,486,005,796 4.14‐23 4.14‐3
City & SOI Increase in Solid Waste Generation
over 2014 Baseline (tons/yr)51,265 13,240 10,851 13,382 15,953 11,607 15,315 4.14‐73 4.14‐27
City & SOI Total Electricty Increase over 2014
Baseline (kWh)1,017,067,516 152,818,068 106,148,597 134,778,309 162,135,150 102,532,440 115,987,402 4.14‐96 4.14‐35
City & SOI Natural Gas Increase over 2014
Baseline (therms)31,729,420 4,493,949 3,419,165 4,286,982 5,135,532 3,544,370 4,470,891 4.14‐23 4.14‐36
NOTES
* ALL IMPACTS REPORTED ARE PRIOR TO ANY MITIGATION
01) 2014 in most cases.
02) City Council would like to develop a scenario that improves the City’s ratio between jobs/employed residents. This new scenario can also include additional housing proposed in the SOI by Stanford University
03) 2014 Housing Units (HU) ‐2010 Decennial Censsus baseline plus HU's built between 2010 ‐2014 based on building permit activity
3a. Scenario 1 2030 HU forecast based on Palo Alto long term average units produced per year and known pipeline projects.
04) 2014 HU for Sphere of Influence (SOI) ‐2010 Decennial Censsus baseline plus Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) Annual Report to Santa Clara County on Housing built for years 2010 ‐2014
4a. Scenario 1 2030 HU forecast for SOI assumes full buildout of Stanford GUP by 2030.
05) 2014 Existing jobs derived from ABAG Projections 2013 Jobs forecast interpolated from years 2010‐2015. 2030 Jo bs forecast for Scenarios 1 & 4 derived from ABAG Projections 2013 .
06) 2014 Employed Residents for City derived from US Census , ACS 3‐year estimates 2011‐2013
6a. To determine the number of employed residents in the scenarios, PlaceWorks assumed that 48 percent of the 2030 (city Limit) population would be employed which is the same percentage of employed residents to total population as is found in the ABAG 2030 Projections.
07) 2014 Employed Residents for City & SOI derived from ABAG Projections 2013 interpolation between 2015‐2010
7a. To determine the number of employed residents in the scenarios, Placeworks assumed that 45 percent of the 2030 (City Limit + SOI) population would be employed which is the same percentage of employed residents to total population as is found in the ABAG 2030 Projections.
08) Only Scenarios 3 & 4 assume surpassing the 3.2 million Policy L‐8 limit. “Monitored Areas” are identified on Map L‐6 and referenced in Policy L‐8. There are also land uses within "Monitored Areas" that are exempt from the 3.2 million Policy L‐8 limits.
09) Estimated Net new non‐residential square feet forecast for entire City.
9a. Scenario 1 ‐Includes 1.7 million sq ft in "monitored areas" remaining in 3.2 million limit in Policy L‐8, 1.3 million sq ft of approved SMC expansion plus ~300k sq ft of non‐res devt in other "non‐monitored" areas.
9b. Scenario 2 ‐Includes 1.7 million sq ft in "monitored areas" remaining in 3.2 million limit in Policy L‐8 & 1.3 million sq ft of approved SMC expansion.
9c. Scenario 3 ‐Includes 1.7 million sq ft in "monitored areas" remaining in 3.2 million limit in Policy L‐8, 1.3 million sq ft of approved SMC expansion , plus ~200k sq ft of non‐res devt above 3.2 m limit in Policy L‐8 and ~300k of additional non‐res devt in other "non‐monitored" areas. Less job density type of non‐res devt.
9d. Scenario 4 ‐Includes 1.7 million sq ft in "monitored areas" remaining in 3.2 million limit in Policy L‐8, 1.3 million sq ft of approved SMC expansion, plus ~700k sq ft of non‐res devt above 3.2 m limit in Policy L‐8 and ~300k of additional non‐res devt in other "non‐monitored" areas . Less job density type of non‐res devt.
10) Generattion rates are consistent with "moderate" generation rates used in 2014 PAUSD Enrollment Projections prepared by Decision Insite. PAUSD uses "moderate" generation rates that are typical of students enrollmed from existing developments of similar product type. This analysis also assumes that all new housing would be multi‐
family housing.
11) Neighborhood and District Parks only. Calculated @ 4 acres per 1,000 new residents.
** The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impart Report (SDEIR) is scheduled for publication on February 10, 2017. Some figures or data points for Scenarios 1‐4 on the original EIR published on February 2016 may have been updated. The page numbers referenced on the SDEIR may have changed prior to final publication .
March 2017 Page 1
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update
Summary of the EIR Scenarios & the “Preferred Scenario” for Description in the Final EIR
This document summarizes the planning scenarios included in the Draft Environmental Impact
Report and the Supplement to the Draft EIR on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update, and
staff’s recommendations for a “preferred scenario” for description in the Final EIR. Staff’s
recommendations are based on Council’s input on the Land Use & Community Design Element
as well as other elements they have reviewed. Given that the Council has not completed their
review, corrections and adjustments to the recommendations below are anticipated!
Brief Description of the Six Scenarios
1. “Business As Usual” – the “business as usual” scenario shows the results if the City
continued to operate under the existing Comprehensive Plan with no changes to goals,
policies and programs. Any new housing built would be constructed under existing
zoning and no innovations in housing or new approaches to address the high cost of
housing would be explored. No new growth management measures are anticipated, and
any transit or traffic improvements would come from the existing infrastructure plan for
the City. This scenario uses a local forecast of housing growth based on the City’s past
performance (a long term average of about 150-160 new dwelling units per year), and
ABAG’s 2013 projection of job growth.
2. Scenario Two, or the “Growth Slowed” Scenario, would slow the pace of job growth
when compared with Scenario One by moderating the pace of office/R&D development
throughout the city. Scenario Two would also ensure that the modest amount of
housing growth expected under Scenario One would be built-out as small units and
other housing types appropriate for seniors and the Palo Alto workforce.
Transportation investments in this scenario would include implementation of the
County’s expressway plan.
3. Scenario Three, or the “Housing Tested I” Scenario, would implement a growth
management regime similar to the interim annual limit on office/R&D adopted by the
City Council in 2015 for the fastest changing areas of the City and would eliminate
housing sites along San Antonio and South El Camino. In place of these housing sites,
Scenario 3 would increase housing densities on other housing sites Downtown, near
California Avenue, and in other locations in the City close to transit and services.
Policies, regulations, and incentives would be designed to ensure smaller units for the
working professional and senior populations of the City. Transportation investments
would include grade separating the Caltrain crossings at Meadow and Charleston by
placing the railroad tracks in a trench.
March 2017 Page 2
4. Scenario Four, or the “Sustainability Tested I” Scenario, assumes the most growth in
housing and employment, consistent with ABAG projections. Rather than moderating
the pace of development, this scenario would seek to limit the impacts of development.
Housing sites along San Antonio and South El Camino would be eliminated and replaced
by both increased densities on other housing sites and by the addition of new sites
along the El Camino Real frontage of the Stanford Research Park and the Stanford
Shopping Center. Potential policies and regulations would be enacted to advance
sustainability objectives, including free transit passes for residents in transit-served
areas, achieving LEED platinum certification for new development, maximizing local
solar energy production, foregoing new natural gas hookups, and utilizing drought-
tolerant landscaping. Transportation investments would include grade separating the
Caltrain crossings at Meadow and Charleston by placing the railroad tracks in a trench,
and incorporating mix flow bus rapid transit on El Camino Real (with curbside stations
and queue jumping for transit vehicles).
5. Scenario Five, or the “Sustainability Tested II” Scenario, would implement a growth
management program to limit the pace of office/R&D development and convert some
commercial development potential (Floor Area Ratio or FAR) to residential FAR in
Downtown and the California Avenue area. Scenario 5 would eliminate housing sites
along San Antonio and South El Camino and in place of these sites, would increase
housing densities on sites Downtown and in the California Avenue area close to transit
and services. Policies, regulations, and incentives would be designed to ensure smaller
units for the working professional and senior populations of the City. Potential policies
and regulations would be enacted to advance sustainability objectives, including free
transit passes for residents in transit-served areas, achieving LEED platinum certification
for new development, maximizing local solar energy production, foregoing new natural
gas hookups, and utilizing drought-tolerant landscaping. Transportation investments
would include grade separating the Caltrain crossings.
6. Scenario Six, or the “Housing Tested II” Scenario, would also implement a growth
management program to limit the pace of office/R&D development and would convert
some commercial development potential (Floor Area Ratio or FAR) to residential FAR in
Downtown, the California Avenue area, and along the El Camino Real corridor. Scenario
Six would not eliminate housing sites along San Antonio and South El Camino and would
both increase housing densities in other areas of the City close to transit and services,
and add new housing sites along the El Camino Real frontage of the Stanford Research
Park and the Stanford Shopping Center. Additional housing sites in the Research Park
could also be considered. Policies, regulations, and incentives would be designed to
ensure smaller units for the working professional and senior populations of the City.
Potential policies and regulations would be enacted to advance sustainability objectives,
including free transit passes for residents in transit-served areas, achieving LEED
platinum certification for new development, maximizing local solar energy production,
foregoing new natural gas hookups, and utilizing drought-tolerant landscaping.
Transportation investments would include grade separating the Caltrain crossings and
March 2017 Page 3
incorporating mix flow bus rapid transit on El Camino Real (with curbside stations and
queue jumping for transit vehicles).
Under all scenarios, some changes to the City’s zoning ordinance are anticipated to implement
the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Table 1, 2, and 3 describe the basic
characteristics of the scenarios, including some of the principal policy changes that will
influence the amount of growth that occurs, and explain how the preferred scenario would
relate to the other scenarios based on the Council direction received to date.
Table 1. Summary of EIR Scenarios: Population & Housing
Scenario
Net Change 2015-2030
(City of Palo Alto Only) Notes Population
Housing
(DU)
1. Business as Usual 6,600 2,720 Assumes no change in housing sites or policies
(historic growth rate)
2. Slowing Growth 6,600 2,720 Assumes no change in site; adds policies to favor
small units
3. Housing Tested I 8,435 3,545 Assumes elimination of San Antonio sites &
increased densities downtown/Cal Ave
4. Sustainability Tested I 10,455 4,420 Same as Scenario 3 but also adds additional sites
along El Camino
5. Sustainability Tested II
8435 3,546 Same as Scenario 3
6. Housing Tested II 13,737 6,000
Keeps sites on San Antonio, increases densities
downtown/Cal Ave, adds sites along El Camino
and considers sites elsewhere in the Research
Park and near SUMC
Draft Preferred
Scenario
10,455-
13,737
4,420-
6,000
The Preferred Scenario would fall between
Scenarios 4 and 6 because it assumes elimination of
San Antonio sites & increased densities; adds
policies to favor small units; adds sites along El
Camino and considers new sites elsewhere in the
Research Park and near SUMC
Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, March 2017
March 2017 Page 4
Table 2. Summary of EIR Scenarios: Non-Residential Square Footage & Jobs
Scenario
Net Change 2015-2030
(City of Palo Alto Only) Notes Non-Res
Sq. Ft.1 Jobs
1. Business as Usual 3.3M 15,480 Assumes cap in Policy L-8 is not a constraint and job
growth continues per ABAG Projections 2013
.
2. Slowing Growth 3.0M 9,850 Assumes cap in Policy L-8 is a constraint and the interim
annual limit on office/R&D is extended citywide
3. Housing Tested I 3.5M 12,755
Assumes cap in Policy L-8 is increased and the interim
annual limit on office/R&D continues to apply to a subset
of the City
4. Sustainability
Tested I 4.0M 15,480 Assumes cap in Policy L-8 is eliminated and there is no
annual limit on office/R&D
5. Sustainability
Tested II 2.4M 8,868 Same as Scenario 2 with more constraints on job growth
6. Housing Tested II 2.4M 8,868 Same as Scenario 2 with more constraints on job growth
Draft Preferred
Scenario 3M 9,850-12,755
The Preferred Scenario would perpetuate and update the cap
in Policy L-8 and would therefore result in square footage
similar to Scenario 2. Job growth would be between Scenario
2 and 3 because the annual limit on office/R&D would be
citywide minus the Research Park
Notes: (1) The square footage shown for all Scenarios includes 1.3M square feet already approved at SUMC.
Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, March 2017
Table 3. Summary of EIR Scenarios: Jobs/Housing Balance
Scenario Jobs/Housing Balance in 20301
1. Business as Usual Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 3.20
2. Slowing Growth Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 3.04
3. Housing Tested I Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 3.04
4. Sustainability Tested I Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 3.04
5. Sustainability Tested II Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 2.932
6. Housing Tested II Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 2.71
Draft Preferred
Scenario
Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 2.76 to 2.962
Notes: (1) The ratio of jobs to housing is expressed as the ratio of jobs to employed residents. The proportion of
employed residents in 2030 is estimated at approximately 48% of total population based on ABAG Projections 2013.
The ratio of jobs to employed residents in this column assumes a 2014 base of 65,685 people and 95,460 jobs.
(2) Based on the population and jobs numbers identified in Tables 1 and 2.
Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, March 2017
March 2017 Page 5
The tables that follow describe other key policy and implementation-related characteristics of
the six EIR scenarios and identify those characteristics staff believes the Council supports for
inclusion in the “preferred scenario” based on Council direction on January 30, 2017 and earlier
discussions with the Council, which are identified with an arrow in the right margin beside
Tables 4, 5, and 6 below.
Table 4. Summary of Housing-Related Policies & Zoning Changesa
Summary of Housing Policies & Zoning Changes Scenarios
1 2 3 4 5 6
Maintain All Existing Housing Sites √ √ √
Eliminate Housing Sites on San Antonio and South El
Camino √ √ √
Increase residential densities on sites in Downtown,
the California Ave Area and along El Camino Real √ √ √ √
Add new housing sites to the El Camino frontage of
the Research Park and the Shopping Center √ √
Consider additional sites near SUMC or in western
portion of the Research Park √
Convert some commercial development potential
(FAR) to residential FAR √ √ √ √ √
Reduce constraints on the addition of Accessory
Dwelling Units √ √ √ √ √
Adopt policies to avoid the loss of existing housing
and displacement √ √ √ √ √
Adopt regulations and potential incentives to create
smaller units √ √ √ √ √
(a)This list is not a complete listing of possible policy and zoning changes, but includes major initiatives required to
reach the housing projections of each scenario. There is some overlap between these and the zoning changes
summarized later. Attributes of the Preferred Scenario are identified with arrows.
Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, March 2017
Table 5. Zoning Code Amendments for the EIR Scenarios
Proposed Zoning Code Amendmentsa Scenarios
1 2 3 4 5a 6a
Planned Community (PC) zoning district provisions
would be reformed. √ √ √ √ √ √
Strategies to preserve retail would be enhanced for
the city’s neighborhoods. √ √ √ √ √ √
Incentives would be considered for small lot
consolidation along El Camino Real. √ √ √ √ √ √
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required
for new office and R&D uses in order to regulate
employment densities.
√ √ √
An alternate mechanism would be explored for
moderating employment densities, either through
regulation or revenue collection.
√ √
March 2017 Page 6
Proposed Zoning Code Amendmentsa Scenarios
1 2 3 4 5a 6a
Allowable commercial densities would be reduced
and replaced with residential densities. √ √ √ √ √
Reduce the allowable FAR in the CC-2 district from
2.0 to 1.5. √
Modest exceptions to the City’s 50-foot height limit
would be permitted for projects with ground floor
retail and residences above.
√ √ √
Allowable residential densities would be increased
downtown and near California Avenue, possibly by
adding the PTODb zoning designation to downtown
and streamlining the permitting process to allow for
residential development in the PTOD zone with
modified regulations. Another possibility would be
to eliminate maximum dwelling unit densities and
use minimum densities and FAR to encourage more,
smaller units.
√ √ √ √
Allowable residential densities would be increased
on the El Camino Corridor, possibly by adding the
PTODb zoning designation to pedestrian “nodes”
along the corridor with modified regulations to
encourage use of the designation. Another
possibility would be to eliminate maximum dwelling
unit densities and use minimum densities and FAR to
encourage more, smaller units.
√ √
Mitigation and sustainability measures would be
adopted to minimize impacts of new market rate
housing and new non-residential development by
requiring mitigation, monitoring, and enforcement.
√ √
Performance based zoning strategies would be
adopted to minimize impacts of new market rate
housing and new non-residential development. √
Coordinated area plans (or “precise plans”) would
become a routine planning tool √ √
(a)The suggested zoning changes listed here do not include all of the sustainability measures or mitigation
measures which could be applied to the scenarios. Attributes of the Preferred Scenario are identified with arrows.
(b) The Pedestrian and Transit-Oriented Development (PTOD) combining zoning district is intended to allow higher
density residential dwellings on commercial, industrial, and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of
Caltrain stations, while protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with historical resources.
Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, March 2017
March 2017 Page 7
Table 6. Infrastructure Investments for the EIR Scenarios
Summary of Infrastructure Investmentsa Scenarios
1 2 3 4 5 6
New Public Safety Building √ √ √ √ √ √
Bicycle Bridge over US 101 √ √ √ √ √ √
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Implementation Projects √ √ √ √ √ √
Byxbee Park √ √ √ √ √ √
California Avenue Parking Garage √ √ √ √ √ √
Downtown Parking Garage √ √ √ √ √ √
Fire Stations √ √ √ √ √ √
Small improvements within existing rights-of-way to
provide for traffic calming or relatively small
increases in roadway capacity by adding turn lanes
or making other intersection adjustments
√ √ √ √ √ √
El Camino Real intersection and pedestrian
safety/streetscape improvements √ √ √ √ √ √
Downtown mobility and safety improvements √ √ √ √ √ √
Middlefield Road corridor improvements √ √ √ √ √ √
Grade separations Option 1: trench below
Charleston and Meadow; other improvements along
the corridor.
√ √
Grade separation Option 2: grade separate all grade
crossings; other improvements along the corridor √ √
Geng Road extension to Laura Lane √
County Expressway Plan Implementation Option 1
(additional lane on Page Mill Road is not HOV) √
County Expressway Plan Implementation Option 2
(additional lane on Page Mill Road is for HOV) √
Bus Rapid Transit on El Camino Real in mixed-flow
lanes with the addition of queue jumping and
curbside stations.
√ √
(a)This list is not a complete listing of the City’s infrastructure plan, but includes those investments highlighted in
EIR Scenarios
(b) The Preferred Scenario would include all of the listed investments with the HOV option on Page Mill Road and
grade separations at all Caltrain crossings.
Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, March 2017
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 1 of 48
TUESDAY, February 21, 2017
Rinconada Library – Embarcadero Room
1213 Newell Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
5:30 PM TO 8:30 PM
Call to Order: 5:30 P.M. 1
Co-Chair Garber: Alright folks. Let’s get started. Can I ask Staff to call roll? 2
Present: Garber, Filppu, Glanckopf, Hetterly, Hitchings, Keller, Kleinhaus, Levy, McDougall, 3
McNair, Moran, Nadim, Packer, Peschcke-Koedt, Summa, Uhrbrock, van Riesen 4
5
Absent: Sung, Titus, Uang, Nadim 6
7
Oral Communication: 8
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. We have three cards for oral communications. Peter Taskovich, if I am 9
pronouncing your name correctly, you’ll have three minutes. 10
Peter Taskovich: Hello, my name is Peter Taskovich. I’m a lifelong resident of Palo Alto and I just want to 11
talk briefly about the City’s Council decision (inaudible) aside from all programs from the new 12
Comprehensive Plan. This is simply put, a slap in the face of all of you on the Citizen’s Advisory 13
Community, who worked so diligently for many, many months debating, developing and approving 14
these programs. A Comprehensive Plan with only goals and policies but no programs is a toothless 15
document and simply portrays its name. A Comprehensive Plan without any stated programs to 16
implement at stated goals and policies can hardly be called Comprehensive at all. Sadly, it’s a bad joke 17
that unfortunately, a slim majority on our City Council appears to want to (inaudible) on the citizens of 18
Palo Alto. I, therefore, will support all efforts by the members of the Citizen Advisory Committee to 19
reinstate all the programs your committee has already approved back into the new Comprehensive Plan. 20
The programs along with the goals and policies are an essential part of a meaningful and well-crafted 21
Comprehensive Plan and they must be stored back into the Comprehensive Plan so we all can have an 22
updated Comprehensive Plan that all of us can be proud of. Thank you. 23
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Next is Rita Vrhel. Vrhel, Rita. 24
Rita Vrhel: Good evening. I won’t put it as eloquently as the first speaker, that was lovely. My feelings 25
are the same. I was there at the meeting and I just couldn’t believe how 7, 8- years of work including a 26
year and a half or so of your work, was just gutted. Some people have said in a fashioned maneuver that 27
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 2 of 48
was predetermined. I wouldn’t go that far because I don’t know but I know at the City Council retreat a 1
few days before the City Council meeting on 1/30, there was a discussion of transparency and the very 2
low and discouraging number of citizens who believe in the City Council. For the last 2-years, anyone 3
who complained to me about the City Council, I would say no, actually they will listen to you. You have 4
to show up. You have to tell them your concerns but they will listen. You know, I ‘m not sure that I can 5
say that anymore and in fact, I haven’t. I know that this Committee or I feel this Committee is deeply 6
divided on the issue of whether the 1/30 episode was appropriate and what the long term meaning of it 7
is. I’ve taken the time to listen to the 1/30 transcript over and over and over again and I have handed 8
out something to Dan, which I think you have, and its part of the transcript verbatim because the 1/30 9
transcript from the City will not be ready for probably another month or so. It’s my opinion that items 10
under H, which where the Land Use Element content based on Council Member’s Comments on 11
November 28th and it has all the letters under the land use; I didn’t give you that part. There was a vote 12
to discuss but then that vote was taken and transformed into a yes or no vote on the item. I have sent 13
this transcript to the City Attorney, to all Members of the City Council, to the City Manager, and to the 14
City Clerk and they have not gotten back to me yet but I, like the first speaker, would encourage anyone 15
on the CAC who believes that their efforts were short changed or anybody in the Community who is 16
listening who feels that a Comprehensive Plan has to have something in it beside the promise of items 17
coming up for later discussion. If items are going to be coming up for later discussion, I would encourage 18
everybody to press the City Council as to when they are going to be coming up and also, ask for a full 19
meeting that doesn’t start at 6 o’clock at night and go on – I mean, I left at 11:30 and I think they hadn’t 20
even started on transportation. Thank you for taking my comments seriously. 21
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you, Rita. Sheri Furman. 22
Sheri Furman: Good evening everyone on this rainy night. I’m Sheri Furman and a Co-Chair of Palo Alto 23
Neighborhoods and I’m speaking on behalf of our executive Committee as empowered by the 24
organization itself. I first want to say that we support the issues raised in recent letters we’ve received 25
from several of your fellow CAC Members and I really hope I am preaching to the choir here. First the 26
definition of Comprehensive: Complete, including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something. 27
Removing programs surely weakens the idea of a Comprehensive Plan. Decoupling programs from their 28
related policy and placing them outside the body of the element weakens the policies whose programs 29
are supposed to support. Policies indicate what is to be achieved and programs provide how. Without 30
the specifics of programs to inform decisions and measure impacts, policies are simply wish lists that can 31
be interpreted and implemented in any number of ways depending on who’s doing the interpretation. 32
Both residents and those doing business in the City will have no clear idea of what to expect. Finally, the 33
process. 5 people should not have the power to undo years of work with no discussion nor input from 34
you, the Staff and the public. The idea that programs will only move forward if a Council Member or 35
Staff suggests these should, is absurd. Staff is far too busy with the current issues (inaudible) and 36
program initiation should not be subject to the political make-up of the Council. The January 30th action 37
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 3 of 48
by the bare majority of the Council and the way it was done belies a commitment to an inclusive and 1
open City government. We urge you to do two things. First, discuss the pros and cons of removing 2
programs from the Land Use and Transportation Elements and placing them in an appendix or separate 3
document. Council and the public need to understand whether and why such a move is or is not a good 4
idea. Second, petition the Council to agendize and restore the programs to the Comp. Plan. Thank you. 5
Co-Chair Garber: Thanks, Sheri. Betty Jo Chang to be followed by Annette Ross. That’s our last speaker 6
unless somebody else would like to speak and if so, please hand in a card. 7
Betty Jo Chang: My name is Betty Jo. I fully support the open letter to the Council from CAC Members 8
requesting that the Council reconsider its high-handed and foolhardy action. Stripped implementation 9
programs from the Comp. Plan with neither consideration nor debate. A plan without programs can’t 10
even construct the paper that it’s written on, much less provide the guidance needed for our City to 11
navigate the challenges we face. The Council wholesaled its positions of these programs. Rejects out of 12
hand without public debate. Years of work from dedicated City Staff and citizen volunteers to develop a 13
proactive plan to address the issues of greatest importance to our citizens. The manner in which this 14
decision was made also dismisses the value of collaborative and consensus-driven government. This is a 15
democracy and we ought to stand up for it. I fear both Council and community will live to rue the day 16
when such cavalier disrespect for both democracy and its citizens, drives way those volunteers who do 17
so much to make this a community in which we wish to live. I know how much effort has gone into this 18
CAC work. I thank you all for your service and I value the quality of the work product you’ve produced. I 19
want and expect the Council to respect it as well. Thank you. 20
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Annette Ross and that’s the last card I have. 21
Annette Ross: Good evening. My name is Annette Ross and I’m here just as myself. I’m not representing 22
any particular group of people. My remarks concern what Council did on the Land Use Element at its 23
January 30th meeting. Even if you like the outcome, it was arrived at wrongly and that is critical. This CAC 24
was not formed as some sort of random good idea. Rather it’s formulation response precisely to the 25
public participation statutory requirement that is set forth in the State’s General Plan Guidelines. You all 26
did your job. By removing the programs and disallowing discussion on the action, Council not only undid 27
your work, it violated several provisions of the government code that apply to the General Plan. A 28
document that is regarded as a Constitution for land use development and as former Mayor Pat Burt 29
pointed out, what Council did was a tremendous departure from this City’s established approach to 30
thing – to such things, excuse me. It appears that our Mayor and those who supported him in this are 31
banking on residents not paying sustained attention to what goes on at City Hall. It also appears that 32
there is an absolute disregard for the opinions of those not aligned with the majority on Council. Rather 33
than engage and discussion for the purpose of identifying common ground and reaching a workable 34
compromise in areas where there are differences, as you all did, the Council majority made the 35
unprecedented move of unilaterally eliminating the very programs that provide substance and guidance 36
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 4 of 48
to the City’s Comp. Plan. Council Member Wolbach encouraged this, saying it’s simples the document. 1
This is despite the fact that the law says that the plan must address building an [inaudible] and 2
population densities. Think about this, some documents work best when the details are clearly defined. 3
That’s what programs do for General Plans. Said differently, it is the programs that make such plans 4
comprehensive. Removing the programs from the Land Use Element is both wrong and short sited. 5
Council Members come and go. This Committee will disband. Plans endure, at least they should. That is 6
how we achieve consistency and smart planning. Without the programs, this City will develop according 7
to the whims of Staff and whoever holds the majority on City Council. This time around, you may be ok 8
with that. Next time, maybe not. We need to look no further than Washington for merit examples of 9
what happens when tides shift. I urge you to come together with a uniform voice and asked City Council 10
to reconsider their actions of January 30th. Thank you. 11
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. That’s the last card we have. Before we get started, I would like to 12
acknowledge a couple of folks. Doria Summa, who has joined us, who wasn’t here last time think but 13
congratulations on joining the PTC and now being our ex-officio member and representative of that. 14
Susan [Monk], I understand that you have been recently elected or appointed to the PTC, welcome and 15
former Mayor Pat Burt, thank you for joining us. 16
Staff Comments: 17
18
Co-Chair Garber: Staff, you have come comments to start us off? 19
Hillary Gitelman: I do. Thank you. First, for the Committee, I’m sure you noticed that Joanna and Elaine 20
are not here this evening. They are both on well-deserved vacations so Elena, Greg, Ashley and I are 21
here to fill in for them as best we can. I also just had one housekeeping item before we launch into the 22
discussion – the next discussion item on the Comp. Plan programs and organization and that related to 23
Brown Act Compliance. If you remember at the beginning of this process, we talked about the Brown 24
Act and we adopted some guild lines. One of the core principles of the Brown Act is that we must hold 25
meetings in public with proper notice and when members of the Committee post comments online or 26
contribute letters to the editor and all that, we start to run the risk of a non-noticed meeting. If – let me 27
just spell out how that would happen. It would happen if more than a quorum of this group were to 28
participate in the same forum and exchange ideas through that forum. It only becomes a problem when 29
it’s more than a quorum but it’s the first person who starts it and then the second person and third 30
person so everybody kind of has to be careful not to let this happen. It’s happened a few times because 31
passions are running high, I understand that but I’m asking for your forbearance for the remainder of 32
the CAC process. If you have important things to say, send them to Staff. We’ll distribute them in the 33
packet. We’ll talk about them here at the meeting but if you could please reframe from the media 34
conversation, which could turn into a noticed meeting. That’s the only housekeeping. Should I launch 35
into the first item? 36
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 5 of 48
Co-Chair Keller: Just a clarifying question? If one person posts something and a majority of the 1
Committee read it, is that a violation? 2
Hillary Gitelman: That is not a violation. The violation happens when more than a quorum are 3
participating but we as a group agreed that we wouldn’t do this because it’s not fair for the first person 4
to get to use the public forum and then the 9th person doesn’t get to. I’m just reminding everybody of 5
the rules that we agreed on in the very beginning. 6
Co-Chair Keller: Ok because I thought that – I thought it one person post and even if everybody reads it, 7
that that’s a – it’s called a serial meeting. Anyway. 8
Hillary Gitelman: Should we move on? 9
Agenda Items: 10
1. Discussion: January 31, 2017 City Council Meeting 11
12
Co-Chair Garber: Yes, let’s go to agenda item number 1. Discussion of the January 31st – 30th actually, 13
2017 City Council meeting and Hillary I believe have come comments to open up this item. 14
Hillary Gitelman: I do, thank you. I hope everybody had a chance to read our short memo. It’s actually -- 15
the Staff memo actually touches on two items that we wanted the Committee to be aware of. One is the 16
availability of a supplement of the Draft EIR. Those of you that have been paying attention know we 17
published a Draft EIR that analyzed forced planning scenarios. The Council asked us to analysis an 18
additional two so that supplement is now available for those who wish to dig in deep on the details. 19
We’re in the public comment period so anybody who wants to can either submit oral comments at one 20
of the public hearing that’s coming up or written comments by the close of the comment period and 21
there’s a notice that I provided in your packet with the dates and deadlines for that. I have a quick 22
question? 23
Shani Kleinhaus: (Inaudible) 24
Hillary Gitelman: Yeah, it makes it clear in the notice that I provided. We’re excepting comments on the 25
supplement to the Draft and the original Draft. Anything you have, either come to one of the public 26
hearings or submit those comments in writing. 27
Don McDougall: (Inaudible) 28
Hillary Gitelman: Public comments on a public – that – no. You’ll submit those to Elaina and we will 29
collate them and it will be fine. Ok. The item de jure, getting beyond that issue was the Council’s 30
direction to Staff on January 30th and included in the packet a copy of the action minutes so you can kind 31
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 6 of 48
of read through the motion, amendment, vote, all of that stuff and in the memo, we also tried to 1
summarize in bullet points what the Council’s direction was. I’d be happy to answer any questions about 2
the specifics there but the direction to us that has gotten the most attention is the one about the 3
organization of the document and the suggestion and direction by a majority of the Council to place 4
programs in a separate document or an ‘appendix’ to the plan unless they are ‘legally required’. It was 5
clear to me that we would need – we as Staff would need to follow up with the Council to understand 6
what it is exactly they were asking after we had an opportunity to assess that questions of what is legally 7
required. We have been doing some thinking about this. We, of course, have been reading your 8
thoughts and getting input from you and from others on this question. I liked – I don’t know – I always 9
try and find the middle path so there’s a spectrum of possibilities here. One end of the spectrum is pull 10
all those puppies out of the plan, put them in a separate document, put it on the shelf and never look at 11
it again. The other end of the spectrum is leaving it exactly the way it is, with all the programs built into 12
the plan, exactly as the CAC has delivered to the Council. I think there’s a middle approach and we will 13
be exploring this approach and providing a recommendation to the Council on March 20th. That’s the 14
next time we have an opportunity to agendize with the Council a discussion of this issue. All of their 15
agendas are jammed packed so that’s the soonest we can get back to them. It’s the same day we’re 16
going to have the public hearing on the EIR that I just spoke about. It’s going to be a Comp. Plan 17
appaloosa of an evening. I’ll tell you just a little bit more about how we’re exploring this middle path and 18
I hope that we will enjoy your support by the time we define this. Basically, our thought is we can 19
achieve the objectives of the majority of the Council to be just a little – play with the organization of the 20
document and be a little explicit that we can’t possibly accomplish all of these programs but put them in 21
a format like the Implementation Plan in the current Comp. Plan. If you have seen the Implementation 22
Plan in the current Comp. Plan, it’s terrific. We would put the programs in that kind of format. Maintain 23
the linkage to the policies so they would maintain their numbers and their linkage and they would have 24
a relative priority in that setting. Now, we are going to need some help from the subcommittee of the 25
CAC in crafting just what that would look at and I understand that the Chairs have formed the 26
membership of that subcommittee and we have a meeting scheduled with them next week to start that 27
work. Our thought is that we will discuss with the subcommittee, then with the Council and then with 28
this full group at your next meeting on the 21st. This kind of middle approach where we have an 29
Implementation Plan in the Comprehensive Plan update. Includes all the policies that you’ve help to 30
develop with the changes that the Council has wanted. If you have been paying attention, they’ve added 31
some, they’ve subtracted some and that I’m expecting that your subcommittee is also going to want to 32
help us add and subtract a little because there’s a lot of redundancy in there. Once you see them all in 33
one place, you’ll see that we can do a little trimming. In that context, we would try and prioritize. Just a 34
little piece of background, this was going to go out in the report to the subcommittee later this week but 35
we looked at all the programs from the last Comp. Plan, there were 266 or something like that, and I say 36
that we can say definitively that we have accomplished about 15% of them. In the Comp. Plan update 37
that we’ve been working on. There are slightly more than 400 that we’ve proposed and I think it’s 38
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 7 of 48
unrealistic to think that we’re going to do more than 15% of those so we’re going to ask the 1
subcommittee and ultimately this group to help us develop a prioritize recommendation for the Council. 2
Then they can take our recommendation or not but we will at least discharge our responsibility, I think, 3
in suggesting to them what we think the relative priority of these things are and then to the extent that 4
all of you can help us also get rid of the redundancies, that would be great. I think it would be an easier 5
sell to the Council if we didn’t have 400+ of these programs; If we could get it down in number a little 6
bit. That’s a little bit about what I think we’re going to be doing with the subcommittee of the CAC and 7
where I hope we’re going to end up with this process. I think our goal as Staff and I think the Mayor 8
articulated this in the State of the City Address is to end up at the end of the day with a Comp. Plan that 9
very much perpetuates the values in the existing Comp. Plan and that is completely compliant with State 10
Law and with our historic practice. The programs have a role in that and I think – I hope the Staff 11
recommendation as we develop it will help achieve that and that the Council will accept our 12
recommendation. Always with some changes but in the majority, I hope they will accept it. I’d be happy 13
to answer questions. I know this group has been longing for an opportunity to discuss this issue and 14
potentially whether you want to take a position or just continue to come to the Council meetings to 15
offer your individual support or opposing. 16
Co-Chair Garber: Let’s entertain just clarify questions here because we’ll get an opportunity to all 17
express ourselves. Stephen and then Bonnie. 18
Stephen Levy: First of all –ok. One, will Staff be able to give the subcommittee and then the Council and 19
the Committee’s some idea of the relative workload involved in these items? I mean, priorities are 20
what’s important to the community but if we pick four items at that each takes you a year? 21
Hillary Gitelman: Very good question. What we’re shooting towards is a matrix or list of all the 22
programs with relative priority and relative level of effort. 23
Stephen Levy: Good. 24
Hillary Gitelman: We’re not going to get into detail but we’re going to say, one dollar sign, two-dollar 25
sign or three dollar signs. Just to try and at least, get out there what we think the relative level of effort 26
is. 27
Stephen Levy: The second question is will City Council weigh in on this question, I don’t know much 28
about, is what is required by law? I heard that raised. I don’t quite know what that means. 29
Hillary Gitelman: I think as Staff, we feel like that’s one of the pieces of information we’ll be providing 30
to the Council when we make a recommendation. 31
Stephen Levy: Not the subcommittee necessarily? Not enough time. 32
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 8 of 48
Hillary Gitelman: We can talk about that in the subcommittee as well. Happy to do that. I would just 1
say, several – the government code requires implementation measures, terminology is important, in a 2
couple of the elements and certain things. One of the speakers referred to land use densities and 3
intensities so there are certain requirements in the government code but the government code also says 4
you can organize your General Plan any way you want to so you can put it into different chapters. 5
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Bonnie and then Arthur and then Annette. Lisa, you also had a question? 6
Bonnie Packer: I watched the video that you gave us. The link to that portion of the City Council meeting 7
and at the end, the City Manager said something about how in essences, this is an interactive, ongoing 8
process. This is not a done deal. They were just looking at a draft and the whole Comprehensive Plan will 9
come back to City Council. How are we taking that information into context? My second question is do 10
you – does anybody have any feeling whether this would apply to the other element, the Community 11
Services Element? 12
Hillary Gitelman: Thank you. I mean, I think these are – the last question about whether this applies to 13
all the elements is something we’ll get clarification on, on the 20th. Hopefully, as I say, we’ll be able to 14
steer towards a middle path and whatever we decide will be for all the elements. We won’t treat one 15
different than the others. We’ll see. In terms of the City Council, they’re going to have additional 16
opportunities to weigh on this stuff and I thought the comment by the City Manager was right on. At this 17
point, what we’re trying to do is give the Council the first look at all of your work products so the CAC 18
had worked hard on these things. We want the Council to take the first look. Prepare some revision 19
before it gets transmitted to the PTC for their work and their recommendation. Then what the PTC does, 20
goes back to the Council and it’s not until that point that they finally have to adopt the actual final 21
language. There’s still a long way to go. 22
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Just before we go on, I will acknowledge, Judy [Klineburge] having joined 23
us; the previous Mayor. Annette and then Lisa and then Jen. 24
Annette Glanckopf: Maybe you just clarified it but I understand what you’ve said about this concept of 25
meeting them halfway and putting together an appendix with programs, priorities and relative effort but 26
I’m still very concerned about how the programs actually get implemented because specifically, and I 27
also transcribed the entire Section H, when – you just repeated almost exactly what Mayor Scharff said. 28
He asked for that but he said – so I’m concerned about how stuff moves forward just because it’s an 29
Implementation Plan and we have all the stuff listed because there’s still not linking back. He said, the 30
way I understand this would work is that there would be an implementation section where all the 31
programs would be but they wouldn’t actually mean that we would do them. Staff would have to come 32
forward and say, now we’re going to implement programs such and such or we should implement a 33
program such and such or Council Members could write a colleague’s memo or whatever, at which point 34
there would the implementation of that that would move forward. Staff wouldn’t have to spend the 35
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 9 of 48
time on it and move forward on if there was no push from either a Council Member or from Council or 1
Staff driven. There would be no move to forward that. Again, I’m really concerned. We can do all this 2
work, we can prioritize if it were – the programs were in place, that would be part of the vision that we 3
could all refer to. Now, they’re just going to be stuck away and even though there’ll be a list of priorities 4
etc. I still am very unclear – to me, this is really the nut, besides the process, on actually how things will 5
be brought forward. Is it going to be cherry picking where some Council Members says gee, I really like 6
these three priorities or it is going to be Staff that has to take the time and effort to say these are our 7
top priorities? Maybe you could clarify that? 8
Hillary Gitelman: Yeah, really good question. First, let me clarify, I think that we’re developing a 9
recommendation in which the programs would not be in an appendix. I think that is a word that is kind 10
of loaded and diminishes the importance of the programs that you’ve been working on. I think our 11
recommendation is going to try and find a way to perpetuate the Implementation Plan that’s in the 12
current Comp. Plan. I mean that’s what it is called. It’s called the Implementation Plan and it’s a list of 13
programs -- and our thought is that the introductory texted of which the subcommittee and then this 14
CAC and then the Council will get to weigh in on will explain how the programs will be implemented. I 15
think it is sobering that only 15% of the programs in the last Comp. Plan where actually implemented 16
and so I think we have an opportunity to frame the table and the list of programs with the introductory 17
text to the Implementation Plan that makes it clear. Some of these programs are on-going and some of 18
these programs are already resourced. Some of these programs are not resourced but they’re not costly 19
and don’t require a lot of work. Some of these programs are costly and will require a lot of work and will 20
have to be budgeted in an annual budget cycle etc. We’re all going to work on this explanation together 21
and I hope at the end of the day, it will be clear to folks that we’ve developed a suite of programs, we’ve 22
tried to prioritize them as best we can, we’ve acknowledged that priorities change over time but we’ve 23
given the community and the Council a clear view of how we think this Comp. Plan and its policies and 24
goals should be implemented over the life of the plan. Hope that made it a little clearer. 25
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Lisa and then Jen. 26
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: Actually, two questions, just clarifying stuff. The Implementation Plan, I’ve 27
forgotten, it is an official required part of a Comp. Plan or it’s discretionary whether it’s there or not? 28
That’s question one, sorry. The law doesn’t call out the need for an Implementation Plan but it does 29
require implementation measures in some of the elements and this how we’ve chosen to implement 30
that locally. 31
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: Ok. This is more – not to get into the debate of it but more – is there – did Council 32
specifically say or was there some downside to having said the top priority programs in the official 33
element and in the Implementation Plan? I think what you’re saying is based on what Council is saying 34
that it would only be in the Implementation Plan? 35
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 10 of 48
Hillary Gitelman: That could be something that they discuss on the 20th. I don’t know where the 1
majority will be on the 20th. I think it could either way. 2
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Jen and then Arthur and that’s the last – oh, I’ve got Alex, Shani, and 3
Hamilton. 4
Jennifer Hetterly: I just have a couple questions. First is that we have several programs that are EIR 5
mitigation measures and I wonder if those are ultimately, considered requirements – State requirement 6
even though – obviously the EIR has not yet been adopted? 7
Hillary Gitelman: Our position would be yes. The Council asked us to maintain existing legal 8
requirements and it we’ve identified something as a mitigation measure, it would fall into that category. 9
Jennifer Hetterly: The next question is as far as putting them all into an implementation chapter, how is 10
that any different from what the existing Comp. Plan does because the current implementation chapter 11
does attempt to prioritize among the programs. It's – what it sounds like to me is by removing them 12
from the elements, putting them into an Implementation Plan, which is not an adopted plan element. 13
That the only – we’re not doing anything but removing the programs and adding a ramble saying we 14
really hope you’re going to look harder at these than you might have. 15
Hillary Gitelman: I guess what I’m suggesting that the Implementation Plan would be part of the 16
adopted Comprehensive Plan. It would be part in parcel of the plan like it is today. I don’t think anyone 17
would look at the Comp. Plan today and say oh, there’s that implementation chapter in the back of the 18
book; it doesn’t count. I think we consider that part of the Comprehensive Plan. 19
Jennifer Hetterly: Just to may clarify then because I want to make sure I understand what the situation 20
is. In the current plan, the programs exist within the adopted plan elements; they are enumerated there. 21
They also exist in the implementation chapter which describes how those programs will be implemented 22
over time. It seems to me if they are removed from the adopted plan elements, that the Implementation 23
Plan then no longer – then the Comp. Plan no longer provides authorization for Staff to pursue those 24
programs without further Council action. Despite the existence of an Implementation Plan that says if 25
you want to do this, these are what we think might be more important than others. 26
Hillary Gitelman: I guess I’m suggesting that there’s another way to do that. That if you have an 27
Implementation Plan where all of the programs are located with the numeric attributes that related 28
them to the policies. All you’ve done is reorganized the document but you still have an Implementation 29
Plan that’s part of the Comprehensive Plan like it is today. 30
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Alex then Shani. Hamilton and then Arthur. 31
Alex Van Riesen: (Inaudible) till I read this so I’m – this is all pretty new. I just want to see if I get this and 32
what I’m ultimately – maybe you can’t say this – what drove the decision to do it this way? Was is surely 33
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 11 of 48
the amount of programs that were suggested? Was it – I guess I’m wondering why instead of a 1
comment to the CAC to go back and say why don’t you prioritize the programs? Why this way of voting 2
on the City Council and really -- even giving the effect and obvious response of the city, why not just give 3
it back to us and say do this verses have a vote which elicits this sense of corruption in the government 4
about not – about violating the public process. Do you know why it went down this way? 5
Hillary Gitelman: I really can’t speak to the conduct of the meeting or – it was a noticed discussion of 6
the Land Use and Transportation Elements and the votes that happened where in that context. I also 7
can’t predict what’s going to happen on March 20th but I do know that we’re going to agendize another 8
discussion of this issue, which is garnered a lot of intense and emotional input… 9
Alex Van Riesen: Yeah. 10
Hillary Gitelman: …and I hope at that time we’ll get clarity and my prediction or my hope is that we’ll 11
end up in the middle somewhere. In a place where people hate what they did on the 30th and people 12
who love what they did on the 30th can realize hey, there’s some common ground here and there’s a 13
way to get to the finish line with a plan that respects the current plans value and structure. 14
Co-Chair Garber: Shani and Hamilton. Arthur. 15
Shani Kleinhaus: I do not think we need the middle ground. I think there’s nothing that enforces or that 16
the City has to implement every one of the programs. It’s their choice which ones they want to 17
implement and they can always prioritize. The flexibility that they get by us not prioritizing things is a lot 18
wider than if we did. If we now go and prioritize programs and in 3-years there’s the (inaudible) and a lot 19
of vacancies and no problems to find housing, everything changes. We should not put priority in a 20
General Plan. We should be providing a big palette of programs the City can then prioritize when the 21
time comes as needed. If you look at what other Cities do for prioritization. The City of San Jose, their 22
prioritization is on the 28th. Other Cities have had it recently. They have different ways to do it. In San 23
Jose, the City Council and Staff can come up with memos. These are things that are important to us… 24
Co-Chair Garber: Shani? 25
Shani Kleinhaus: ...and that’s how they should do it. 26
Co-Chair Garber: Forgive me. You’re making comments which you are welcome to do in a moment but 27
it you have a clarifying question? 28
Shani Kleinhaus: I guess my question is why and I don’t have an answer to that and I want to – again, 29
like the letter we sent, register that this is a wrong way to do it. I wrote so many people to come here 30
and speak whether it’s the disabled community, the people who spoke for trees, all sorts of things. This 31
is just not right. 32
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 12 of 48
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Hamilton and then Arthur and Annette also wanted a -- one more. 1
Hamilton Hitchings: I have clarifying a question. You may have essentially, in assertion, that being in the 2
Implementation Plan was equivalent legally to being in the Land Use or Transportation Element but my 3
understanding and I’m not an expert, is that it is not the same legally. That if it’s in the plan then 4
ordinances and zoning and other things the City does has to be consistent with it but if it’s in the 5
Implementation Plan, it does not have to be. Could you speak a little bit about the subtle differences 6
between being in the elements versus being in an Implementation Plan? Thank you. 7
Hillary Gitelman: Well, this is one of the issues that I think we are going to have to carefully investigate 8
and present to the Council on the 20th. First of all, I should say that we’ve talked -- we’ve to look at what 9
the other jurisdictions do and many other jurisdictions put the implementation measures in another 10
chapter at the end of the book in a separate plan. It’s been our practice here in Palo Alto to include 11
those in – under the policies that they are intended to implement and I think that’s a perfectly fine 12
approach. My personal feeling is that it’s – when we evaluate programs for consistency with the plan, 13
we’re really looking at the goals and policies of the plan and whether an implementation action like a 14
new development proposal or a new ordinance would further the goals and policies of the 15
Comprehensive Plan or whether they conflict with the goals and policies of the plan. The 16
implementation measures are another way to implement the goals and policies of the plan. Normally we 17
implement the Comprehensive plan through our day to day decision making on ordinances, on capital 18
improvements, on development projects and we also implement the Comprehensive Plan through the 19
specific measures that are identified in the plan, which again, call for ordinances and actions on the part 20
of the City. That’s kind of a convoluted answer but I hope I got to your questions. 21
Co-Chair Garber: Yeah, we’ll do Arthur first and then we’ll go around. Can we pick up your question as 22
part of the surround? 23
Annette Glanckopf: (Inaudible) 24
Co-Chair Garber: Alright. 25
Bonnie Packer: (Inaudible) 26
Co-Chair Keller: I think that it would be good too – we’ve had a lot…(crosstalk) 27
Co-Chair Garber: Let's – yeah. 28
Co-Chair Keller: … of questions. Why don’t we do that when we go around the room. You can ask 29
questions while going around the room too. I think that we’ve just – this is getting a little bit out of hand 30
with lots of questions. We expected a few of them, not half the room making comments – questions and 31
some comments. Let me follow-up on Hamilton’s question. I had a chat with Mayor Scharff, who agreed 32
that having the programs not be in the elements but have them be in the Implementation Plan did not 33
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 13 of 48
have the same legal weight as having them in the element. Having them in an Implementation Plan has 1
less legal weight than having them in the elements. In particular, the fact that the EIR requires them to 2
be in the elements indicated that there is a distinction. The second thing is that when I was on the 3
Planning and Transportation Commission, I saw development proposals that said that policies – goals, 4
policies and programs were in support of those development proposals. I am wondering whether if the 5
programs are not in the element but instead in the Implementation Plan, will developers who say that – 6
not say that these Comp. Plan things are in favor of the development? Will they no longer list programs 7
and now only list policies – goals and policies and those handful of programs that are retained for legal 8
reasons – I think that that’s a useful distinction that I think would help people. 9
Hilary Gitelman: Thank you for that question again, Arthur. I think I’m saying to Hamilton and I’ll say to 10
you, you have my commitment as Staff, we’re going to delve into this issue and provide from our legal 11
team and from our professional planning perspective an answer to that very question and when we go 12
back to Council on the 20th. 13
Co-Chair Garber: Ok. Let’s move on. A couple of things before we go around the table. I had sent out an 14
email from Arthur and myself on the appointments to the implementation subcommittee. Let me just 15
read them off here. Alex, Annette, Bonnie, Don, Elaine, Hamilton, Shani and Stephen. The ex officio 16
appointments are Doria and Whitney. Actually, Hillary, could I have you very briefly describe the rules 17
and responsibilities of the mission of that subcommittee for the benefit of some who have asked? 18
Hillary Gitelman: Sure. Again, we’re hoping to get a Staff report out to the Committee – the 19
subcommittee this week that includes a listing of all of the programs that the CAC has recommended in 20
each of the elements you’ve looked at so far. There are 400+ … 21
Male: Oh, my gosh. 22
Hillary Gitelman: …of these. We will include in them our first take – very preliminary take on relative 23
priority and relative level of effort. We’re hoping that the subcommittee will review this list with us. 24
Look for redundancies and help us scale down the list to the extent that’s feasible and help us with the 25
priorities. I’m confident that the initial take we have on it will change some and think the Committee is 26
going to be very useful in helping us do that. I hope you – those of you who are on the subcommittee 27
will either bring with you or have access to one of the later versions of the elements that we looked at 28
because we’re using the same number system. We relating the programs on the list back to the policies 29
that wherein the elements. We’ll send you copies or links? 30
Elena Lee: We’ll provide links to the most recent elements and we’ll also have hard copies of that – one 31
hard copy of each element at the meeting. 32
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 14 of 48
Hillary Gitelman: Just to refresh what we want this subcommittee to help with – just as we did in prior 1
elements is to develop a set of recommendations, changes, that we would then bring to this full group 2
for discussion at your next monthly meeting. 3
Co-Chair Garber: We’ll go around the table. Alex, just to give you a head up. I’m going to go first and 4
then you’re next. 5
Alex Van Riesen: Awesome. 6
Co-Chair Garber: At the Council’s meeting three Monday’s ago, I share the Council person Phil initial 7
reaction to Wolbach’s motion to remove the programs of the Land Use Element from the Comp. Plan. 8
While he shared the spirit of Wolbach’s motion to make the Comp. Plan more clear and concise. He felt 9
that it was “a massive change to make without a lot more discussion.” To be more direct, I wasn’t 10
happy. I felt that the Council’s action threatened to under mind the hard work that we’ve done here at 11
the CAC. I think that all of us to a greater or lesser extent believe that the Comp. Plan can stand to be 12
condensed, redundancies removed, made easier to read and speak with more clear and concise voice. I 13
recognize that the CAC is advisory. The Council can take or leave our work as they wish but Arthur and I 14
have worked our butts off to get the CAC to work together towards a consensus where we can and 15
provide clear alternatives where we cannot. In fact, everyone here has done that. It has been hard, 16
difficult work that at times has been very trying. Who here hasn’t had their sense decorum challenged? 17
Who hasn’t wanted to leave the Committee? Who has wished that they didn’t have to deal with 18
someone else’s differing view? Who amongst us hasn’t complained that the CAC simple doesn’t work or 19
that it can’t work? We’ve managed to move through most of these feelings to a greater degree that I 20
think many of us have expected. We have been successful moving the Committee’s work forward. I was 21
pissed that the Council was ignoring our real accomplishment. That we were finding a way to get 22
something done together as a community. I will not support an action to (inaudible) the Council for their 23
action. We rightfully need to air our thoughts and criticisms so that they are captured in the verbatim 24
minutes for the Council and the public to read. Then, assuming that the underlining issue that the 25
Council’s attempting to grabble with 3-weeks ago, was how to make the Comp. Plan more clear and 26
concise. We need to focus productively on the ideas that the CAC can recommend that Council can take 27
to accomplish this. In addition to our own comments, Arthur will share some thoughts that he and I have 28
discussed along these lines. If we need to, we will present the Council alternatives for them to consider. 29
You’ll note that I have handed out at your places 5 question that may help us structure our conversation 30
this evening. The questions are regarding programs location, the CAC’s involvement, the continuity with 31
other elements, prioritizing programs in the work plan and the CAC’s commitment to it. It’s now 6:20. 32
I’m going to try and focus on seeing if we can get through this by 7:30 but let me ask a question of 33
everyone. Are there large issues that anyone wants to bring up relative to the Business Element? I’m 34
hearing that there is a lot of support for it and most people seem to be on the same page so I don’t think 35
we have a long discussion there. If we need some more time, I will take some out – sometimes out of 36
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 15 of 48
that. Otherwise, we’ll try and end by 7:30 or shortly thereafter on this item. Alright. Let’s move forward. 1
Alex. 2
Alex Van Riesen: First, can I get a copy of those 5 questions? I don’t – I did not get one of those. Thank 3
you. As I stated earlier, this was relatively new information to me. I will leave it with, I think Dan, what 4
you read was well said and captured how I feel. I think I would also, had it not been inappropriate, 5
would have added my name to the letter that went to the Council. I guess I would just summarize but – 6
that at the best it seems like this was an unwise move. At worst, it seems somewhat questionable in 7
terms of motives and intentions but I don’t know enough and I’d like to hear more. I’m disappointed in 8
their decision. 9
Co-Chair Garber: Whitney. 10
Don McDougall: You can say anything you like… 11
Whitney McNair: Sorry, I was a little confused. 12
Don McDougall: …you don’t have to answer Dan’s damn questions. 13
Whitney McNair: We’re just commenting about that piece of… 14
Co-Chair Garber: Yeah, if you have comments regarding the Council’s action on the 30th. If you have 15
none, you can pass. 16
Whitney McNair: No, I don’t have any comments. 17
Co-Chair Garber: Don. 18
Don McDougall: First off I want to say, these are incredibly, interesting and insightful questions. Thanks, 19
Dan. I want to thank Hillary for her introduction and perseverance in answering all of the questions. I do 20
want to say, Hillary, I disagree with the concept that we need to get a half way -- in between 21
compromise. I, like Dan, believe that it – working hard to come up with something that is better than 22
what we have or good or perfect or whatever, that’s ok with me. Working to improve it is ok with me 23
but compromising half way in between, I hope we don’t start with that. Second thing I want to say is 24
that I’m really proud to be asked by Jennifer to co-author this At Place document you have. I think it was 25
a good spirit that we did this together. The third thing I want to do is echo what Dan said. I am very 26
proud – more proud than co-authoring with Jennifer. I am more proud that as part of this Committee, I 27
think we have encouraged and listened to input from the community, both through people coming and 28
participating here and through online. I think we’ve done a good job of listening to Staff and their 29
Council. I think we’ve done a particularly good job of listening to one another and I think now, we do 30
have something that is a balance. It’s not determined to go one way or the other; whatever issue it is. 31
I’m proud of that conclusion but I would say that the process – I’m concerned that the process we used 32
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 16 of 48
was to look at each element, to work with what Council gave us at the vision for that element and what 1
Council gave us as a first draft, I would say, of the goals throughout that element. Then we were 2
challenged to having those goals to come up with the policies and programs that fall into that space. We 3
could have approached this totally different and I suspect that as we compare our results to other 4
communities, that might be part of the difference that people come up with. Let’s agree on what all of 5
the elements are and then let’s agree with the vision for all those elements. Then let’s agree with all of 6
the goals through every element. Then let’s come up with all of the policies and then go back and come 7
up with all of the programs. If you were doing a Business Plan in a startup or whatever, that’s probably 8
how you would do it. You would put up policies on the wall. You’d get all them right and then you would 9
figure out, what programs do I need to do to implement that? We didn’t do it that way. I suspect that if 10
we did it that way, we would come up with a very, very different output and that’s one of the reasons 11
I’m reluctant to just simply say, let’s take the programs out and put them else ware because I really 12
believe that we created those programs in the context of the plan we were given. The fourth or the fifth 13
thing however – whatever – however we’re counting is I’m really concerned that any of the CAC work is 14
considered transparently and separating the policies out does not constitute transparency or separating 15
the programs out from the policies does not constitute transparency. I would like to finish a couple more 16
points. One is that has been viewed as a small minority of the Council or whatever and like Dan, I’m not 17
particularly interested in admonishing particular members of the Council or whatever. I do remember – 18
you probably remember me coming back to this body a year ago, saying, we just went to Council. I sat 19
on the – I sat up there with Staff and had Council Members say, you need to create a document that is 20
wishy-washy so that we have more flexibility. That was not one of the current majority. The purpose of 21
what they did last – on the 30th or 31st was again, to give them more flexibility. My biggest concern, both 22
last year and this year is that flexibility is another word for ignore and that’s why I am reluctant to 23
encourage that they get separated out. 24
Co-Chair Garber: Don? 25
Don McDougall: I don’t see it as partisan, I see it as a dangerous way to set up the Comp. Plan for not 26
just last year’s Council or this year’s Council but 5-years and 10-years from now where everything gets 27
separated and you give them, even more, flexibility. 28
Co-Chair Garber: Don? Don? Forgive me. 29
Don McDougall: I’ll stop. 30
Co-Chair Garber: Ok. Thank you. Whitney, you had a brief comment? 31
Whitney McNair: I do, I’m sorry. Thank you for indulging me. I did get a chance to look at the questions 32
for the CAC to consider and I do support the things that Dan, you said. I don’t feel comfortable sending a 33
letter admonishing the Council. It was maybe something that was done. It wasn’t very eloquent or – the 34
way it was done but I don’t know if I believe by stripping out the implementation measures and – or the 35
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 17 of 48
programs and making an Implementation Plan that diminishes them in some way. It’s like an EIR. You 1
guys have seen those, EIRs? At the end of an EIR, you have a mitigation monitoring and reporting 2
program. You have a collection of all of the programs and all the requirements. It says when you’re 3
going to get them done, who’s responsible for them and it gives you an easy checklist that you carry 4
with you. That you follow all of those things to make sure that they’re implemented. It’s easier to 5
prioritize them. It’s easier to see them all in one place. You can – if you look at some different Cities, 6
they prioritize them over a time period or by funding mechanisms but there’s a way that you can kind of 7
sort them and see them together versus just within a document. I’m not sure I would actually ask that 8
you have the City Attorney review to see the way that it’s done. I don’t know if I support or agree with 9
the comment that by having it in an Implementation Plan, it doesn’t carry the same legal weight. It’s still 10
is adopted by ordinance or by resolution so I think you could make sure that implementation of it does 11
carry the same weight as the Comp. Plan. I do think we should continue as a CAC. It’s been challenging 12
at times but the group has worked well together. I think the subcommittees have been very effective at 13
really diving into an issue. We should continue to look at those programs and develop them as we see fit 14
through the document and still carry those forwards in whatever it is the CAC takes forward to Council. 15
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. I want to make clear that my comments were no way criticizing the letters 16
that have been written or the letters to the editor or anything of that sort. All I was talking about was 17
this body formally taking a position of admonishing the Council. Julia. 18
Julia Moran: I agree that 400+ programs are too many but like Dan, I think that there are ways that we 19
can trim it down and make it more concise and make it more usable and this was disappointing. I also, I 20
mean Dan touched upon, I think we are a huge Committees that probably too big to be as functional as 21
it could be but we also represent such a huge breath of the community and I think that the work that 22
we’ve done here -- there are times that we’ve been incredible divisive but we’ve also come together a 23
lot and really compromised and worked, especially, on those subcommittees. I think that’s valuable and 24
it’s created a document that’s not perfect to any of us but really has a place in the City. 25
Co-Chair Garber: Shani. 26
Shani Kleinhaus: I want to the City of San Jose to ask for a certain project to move forward. It wasn’t 27
high priority for them, it was for me. Their City manager brought out their Comprehensive Plan or 28
General Plan and said this is a book of conflicts. That’s what I have to deal with. Everything is in there 29
and I have to pick and choose and your project is not something I feel is a high priority. We went to City 30
Council and I’m not going to go through that but there is a different process. The Comprehensive Plan is 31
not a Comprehensive Plan outline. It is a Comprehensive Plan, everything is in there. The City’s priorities 32
are given to City Council. How do other Cities do this? Some of them have a priority session where 33
different City Council Members, as well as Staff, come up with – these are our priorities for the next 6-34
months or year and then they vote and then they choose the ones they want to move forward with. 35
Other Cities do – Sunnyvale, they’ve had a study issue system, where anyone can propose a study issue. 36
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 18 of 48
It can be somebody from the public or somebody on City Council or Staff and then they go through 1
these in a certain manner and they have to get at least 3 votes or 2 votes to get through this first step 2
and then they go on. Just to take all those programs out, to me, is quite offensive; I’m offended. I 3
reached out to communities – the people who came from the disabled community are people who I 4
notified and I told them, this is another opportunity. You might want to come again and speak to us. A 5
lot of what they spoke about when into – a lot of the programs are not going to be a high priority for 6
Staff. They probably are a high priority for the community but they are not really big things that take a 7
huge amount of work and a lot of resources; they are really important to keep there. I don’t know that 8
we can’t have in the implementation chapter that something puts all these programs together but I’m 9
really opposed to removing them from where they are. At least those that had consensus and did not 10
have a huge opposition here. The ones that are controversial, those really should be prioritized 11
potentially, City Council should pay attention. All of the rest of them really should stay where they are. 12
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Doria. 13
Doria Summa: I want to start out by thanking everyone who’s already spoken about this very elegantly 14
and eloquently. I have to say, I was there that night as where some of my colleagues. Co-Chair Dan and I 15
were there till the end and it was shocking to me. I’ve been to a lot of City Council meetings and I’ve 16
never quite seen anything happen that way. I realize that we’re a recommending body and the Council 17
can do whatever they want with us but I frankly, was a little bit ashamed that they would so cavalierly 18
through away the work of so many people including Staff, the Co-Chairs and this body with no 19
discussion; no warning. I surely would – if I had known anything like that was going to happen, I surely 20
would have taken an opportunity to speak, whereas I didn’t think I had to speak that evening because I 21
thought it was time for other people in the community who have not been able to have as much 22
influence over the process as I did, to speak and there were already many speakers. I would also like to 23
say that I was not able – I did not think since I’m back here as the representative from PTC, I did not 24
think it would be appropriate for me to sign onto the letter that 6-people sent in but I was very proud of 25
them. I’m proud to know people like that, that aren’t afraid to speak up and write so plainly and well 26
about things. I really appreciate Alex’s simple question. Why did the Council do this? Sure, maybe it was 27
for flexibility but I don’t think flexibility should be built into the Comp. Plan. I think the Comp. Plan 28
should serve Council’s that have majorities or minorities that have different priorities. The Comp. Plan 29
should serve those of us in the community that is more pro-growth, faster growth, and those of us who 30
believe in slower growth. I don’t see how tearing the programs out of the Land Use Element makes for 31
an elegant document across the board unless we take the programs out from all the elements and I 32
don’t think anyone’s suggesting that. I also believe that the process of us developing this would have 33
been totally different if we had taken the programs out. I think it would have been a tighter and cleaner 34
process. I think we would have written policies that had – that were more precise, relevant and well 35
written and I think it’s a very disappointing turn of events. I don’t know what to do to remedy it except 36
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 19 of 48
to ask the larger community, all of Palo Alto, to share in thanking the Staff and the Co-Chairs and my 1
colleagues for the work we did and to ask the Council to better respect us and the process. Thank you. 2
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Len. 3
Len Filppu: Yes Hillary, I have a question and was told that we could – it’s ok. I was patient. Is the 4
compromise idea that you’re talking about, has that been floated by the Council at all? Is that… 5
Hillary Gitelman: You know, I just – I didn’t want to suggest that something is fully baked. What I 6
wanted to impart to this group is our thought process as we’re trying to put together a report – a Staff 7
report to the Council for March 20th. We are investigating how other jurisdictions do it. Putting some 8
thought into what’s happened in this community in the past. In other words, the structure of the current 9
Comp. Plan and how that’s worked and what some various approaches might be. I think there are a 10
number of ways that this could have finally be resolved and ultimately, it’s going to be up to the Council. 11
What we have so far is this slim majority telling us they want us to put the programs in a separate 12
chapter. I’m trying to suggest, I guess, that there’s a way to do that and not lose the value of the work 13
that’s happened so far. I don’t know whether the Council will reconsider their position. I think some of 14
the comments that you all are making are not just passionate but insightful. We probably would have 15
approached this task a little differently if we’d know that the structure was going to be different. We’ll 16
see on March 20th what the Council says and what the Staff comes up with in terms of a final 17
recommendation, whether it’s this kind of compromise or one extreme or the other, will be available to 18
everyone 11 days before the meeting. 19
Len Filppu: Thank you for that and thank you also for making this item number 1 on the agenda; for 20
changing that, I greatly appreciate that. It’s the elephant in the room that we’re very glad to be able to 21
talk about. I think the Council, you know, they’re a political body and I think they made a political 22
decision. A slim sliver of a majority voted to remove the programs and this is after years of work by 23
other Councils, citizens, CAC members, Staff and as others have mentioned, input from citizens, input 24
from the community of Palo Alto. Often when I was speaking for programs and – that helped to define 25
the meaning and the intent of the policies, that was based on input from the soccer mom or the --26
whomever, out in the community who doesn’t have time to watch all this but does wish to have a voice. 27
I would urge the CAC, all of us here, to push back on Council. I don’t – I think they threw the baby out 28
with the bathwater. I don’t believe that they expected the kind of impact and result and reaction that 29
their getting. Not just from some of us in the CAC but also from the community and the speakers who 30
were here tonight. I believe that as a political body they will pay attention and I’d rather have them pay 31
attention to the importance of the entire community participating in input on this plan and have them 32
reconsider their position. I would urge us to – as they’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater, I think 33
we should try to save the baby. Thanks. 34
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Jen. 35
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 20 of 48
Jennifer Hetterly: I don’t support a middle ground approach. I think -- I don’t have confidence that this 1
new Implementation Plan would carry the same weight as what we currently have in the existing Comp. 2
Plan in terms of the direction the programs offer to Staff and to the community. I think the context of 3
putting the programs and the policies together – if you take them apart, you lose the context and that 4
makes it more difficult not only for Staff and for Council to figure out what’s implementing what -- what 5
measure is related to what policy? It makes it impossible for the community to get a holistic view of 6
what exactly the City is trying to do. I also think that the policies without the program, like others, have 7
said before, was – we built those together as representatives of a balance and I think separating them 8
without going back through and reconsidering every single set of policies and programs, it—there’s just 9
– it doesn’t represent the consensus. I think it’s a false representation of what the CAC has put forth. I 10
don’t think that we need to admonish Council though I would love to personally, but that doesn’t mean 11
that we can’t ask them to reconsider what was an imprudent move. I think that – I think and hope that 12
the CAC would have a unified voice in requesting that, rather than supporting some middle ground that 13
doesn’t meet our needs. 14
Co-Chair Garber: Thanks. Annette. 15
Annette Glanckopf: Thanks. I – my comments are going to echo a lot of what everyone had said. I really 16
think its 100% acceptable for us to go back and say, you know, this whole thing only took ten minutes of 17
your time, it came in the middle of the night, there was no one there, it wasn’t noticed. I think you need 18
to reconsider after some thought and here is our number of letters etc. that really flush out the 19
situation. I actually, also think that we all need to call our Council Members and tell them what we think 20
so we need to be proactive. They still haven’t said anything about the programs in the other elements so 21
now it’s both transportation and land use. This really talks about transparency in government, which 22
really is a concern. This major decision happening in ten minutes. There were a lot of questions. People 23
said – even Council Member Phil says that gosh, I’ve got a couple minutes to think about it? I’m very 24
concerned that even though this might be the perfect solution, how the whole public, and I think other 25
people talked about this, are going to reflect on it. Reflect on our time and reflect on the work that 26
we’ve done. In the process, I think people have mentioned this but again, this should have been done – 27
if we were going to do it this way and I understand that other Cities have done it this way, we should 28
have been given this direction on day one because if you look at the policies, they’re – we really have – 29
we would have flushed them out like what was described earlier but the way we’ve got it now is some of 30
the policies are really programs, some of the programs are really policies and they are all sort of 31
intertwined. I think it would have been dramatically different, as pointed out if we had been given a 32
different direction initially. The other problem with putting it into an appendix, which we’re going to do 33
anyway, which I don’t support. I mean, I support the appendix the way Hillary described it but I think 34
you need to have the programs under the policies. Even Council Member Phil says that I would like to 35
see the programs under the policies. How am I going to compare this program by this aspect of the 36
policies? The policies are really the meat, they are the specifics that talk about how it – the programs are 37
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 21 of 48
the specifics that talk about how the policy is going to be implanted. A Julia Child cookbook doesn’t 1
work here so the question that I was going to ask is how are you going to relate all this if you don’t have 2
it right there and that doesn’t make any sense. I’m also against this idea that oh, let’s do it – that came 3
out -- oh, it was done at the CCAP, let’s do it here. I don’t think there was any comparison between the 4
CCAP and the Comp. Plan. This is our document – legal document. This is our vision of the future and 5
again, the programs do flush out our vision. Even Council Member Holman said when someone comes – 6
Hillary, you talked about this early. When someone comes to the Planning Commission or Council, they 7
refer to this program and this policy. I think it’s just totally diluted if you hide the programs off 8
somewhere which – and you don’t tie them all together, which is what I’m thinking. Again, I’m running 9
out of time. I’m not so concerned about doing every single program. That’s ok but again, there is vision 10
so you can have a vision but you don’t have to fulfill it. I end up with the recommendation that we 11
respectfully ask them because there wasn’t enough public input because it wasn’t noticed etc., for them 12
to rethink this and have a more robust discussion on where we should go from here. 13
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Ellen. 14
Ellen Uhrbrock: I’m really in favor of splitting out the programs into a separate list and having them very 15
well cross referenced to the policies because they support them and they give each other meaning. 16
Actually, I think this is a move which gives the Staff considerable power because what you do is move 17
the programs off into a separate treasure chest, which they can go back to and look and see what fits 18
and what we do next. I think it could be advantageous for the Staff. I think that it will, in fact, make it 19
easier to read the plan for the citizens -- for us because you read back and forth. What I do each time is I 20
first study the vision and then I study the goals and I look at the programs, in order to see how they 21
support the goals. I think that’s not a usual way to examine a business problem, which this is. We don’t 22
want to throw out the baby with the bath water. We want to save the baby no matter how informed it 23
may be. It’s taken a lot of thought and time and you treasure this and you have it in your supply kit that 24
you can then go ahead and give good direction and good plans for the Council. I think that – I’ve spent 25
most of my time on this Committee, even before it was a Committee, working hard in order to get the 26
voice of the seniors heard by the City Council and to also help them know how you can share your 27
opinions and be heard so they’re writing letters and all the things – maybe they can’t come here for one 28
reason or the other. I think that the improvement of the – I will look back as my greatest 29
accomplishment and contribution to this group. I am in favor. I can see why this happened and at the 30
end of the meeting, the agenda didn’t allow enough time in order to really discuss the programs at all 31
and actually, they moved right along. I was listening to it late at night and it was a way of moving 32
forward. No, you don’t reprimand them for it. You say gosh, you know, it’s true. You couldn’t really think 33
about that. Let’s do it and let’s see what’s best. My own recommendation split them off as an 34
organization problem and see how it will work – an operation problem. 35
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Bonnie. 36
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 22 of 48
Bonnie Packer: This is a difficult issue. If what the City Council did was actually throw away the 1
programs as some here have said, then I would be vehemently opposed. They didn’t throw the 2
programs away so I think that’s a miss characterization and its one to get – one could easily be 3
emotional about. What they did do is recommend a separation and it’s a separation that most of us are 4
concerned with and what that separation of the programs from the policies means. I agree with what 5
others have said that if we had known this from the get-go, everything would have been written very 6
differently. The policies might have reflected – would have said, this should be our policy to be – for 7
example, this and then had the programs under, we would have written it differently. When you 8
separate the programs out from the policies, you lose a lot and I see that’s a problem. We also don’t 9
know, until we get a legal opinion about this, what weight the programs have if they are located 10
someplace else. I don’t think they would lose weight but in the way, people respond to documents if 11
could happen. I think – when I – I was about to agree with whatever – either thing in the letter but then I 12
went and listened again – well, it was really the first time I had listened to the YouTube transcript and I 13
don’t think that the City Council meant to throw away our work. They said that several times. They 14
actually used the word – somebody used the words, this is not a slap in the face of the CAC. I don’t think 15
that was their intent but I also think that they did not understand the consequences or the unintended 16
consequences of the separation and that’s what I think needs to be reconsidered. Some policies have 17
certain kinds of programs that you could take away and it wouldn’t hurt and other policies have 18
programs that – it’s very complicated and so do you separate, what you don’t, could create so much 19
work for the Implementation Committee that it could slow down the whole Comp. Plan process; that is 20
may not be worth it. I would agree that we respectfully ask them to reconsider and that we should also 21
recognize, I think, that they really didn’t mean to throw it away. I think they respect our work and I think 22
we should acknowledge that and feel grateful – I don’t know if grateful is the right word. Just except 23
that they liked us. That’s -- what I’d like to know is what the impact – I mean, they have to understand 24
the impact of the location of the programs. Oh, did the – my time is up? My time is up? 25
Co-Chair Garber: Please, complete your thought. 26
Bonnie Packer: I was just going to say, when I was on the Planning Commission, I remember that there’s 27
an exercise that we have to go through to see whether the Comp. Plan – the implementation process is 28
going. We do that annually; do you still do that on the Planning Commission? Do an analysis and the 29
15% of the program from the existing Comp. Plan is kind of – turns you into a cynic. Maybe the result of 30
all this discussion is that we urge and keep on urging the City Council Members to direct Staff to give 31
them tools so that these things can be implemented. Look at all the programs that say, change the 32
zoning code to do X, Y and Z. Go and do that. That doesn’t cost anything. It’s just a few more hearings 33
and you have a zoning code change, I mean, you don’t have to build anything. Why can’t we do those 34
things? Remember when we did minimum densities in the House Element? That’s been sitting there for 35
3-years, nobody has done anything, right? To change the zoning code. That’s where – that’s it. 36
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 23 of 48
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Hamilton. 1
Hamilton Hitchings: What this Committee has accomplished is truly impressive. We’ve managed to 2
come to a consensus on all the policies and programs in every element except the land use. Even in the 3
Land Use Element, we worked together to queue up options for the City Council to vote on. This 4
remarkable achievement meant that we had crafted a Comprehensive Plan that truly represented our 5
City and community. Many of these programs took significant discussion to thoughtfully craft. When I 6
look at the work of the Transportation Element, Environmental, Community Services and Public Safety, I 7
see a brighter future because of the programs in those elements. By removing the programs from the 8
Comprehensive Plan, the City Council has discarded much of the community consensus. Community 9
consensus is important. Not including the programs in the Land Use and Transportation Element, 10
weakens their weight and loses context. One of the biggest concerns I had with that City Council 11
meeting on 1/30 is that removing all the programs was not publicly noticed and that was a dramatic 12
change. As a fundamental shortcoming in transparency and open government. It’s one thing to publicly 13
notice it and then remove it, it’s another not too. Some of the justifications that were given where that 14
the old Comprehensive Plan had conflicting programs yet not a single conflicting program was cited in 15
the current one and of course if they had, we would have eagerly worked to remedy that as Staff has 16
been very diligent with this plan. The second was flexibility but I believe this makes the program less 17
nimble. I know a lot about management. The biggest problem with micromanagement is the lack of 18
bandwidth resulting in items not getting done and when they do, not being properly thought out at the 19
level they deserve. The City Council should be working at a higher level on the big issues like moving the 20
ball on transportation and housing, not on these individual programs. City Council’s come and go. Do we 21
want to divide, hostile town for the next 15-years or do we want to – or do folks have the foresight to 22
pursue community consensus based approach that will form a much stronger, longer lasting and a more 23
effective foundation for the City. When I think about the programs in our Comprehensive Plan, I think 24
about things like the Fry’s Coordinated Area Plan, which is a program. The – reducing and measuring 25
single occupancy vehicles – let me just give you an example of a specific program. Private – Walk and 26
Roll have been tremendously successful and there is a program in there to do it for private schools. That 27
will never see the light of day and get time on the City Council agenda but it’s a great program that City 28
Staff can easily implement if it was in the Comp. Plan. There are numerous programs concerning public 29
safety, environment, community services and specifically to help the child, elderly and the disabled, that 30
will be lost as a result of this. This is not about admonishing the City Council. It’s about adopting 31
community consensus for the future of this City. Thank you. 32
Co-Chair Garber: Thanks, Hamilton. Stephen. 33
Stephen Levy: Thanks, Ellen, for your work for seniors. What I hear is a lot of distressed of an 34
ambiguous Council statement that I happen to, with Bonnie, trust that they meant what they said that 35
the programs were not discarded. I think that lack of trust is not helpful to a civil discussion going ahead. 36
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 24 of 48
I think that what Hillary proposed is my version of what reconsideration means. Reconsideration doesn’t 1
mean putting all 400 programs back in the Comp. Plan, Land Use Element willy-nilly. Reconsideration 2
means -- I think, what the Council meant, was time for the community to come in and give feedback on 3
the priority question here. For Staff to give feedback on implementation; time of Staff. I am struck that 4
only 15% of the program were ever implemented. That suggests to me that our subcommittee and our 5
Committee and the Council work with Staff to give Council on recommendations on what priorities are, 6
what timeframe is reasonable for people to work on. I think we are doing with the implementation 7
subcommittee exactly what reconsideration means. We’ll give them either a set of consensus 8
recommendations or a set of options like we did with the policies and life will go forward. I don’t think 9
admonishing anybody -- I don’t think this sense of outrage which was never there when the last Council 10
passed vote after vote that was 5-4, when the last Council routinely dismissed the recommendations of 11
the Planning and Transportation Commission and admonished them. I think we can cool that all down. 12
Council’s come and go. The Council that gave us direction was unseated in a sense. If the new Council 13
wanted to give us direction when we wanted to work for another year, that would be this sitting 14
Council’s direction, not the last Council’s direction. I think we have to muddle through and try and get 15
through this with some civility as best I can. I hope the Implementation Committee finds a middle 16
ground because we are a divided group. We are a divided community if we’re not going to continue to 17
have 5-4 and letters of people being appalled. We need to find some middle ground to identify the 18
programs that are a priority. Get Staff and Council working on them. I don’t whether they’re in the 19
element or in an Implementation Plan. I’m not a lawyer but I’d like the implementation subcommittee to 20
have the scope to weigh in on these issues. 21
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you, Stephen and Lisa, just before you go and if I can ask Hillary to help me out 22
here. Unfortunately, I’m going to need that light. There we go, thank you. I was just checking back on 23
the draft action minutes just so that we’re not going around and around on this topic. I believe that the 24
last action that the Council did and I’m going to read it here from the motion on this top is Council 25
Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to remove from the final 26
draft of the Comprehensive Plan update all programs in the Land Use Element not required by State law. 27
To be taken up at future dates a policy discussion and use the implementation section of the plan to 28
indicate the relative cost and priority of each program. Am I understanding that they were taking it out 29
of the element and then putting it into the – they were not – ultimately, they didn’t take it out of the 30
Comp. Plan but they putting them just in the Implementation Plan? 31
Hillary Gitelman: I think that’s one reading of it and I think on March 20th we’ll confirm whether that is 32
the will of the majority of the Council. 33
Co-Chair Garber: Ok. Lisa, thank you. 34
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I have very much similar views I think to what has been shared, a couple of 35
differences but I want to share my views and then a recommendation also of what we would do going 36
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 25 of 48
back to Council to see if we agree on it. I don’t think it would necessarily be unanimous but maybe close 1
and apologize in advance, I might just go slightly over but I’ll try not to. First of all, kind of like Don was 2
saying, I’ve also been an exc. In tech. companies for decades now and we always do what we call VSEM, 3
which is vision, strategy, execution and metrics. You set your long-term visions and your goal is kind of 4
the big picture that should last a long time. Strategy is usually a more mid-term, it could be 5 or 10-years 5
whatever but that kind of goes I think to the goals and to some extent our priorities and then the 6
execution isn’t just what you’re going to do today and in the next year. It really is the big buckets of stuff 7
we’re going to go which I’ve always thought as what we were doing in the programs and they care out 8
that vision and strategy. Then when you’ve got that, you also need your metrics to see if you’re on track 9
and what matters and what you’re going to measure but you normal then, also have your 1-2-year 10
priority list. The stuff you’re going to do first. Most critical including with resources and such. You can’t 11
do everything at once, what are we going to do there? I’ve always thought the Comp. Plan was 12
something very similar to that and it worries me a lot if we take the programs, which I think are kind of 13
our execution and even a little bit of our strategy, out of the element. Legally or not, I have my own 14
opinion but I think it doesn’t have the same weight to only be in the Implementation Plan. My personal 15
view is I think we should have the most important, maybe more long range programs in the element, 16
including the land use -- any element but including the land use and then the stuff that we think is most 17
important to do first would be in the Implementation Plan and clearly there would be duplicates. The 18
Implementation Plan, what are you going to do now kind of thing? I think taking them out and I 19
apologize but I don’t think that middle ground of only being in the implementation – again, if where my 20
discussion, I don’t think it carries the same weight and there where various comments about it gets it 21
more – it’s not a comprehensive and I also don’t think it’s coordinated very well that way. That’s my 22
personal view. As far as the Council and I – it’s hard because I didn’t go that meeting and I’ve certainly 23
been at meetings where it’s late at night and someone give you a mountain of work to do and you just 24
kind of go, I can’t deal with it. 25
[Video skipped a section of Lisa’s speech] 26
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: [Video started back up mid-sentence] … policies and leave a lone the visions and 27
goals. That was our original charter. We questioned it and they said no, that’s what we want to do. If 28
now the Council – if they are truly saying and we’re now going to take those programs out and not give 29
them the right weight, I do think that’s disrespectful. I’m not saying they intended it to be because I 30
have no – I’m guess that everyone was just tired, right? I have certainly had nights like that. I don’t mean 31
it in that sense and it’s not personal but I would think that if we could ask the Council to clarify and if 32
we’re understanding correctly, the majority interpretation here, then to reconsider and come back and 33
tell us. It is a new Council. If they don’t want us involved, they can tell us that. If they do want us 34
involved, what can we do to help? I would ask them to reconsider – sorry, if it’s not just a clarification 35
like yeah, Lisa, we actually agree with everything you just said, this is just a clarification. Assuming it’s 36
not then they have to reconsider is that the Council could ask us – number 1 was really think through 37
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 26 of 48
that shouldn’t at least the key programs be part of the elements and a prioritized sub-set of those – and 1
it may be that they aren’t 400 by the time we’ve done that but whatever the smaller number are also in 2
the Implementation Plan so that we can give it back to the Council and say this is what we, the 3
community input to us and the CAC as a whole, this is what we think is most important. Here Council, 4
this is really it and you shouldn’t leave them out of the elements. The other thing I think around the 5
prioritization is that was something we all talked about when we first forming is that there is so many 6
things to do here. Shouldn’t we have a, across the whole plan, a prioritize list? I think that’s a valuable 7
thing if the Council wants it from. The last is again, not deeming bad intent or assuming it, is I think if the 8
Council comes back and says no, we don’t need to clarify. You guys understood us and no we’re not 9
going to reconsider, I would formally propose that we disband. I think that we have no role to play then. 10
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Arthur. 11
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. First thing is I’m going to make a couple comments but before that, I’m 12
going to make a question of Hillary and the question is in the current Comp. Plan that was done is 1998, 13
what’s in the Implementation Plan? My understanding is that it has all the programs and some sort of 14
prioritization or ranking or something in there already. Is that what’s in there? Am I correct about that? 15
Hillary Gitelman: Yeah. It also identifies who would be responsible for the programs and there are 16
another number of columns but essentially, that’s it. 17
Co-Chair Keller: If I understand the recommendation of the motion by the Council majority, it is 18
retaining that Implementation Plan as it is, without change and to remove the programs from the Comp. 19
Plan. Am I understanding that correctly? 20
Hillary Gitelman: Again, you heard the transcript that Dan read from. We’re all trying to parse and then 21
understand exactly what the Council’s directions was. I think that is certainly one reading of it and we 22
will get further clarification on the 20th. 23
Co-Chair Keller: Great, thank you. As I mentioned, I had some conversations – it was actually at the 24
Chinese New Year Celebration at Mitchell Park Community Center and Mayor Scharff, who is a real 25
estate attorney, said that not having the programs be in the Land Use Element means that they have 26
less legal weight. He did make a clear statement to that affect to me. In addition, Council Member 27
Wolbach said that their decision was not final. That the – he wanted feedback from the CAC. That’s what 28
the CAC is for is to give feedback to the Council and give advice to the Council. He wanted our advice as 29
to what to do and he said that the idea of removing the programs from the Comprehensive Plan was a 30
new idea. Its hadn’t occurred to him in previous times that the – this had gone before the Council, for 31
example, last year and that’s why he hadn’t brought it up. It was a new idea that he had. The item does 32
come back to Council on both land use and transportation as Hillary mentioned on March 20th. I’m not 33
sure what the compromise is. A compromise sounds to me like Solman splitting the baby, using a 34
metaphor that other people had talked about but in fact, I don’t see a compromise. Either the programs 35
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 27 of 48
are in the elements – and housing element – I’m sorry in the Land Use Element or they’re not in the 1
Land Use Element. They can’t be half in except for maybe the ones required by the EIR are in and the 2
ones not required by the EIR are out. That’s – either there in or out. You can’t be half pregnant. Either 3
there in or out. That’s pretty clear to me. I, like Bonnie, participated in the PTC when we did the zoning 4
ordinance update and that was not cost free. It took a lot of Staff time and some consultant time. It also 5
took up PTC time that we could have done on other things. It was a multi-year process. We did that. 6
Also, as we mentioned by quite a number of people, the program – if we had the opportunity to 7
understand that we were no going to have the programs as part of the Comp. Plan, that only policies 8
would be part of the Comp. Plan. We would have written the programs differently and the policies 9
differently, we would have done that. In particular, one of the things mentioned at the Council meeting 10
was the idea that Council Members where to have the opportunity to select programs that they wanted 11
to reinstate as policies. I think that as they are now, programs are – there wasn’t a motion but it was in a 12
narrative. If you actually listen to the video, there was a comment about that. That people can – Council 13
Members can bring that back when the item comes back to them on March 20th. It seems to me a 14
couple of things. First of all, programs explain policies where they appear. We’ve written them that way. 15
We’ve written the programs – we haven’t – we made the policies and programs redundant. We’ve made 16
it so that the programs elucidate the policies that they appear under. I think that’s the way we wrote 17
them. If we knew the programs where going to be differently – where located somewhere else and not 18
in the body of the element, we would have written the policy to be self-contained and not rely on their 19
interpretation for the programs. It seems to me that there are two options. The options are either put 20
the programs back, which by my count there are 14 voting members of the CAC present today and 11 of 21
those people said that they wanted the programs put back into the Comp. Plan. I counted only 3 people 22
who said otherwise. Secondly, the other option is that if the Council persists in the notion of having the 23
programs be in – not in the Comp. Plan and only in the Implementation Plan, which they have long been 24
in the current 1998 Comp. Plan. Then the CAC, as a recommending body and as the citizens – and as the 25
embodiment of the citizen’s inputs into the Council for the Comp. Plan should have to opportunity to 26
change programs into policies and reword policies to make them clearer where they are not clear as 27
being separated from the programs. I think we should have the same opportunity to do that as it’s being 28
given to Council. If that means that we have to stretch things out, I hope that those of you on the 29
Implementation Plan – a subcommittee will be participating in that because I think it’s important work 30
but in a fact, it furthers our work in an important way. I think that’s – when you change things around 31
it’s not cost free. For us, the cost is that we have to spend more time on the Implementation Plan than 32
we otherwise might and I’ve been thinking about this for some time that the Implementation Plan, 33
having one meeting about it wasn’t sufficient in the first place. Now that the Implementation Plan might 34
have a whole bunch more weight than when otherwise and then the implementation subcommittee 35
actually should decide if the programs are removed from the Comp. Plan Element and only in the 36
Implementation Plan that decision as to realigning some programs as policies should be recommended 37
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 28 of 48
by the Implementation Plan and this – to the CAC as a whole and then more forward from that. I think 1
that’s the alternative solution we should consider. Do you want to weigh in Hillary before? 2
Hillary Gitelman: (Inaudible) 3
Co-Chair Keller: In terms of this, I think that makes sense. I also raise the question in (inaudible) number 4
3 – question number 3, continuity with the other elements. If all programs are removed from the Land 5
Use Element and also, there was a motion to remove them from the Transportation Element in reaction. 6
Does it make sense to have them with the housing natural environment, safety, community services and 7
business and economics because there’s some inconsistency there. Well, there’s a little kind of glitch 8
that happens with that. If the decision is made to remove them from everywhere, they can’t legally be 9
removed from the housing element because that’s an approved housing element by the housing – HCD 10
(Housing and Community Development) department of the State of California. Therefore, that can’t 11
even be touched so that’s one element that has all of its programs and then the other elements don’t 12
have any programs? Somehow there’s some weirdness going on there that is -- I think we have to 13
understand that better. That may make us go back and wont to revisit all the elements in terms of these 14
programs and put the policies back – put programs back as policies, that’s going to be a lot more work. I 15
think that – to me those – the recommendations that I’d like to see and may I make a motion to that 16
effect? 17
Co-Chair Garber: Why don’t you hold it until after Hillary has a chance. 18
Co-Chair Keller: Ok, I’ll let Hillary give her comments and then if I may make a motion to that effect I 19
will. 20
Hillary Gitelman: Just because I such a stickler about the Brown Act earlier, we noticed this for 21
discussion rather than action but I think – let me see if I can try and … 22
Co-Chair Garber: Summarize. 23
Hillary Gitelman: I think you all have made incredibly insightful and important comments. I recognize 24
the passion with which some of them where delivered and I think your suggestions and your Council are 25
much appreciated. I would love to transmit the full transcript of this to the Council with a summary that 26
says a majority of those present requested that the Council reconsider – clarify and reconsider their 27
direction. I think it’s clear that a majority of you feel like the programs – you would have done this 28
differently if the programs where going to be separated and that the programs you crafted had some 29
purpose in being just opposed with the policies they were implementing. I would hope that you would 30
trust the Staff to characterize your input in that way and we’ll also transmit the full transcript because I 31
know there some folks who didn’t agree with everything I just said and I don’t want to diminish those 32
comments. I think you have our commitment, as Staff. We’ll transmit your comments, characterize them 33
carefully. We will provide the Council with answers to some of the questions we weren’t quite able to 34
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 29 of 48
handle this evening and we are fully committed to working with the subcommittee on implementation 1
to review the Implementation Plan and bring it back to this group for further discussion. Just looking 2
ahead, your next meeting is March 21st, I believe, which is the night after the Council meeting so we will 3
have an opportunity to understand and react if the Council does or doesn’t reconsider their action based 4
on your request. 5
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Let’s take a couple of questions if people have and then maybe, rather 6
than creating a motion because you’re right, it wasn’t noticed. Maybe we find it appropriate to take a 7
straw poll if that’s appropriate or if that’s a desired thing. I’ve got Stephen, then Lisa, then Hamilton, and 8
the we had Bonnie, Len. Anyone else? Alright. Stephen, go ahead. 9
Stephen Levy: If I remember the roll call, there are 14 present of what 21 or 22 members? 10
Co-Chair Garber: Actually, because of the [phonetics][netristion], we’re at 17 so there are 3 members 11
that are not here. 12
Stephen Levy: Right, but 13
Co-Chair Garber: 2. 3, yeah. 14
Stephen Levy: When the element that we’re talking about was considered, there are a number of 15
members who weighed in on that element who are not present and their voices should be represented. 16
They worked as hard as anyone else on that element so it’s not really 14 out of 17 who worked on the 17
element. Isn’t that correct? 18
Co-Chair Garber: That is correct. 19
Stephen Levy: Secondly, I thought we had a long discussion several meetings ago about taking votes and 20
the sense of the room was not to take votes. If we start taking votes, I have a whole lot of votes that I’d 21
like to go back and have taken. I think that’s a path that’s probably not prudent. Isn’t that correct that 22
we decided as a body to give options and not take votes? 23
Hillary Gitelman: If I can… 24
Co-Chair Garber: Please. 25
Hillary Gitelman: I don’t want to speak for the Co-Chair but I think what Dan is suggesting that we 26
simply take everyone temperature and make sure that my characterization of the majorities views is 27
accurate. 28
Stephen Levy: I support what Dan said, that’s why I raised the point about the people who are not here. 29
Amy is not here, Elaine is not here. I’ve talked to both of them. Adrian is not here. Lots of people who 30
worked on the element are not here. 31
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 30 of 48
Hillary Gitelman: Am I right Dan? You just – we’re going to take a straw poll to make sure that I had 1
appropriately characterized the views of those present. 2
Co-Chair Garber: That is correct. We can – we don’t even have to raise our hands but I think it is 3
appropriate for us to find out who feels what about what topic. I don’t think that is creating a motion or 4
formalizing, which is what we had avoid doing previously. For instance, when we had submitted – 5
correct me if I am wrong Hillary. When we had submitted the Land Use Element, we did have some 6
notices to how many people spoke for which of the alternatives where supported. Right? There… 7
Stephen Levy: We did when there where options. We absolutely did when there are options. 8
Co-Chair Garber: I think the idea here – Shani? 9
Shani Kleinhaus: (Inaudible) 10
Co-Chair Garber: Don, I was hoping to get back to you because I cut you off but… 11
Don McDougall: (Inaudible) 12
Co-Chair Garber: Right. 13
Don McDougall: (Inaudible) 14
Co-Chair Garber: Mic. 15
Don McDougall: I am a perfectly willing to support an effort to improve this. As I – I want to repeat, I 16
don’t like the idea of let’s compromise as oppose to find a way to make it better, if we all agree. In any 17
priority activity, I think you have to except that – except for the issue of the housing – all programs come 18
out and I don’t think that as much as I’m on that Committee, I don’t think the implementation 19
Committee should decide priorities. The whole CAC should and there should be some way of polling or 20
whatever that you do that you need to come up with. 21
Hilary Gitelman: Again, we’re going to transmit the full transcript so everyone’s input will be presented 22
to the Council. 23
Co-Chair Garber: Yeah, it’s looking like our straw poll is quickly being blown by the wind here. Thank 24
you, Stephen. Lisa, you had some comments as well? No. Hamilton? Then Bonnie and then Len. 25
Hamilton Hitchings: Sure. I think it’s not fair to characterize this as an issue about trust because I spend 26
over an hour, very carefully transcribing word by word what Greg Scharff and Cory and other folks said 27
at the Council meeting to try and understand and accurately interpret what they were saying. I think I 28
got a pretty clear idea afterwards which was that the intention was to remove the programs from the 29
plan and not only would they be removed, there would be a significant barrier to get them implemented 30
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 31 of 48
because you’d have to come back in front of the Council and get the Council’s approval. It’s – I’m literally 1
just reacting to what Greg and Cory said. The thing to keep in mind here, these where not the 2
controversial programs. We cued up the controversial programs for votes because that’s the idea. There 3
the City Council, they get to decide on – this was the stuff that we agreed on. Maybe not everything is 4
100% but that’s part of what being – coming to consensus was on it. I think that’s pretty powerful that 5
we had a consensus on that. The – I think that there – we’re talking about whether we trim them down 6
and prioritize them. I think it’s a really big effort to go through it and cut, let’s say, the programs in half. I 7
mean I basically think that’s biting off more than we can chew but I do think it’s the purview of the 8
Council and the Staff to pick the programs that they believe are important and prioritize those but I 9
don’t think it’s appropriate to do it for the next 15-years. Does anyone in this room honestly think things 10
aren’t going to change dramatically in the next 2-3 years in ways that we might not even be able to 11
imagine? We have major changes going on at the federal level just for starters. Certainly, changes we 12
couldn’t anticipated a year ago, I don’t think prioritization is the right tool here. I think the right tool is to 13
recognize that the programs will be prioritized based on the current Council and Staff, based on the 14
conditions that are local at that time. We should put them back in but maybe even acknowledge 15
formally within the plan something to that effect. Those are my comments. 16
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Bonnie and then Len. 17
Bonnie Packer: One thing I think would inform our discussion and maybe also the Council’s discussion 18
when they do reconsider is a full understanding of the role of the Comprehensive Plan. People here – 19
some people said that the authority of the Comp. Plan and I don’t know that the Comp. Plan has 20
authority in the same way the ordinances do so I think we need to understand that the relationship 21
between the Comp. Plan and how the Council makes decisions. I always understood that the Comp. Plan 22
is something that they can measure their decisions against as opposed to the plan that dictates what the 23
decisions are. Maybe it goes back and forth but I think we need a little clarification and maybe the City 24
Council needs clarification on that. I don’t know. The other thing about all the different people touching 25
the different parts of the elephant and I think the elephant was a discussion that the City Council had 26
about this issues and each of us had read it somewhat differently, which just shows how in artful they 27
were in – I think the motion was poorly drafted and their discussion on it was poorly drafted so none of 28
us really knows what they intended for anyone to do. That’s a concern and I hope that would be 29
reflected in the transcript that they read when you send it to them. In terms of your summary, Hillary, of 30
what we are talking about. I think the issue is programs in or programs out? It’s not so much you 31
reconsider. I think the sense of many people here is that when we did this work, we understood that the 32
programs where going to be with the policies and that’s what the whole thing was based on. Had we 33
known it differently – and they even said that in their discussion; well, we had told them this a year ago, 34
we should have done that but they didn’t so now they have kind of created a mess and it’s going to 35
delay – their goal – one of their priorities is to finish the Comp. Plan and they’ve kind of just thrown in a 36
monkey wrench because it’s going to take a too long to unravel what it is they did, which they may have 37
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 32 of 48
thought was going to be streaming but looks like maybe not. I just hope that that goes into your 1
transcript. 2
Co-Chair Garber: Ok, so clearly, we’re not going to be taking a poll or anything of that sort, however, 3
let’s make sure that anybody else that would like to speak to this – and I’ve got Len and Annette. It’s 4
already 7:30. We’ll go perhaps another 10-minutes or so unless somebody else needs to speak. Len, go 5
ahead. 6
Len Filppu: My comment or question was going be how would you characterize the term majority 7
thinking on this issue tonight when you talk to City Council? That’s been talked about and – but I think 8
that it is important for, at least for me, to say that I believe that we should push back and keep the 9
programs in the Comprehensive Plan. To fully reflect the input of years of work, not just from Staff and 10
Council and the CAC but citizens, residents, the community of Palo Alto, many of whom were here today 11
to speak on this issue. Probably more speakers than we’ve ever had and all of whom were sad to learn 12
about the Council actions. Thanks. 13
Co-Chair Garber: Just before I go to Annette, let me just ask in general, I think there’s – most of us here 14
are – our first recommendation is to keep the programs where they are and keep the plan in place as 15
we’ve had it so that we don’t have to revisit the damn thing. If the Council comes back and says no. Do 16
we want to consider additional recommendations about how we would deal with that now or is that 17
something we would deal with in a – as part to the Implementation Committee or what? Later. 18
Len Filppu: Later. Just to continue on my time, I would say later. I think that you put the ball in their 19
court. 20
Co-Chair Garber: Ok. Thanks. Annette. I’ hearing that later from several voices in the room here. 21
Annette Glanckopf: I really want to be clear about this and I’m definitely an advocate of leaving the 22
programs in. I think we’ve made – people have been very eloquent tonight. I think a lot of us have been 23
trying to second guess what Council is intending and I don’t want to have any false facts. Hamilton said 24
this but I think it’s really important to restate it. They were in credible clear on what they meant and 25
Hillary, you asked Mayor Scharff, ‘can I clarify the motion? Is it to illuminate the programs’ and Greg 26
Scharff said, ‘(inaudible) in the implementation section’, so he did talk about relative cost and priority 27
which is great, ‘and see the way I understand this would work is that it would be an implementation and 28
that’s where all the programs would be but they wouldn’t actually mean that we would do them.’ That’s 29
very clear to me. ‘Staff would come forward and say, now we’re going to implement program such and 30
such or we should implement program such and such or Council Members could write a colleague’s 31
memo or whatever at the point there would be implementation of that, would move forward.’ Now that 32
to me, is very, very clear so we shouldn’t have any false facts. This was their intention as far as I’m 33
concerned, that they really wanted to be able to be the people that selected what gets moved forward. I 34
want to see the programs still in the Comp. Plan and I think the implementation section should be as – I 35
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 33 of 48
think one of use described it, to start off with – in each element some sort of 2-year plan, 3-year plan 1
and have the high priority items of the element. To me, it’s incredibly clear what the Council intentions 2
where. Scharff goes on to say, ‘There are a bunch of programs that a lot of people put time and work 3
into and thought we should do but none of these have been vetted by Council.’ They want to dump 4
them out. ‘Frankly, by Council and a careful and thoughtful discussion of each one of them and if Staff 5
wants to move them forward or a Council Member thinks we should move them forward, then we’ll 6
move them forward.’ To me, I think we should – that was very clear to me what he actually – what his 7
intent was. I don’t think we should be false and try to second guess it. You can’t be clearer than that. 8
Co-Chair Garber: ok, thank you. Alex. Stephen, you want to speak again but Alex. 9
Alex Van Riesen: I just wanted to say, as one of the folks who initially did call in to question, I think the – 10
whatever the Council’s motivations where. I want to say I agree. I want – I can back pedal from that. I 11
don’t know what those where. I think it still would be interesting to hear them reflect on that but even if 12
you take that out of the equation. I guess what I want to say that it seems clear to me tonight, if we 13
remove all intention and motive out of it. What’s been uniformly said is that the way this was done and 14
even that it has been done is highly suspect by the vast majority of this group. Even if you through in 15
some of the people who are no longer here or not here tonight. Even if the comments could speak for 16
themselves, it would be pretty obvious that it’s at least twice the number of people. That it’s a pretty 17
strong feeling on this team. I feel like I just wanted to make that clear. 18
Co-Chair Garber: OK. Stephen. 19
Stephen Levy: How does Staff decide what programs to move forward in? I’m wondering where they are 20
talking about a serious issue of contention here or whether in reality Staff takes direction from Council 21
on what programs to pursue and in what order. I really don’t know the answer. 22
Hillary Gitelman: At present, we’ll be working with the Implementation subcommittee and this CAC on 23
the programs that you have identified and put in the plan. 24
Stephen Levy: I meant in general. 25
Hillary Gitelman: Ultimately, in the future… 26
Stephen Levy: No, in the past. Just in general. Do you do programs on your own without Council asking? 27
Hillary Gitelman: I think when the Committee looks at the programs next month, you’ll see some of 28
these things are ongoing already so they’ve already been budgeted and they’re in play. Some of them 29
have not been budgeted and will take very little effort and some of them have not been budgeted and 30
will take a lot of effort. 31
Stephen Levy: I was asking a different question. Let’s take the ones that are in play. Did… 32
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 34 of 48
[Greg ??:] (Inaudible) 1
Stephen Levy: Do you do programs when Council doesn’t ask for one? Do you do them when – in the 2
order that Council asks for them? How are – how is your work on programs developed? 3
Hillary Gitelman: We have an annual budget and an annual capital improvement plan that’s adopted by 4
the Council (inaudible)(crosstalk) 5
Stephen Levy: Right so it’s Council, right? Programs – right, so this whole idea that somehow you do 6
programs that Council doesn’t want, that just sticks me as strange so wherever they are – it sounds to 7
me like the programs you work on are ones that are in the Capital Plan or the annual budget or the 8
annual thing that you take direction from Council on the programs. This is a mountain in a molehill it 9
seems to me. Anyhow. 10
Co-Chair Garber: Arthur. 11
Co-Chair Keller: Firstly, I don’t think that on the adopted budget it says you’re going to implement X, Y, 12
and Z programs and budget for them. I understand it gives budgets to the various Staff departments and 13
as Staff departments will then figure out in terms of the programs they do based on those budgets and 14
there’s – but I’ve never seen in the budget saying we’re going to do program number L -3.1.4, for 15
example. I’ve never seen such a thing and I don’t think is occurs. In terms of – there was a mention that 16
was made of the authority of the Comp. Plan. Well, I have seen things where it says this is consistent 17
with the Comp. Plan or this is not consistent with the Comp. Plan. If the program is part of an element is 18
it considered whether it’s consistent with the Comp. Plan. The program is not part of an element and 19
somewhere else like the Implementation Plan, then it is not considered whether it is consistent with the 20
Comp. Plan. That’s my understanding of when Mayor Scharff said it is not have the same value so that’s 21
my understanding. I think that that’s a question that Hillary should ask of the City Attorney when Hillary 22
gives the information to the Council. I think that’s a question that she should raise. We have not, in our 23
City, encountered the environment in which we have no programs in the Land Use Element so there will 24
only be speculation other than Mayor Scharff saying, it doesn’t have the same legal value. I think in 25
terms of Alex’s comment that says that it’s hard for us to understand what the Council says. Actually, 26
Dan and I had invited several Council Member. We had invited originally the Mayor and the Mayor 27
couldn’t make it and then Council Member Wolbach he could make it but he said it depends on whether 28
Staff says its ok. Also, Council Member Holman was invited and they both did a contingent on whether 29
Staff said it was ok. Staff said it was inappropriate to have Council Members give us information of only 30
two of them considering that it’s a 9-member Council so that was not done but that’s, in some sense, 31
why we are in continuing to speculate. I see it as the sense and an overwhelming consensus of this body 32
that it is our considered recommendation to put the programs back into the Comp. Plan. I think some of 33
us and I’ve mentioned this as a fall back and I think others of us do not want to have a fall back measure 34
but as a fall back measure, if they choose not to do that. I think it makes sense to give the CAC the 35
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 35 of 48
opportunity to change programs into policies just as was given to Council Members at that meeting to 1
come back on March 20th. I think that means that essentially, the schedule will have to be stretched out 2
to give us an opportunity to do that and we’ll have to take that – to do that because we’re the ones who 3
are closest to those programs. They’re supposed to be high level. We – our job was to tee up questions 4
for the Council to decide a high level and in particular its inconsistency’s. For example, there where 5
motions made by the Council to include programs. There was a motion made by the Council to include a 6
program to consider increasing FAR for hotels from either 3.0 or 2.5, where ever it is. Does that program 7
now go into the Implementation Plan after they made a motion to include it? This – clearly, they were 8
not even self-consistent in that meeting. I’m confused as to what they are doing but I think there’s 9
clarity in this Committee and I think that that’s pretty clear, the sense of what we should put forward to 10
the Council Thank you. 11
Co-Chair Garber: Bonnie, I am going to take your comments and then I want, to sum up and move on 12
here. Go ahead. 13
Bonnie Packer: I don’t disagree with the last part of what you said but I think Arthur, you were 14
misleading us by saying – by implying the Implementation Plan was not part of the Comprehensive Plan. 15
The Implementation Plan is very much a part of the Comprehensive Plan. This is why the Council 16
Member’s keep on saying, it was a formatting issue. They were just moving the programs into the 17
Implementation Plan. Now, I think a lot of us think that the programs belong with the policies for a lot of 18
other reasons because of the way they work together. The way the inform each other but the 19
implementation – I just had – the Implementation Plan is also the Comprehensive Plan and I don’t think 20
we want to say – I think it would be wrong… 21
Hamilton Hitchings: (Inaudible) 22
Bonnie Packer: Well, he may not have been correct but I mean, when he said it that way but the Comp. 23
Plan has an Implementation Plan as part of the Comp. Plan, I mean that’s what it is. 24
Co-Chair Garber: Bonnie, may I interrupt? Hillary, could you offer some clarification but I want to move 25
past this. 26
Hillary Gitelman: I think that the Implementation Plan can be adopted by the resolution that adopts the 27
Comprehensive Plan and can be part of the Comprehensive Plan as Bonnie says. I did not go back and 28
check out how the resolution reads. In the current Comprehensive Plan, it’s a little bit moot because the 29
programs, as people have pointed out, are sprinkled throughout so it’s a little bit different but the 30
question is, if the implementation program were separated out into an Implementation Plan they could 31
be adopted as part of the Comp. Plan. 32
Co-Chair Garber: Let’s a – we need to – we’re going to move on here because we’ve got something else 33
that we have to discuss but let me make this one suggestion and that is Staff has gotten a very good idea 34
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 36 of 48
of where the CAC is on this topic. I would also like to suggest that with the establishment or the 1
Implementation plan if there are the further direction that the Council does make that that be 2
considered in the implementation subcommittee and their recommendations brought to the larger CAC 3
for direction/action and/or other thoughts. With that, we’re going to move on. Someone in this room 4
would like to take a 3-minute break. We will be back here in 3 minutes. 5
2. Action: Business and Economics Element 6
a. Introduction of revised Business and Economics Element 7
b. Report from Business and Economics Element Subcommittee 8
c. Discussion of Draft Element 9
Co-Chair Garber: Alright, we are at item #2. Although I – we do still have one member of the public here. 10
If anyone would like to speak on this topic, please give me a card but I’m not seeing any. Staff will 11
introduce this so Elena? 12
Elena Lee: Thank you. Following the January CAC and February business and economics subcommittee 13
meeting, the element was revised with narrative goals, policies, and programs. The vision statement was 14
revised to provide a more balanced tone between businesses and neighborhoods. The 6 existing goals 15
were retained although the position for the first and second goals were changed and one new goal was 16
added on fiscal responsibility and that is now Goal B-2. Other changes include seeking to clarify that 17
start-ups and entrepreneur are highly valued. Redundant policies and programs were removed as they 18
are already discussed in Land Use and Safety Elements and that was specifically identified in the report. 19
The word character was replaced with neighborhoods. Other changes included languages added to 20
recognize the value of local serving retail. Language about livability was replaced with specific 21
neighborhood concerns such as traffic and parking. The natural environment was also specifically 22
identified as a significant asset for the local economy. In Goal B-6 it now includes the word retail so it’s 23
clear is about retail centers and not just centers. Those represent some of the changes that were made 24
reflected in the revised element. Staff now requests that the CAC forward this revised element to 25
Council. Thank you. 26
Co-Chair Garber: Ok. I think we can start by going around the table. 27
Co-Chair Keller: (Inaudible) 28
Co-Chair Garber: Ok. Lisa, can we start with you? 29
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: Overall, I like it. I think it’s a – the subcommittee did a great job and it’s more 30
balanced to me, given our comments last time so overall, positive. Just reviewing the comments – the 31
other comments that came in, most of mine agreed with, I think, Bonnie’s specific changes and such so 32
just for the record. I had a couple of important comments and a couple that is more just questions or 33
typos but I’m just going to go through it and do it all at once. Is that ok? 34
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 37 of 48
Co-Chair Garber: Yes. 1
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: In the vision, second to last line, it uses the word employment areas and I didn’t 2
know, is that its own term or should be districts? Just a – don’t have an opinion. Just a question. In the – 3
page 2 – sorry, I’m using the redlined Attachment B as my version. In the second big paragraph where it 4
says the City is recognized as a hub. It lists out the different things. I think we should add the word 5
technology because otherwise, we don’t cover HP and some other companies in the area. It’s 6
substantive, it’s not fall on your sword but it is substantive. Minor typos. A couple of the places where 7
the section heading where at the end of the paragraph before. It just needs to get moved down. Then I 8
had questions. I think this was in Bonnie’s as well but the – on page B-9, policy B-1.1, where it talks, or 9
service requirements. I wasn’t really sure what that was but I had suggested that that’s the broader City 10
Goals -- I mean the Goals of the Comp. Plan and our broader goals are what I would mean by that but I 11
didn’t know. Then Policy B-1.3 where it says engage with all stakeholders in the business community. I 12
might delete business because I think it’s in the community. Especially since we are talking about 13
including the public. Then Policy B-1.4, I don’t disagree with the focus on mobility and sustainability. It’s 14
more is that all we wanted to make a priority? There are others in there. Is that a broader one? I don’t 15
disagree with those two I just think it may be too few. Then I like the changes for the fiscal 16
responsibility. I think I’m near the end. Then on page B-17, Policy B-6.4, more talk about discouraging 17
development that would turn the district into a regional shopping center. I was just curious more about 18
the thinking of it. I’m not sure I have a strong opinion either way but I wanted to hear… 19
Stephen Levy: (Inaudible) 20
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: …what the subcommittee – I’m done. Thank you, Stephen. 21
Co-Chair Garber: That’s fine. We will be liberal so long as you guys are willing to stick (inaudible) 22
Stephen Levy: Maybe if there’s another round, I want to thank Hamilton especially, Don and Amy who 23
are not here and Whitney and Alex. It was a great subcommittee. I’m pleased with the draft. I’m pleased 24
with the collegiality. I’ll wait to see what other comments are. Obviously, we wrote the draft so I don’t 25
have any particular objections to the draft that we wrote. 26
Co-Chair Garber: Ok, thanks. Hamilton. 27
Co-Chair Garber: I really appreciated working with everybody. Stephen took a little bit of extra time to 28
work with me so I’m very grateful for that. I’m going to completely switch gears. Forgetting everything 29
that happened in the last hour and a half. Ok, here we go. Every day, it warms my heart to watch 30
parents walk their young children by my house to the local elementary school. Likewise, I take pride in 31
the fact that this City has incubated the most successful tech. companies in the world, such as Google 32
and Facebook and continues to do so with companies such as VMWare and Tesla. It is possible to have a 33
very livable neighborhood and a world class innovative technology companies in the same city as we do 34
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 38 of 48
today. I feel this element has been improved in terms of the focus on being business friendly and does a 1
better job of emphasizing the City’s fiscal health. It has definitely been watered down in terms of its 2
focus on neighborhood livability but given the productive discussion we had in the subcommittee, I 3
really only have one recommendation addition that I would like to see in this regard, which is to add 4
back in the strip policy – stripped down version of Policy B-1, from the original 2007 version of the 5
element which would not go under Goal 2 which would say, use a variety of planning and regulatory 6
tools to ensure the business change is compatible with Palo Alto neighborhoods. I have one other minor 7
point – well, actually two. Although my colleagues in the subcommittee where not enthusiastic about it, 8
I am still advocating for retaining a revised version of the policy on our City trees, which reads, Palo Alto 9
means tall tree and its flourishing tree system is part of our brand along with the other assets such as 10
great City services and its adjacency to Stanford University. Not exactly an earth shattering controversial 11
statement. 12
Stephen Levy: (Inaudible) 13
Hamilton Hitchings: Yeah, they didn’t put it in so that’s… 14
Stephen Levy: (Inaudible) 15
Hamilton Hitchings: …See, so Stephen liked it too. A good reason for City Staff to put in that last thing I 16
just suggested about the trees. Lastly, I would say Palo Alto is positioned -- Lisa, this gets to the thinking 17
behind that program you commented on, sustainability and mobility. I would say that Palo A lot’s 18
position to be a national leader on mobility companies. We already have Tesla, which is the leader in 19
electric vehicles and becoming a leader in autonomous driving. We have huge amounts – to be precise, I 20
think either half a billion or a billion, pouring into Stanford for anonymous driving and given our 21
particular issues around traffic, it makes a lot of sense for us to actively try to recruit pioneer companies 22
in this area. Likewise, global warming is the largest issue facing man kinds existence and Palo Alto 23
continues to be a leader – a City leader in this area and I think we should focus on attraction companies 24
that are innovative in this area. Thank you. 25
Co-Chair Garber: Thanks, Hamilton. Bonnie. 26
Bonnie Packer: Ok, thanks for the subcommittee and – oh, thanks for the subcommittee and Staff for a 27
good element. I have a – I submitted comments and I’ll just focus on the substantive ones. The rest are 28
all just typos and stuff. I’d like to put in the narrative at the end of the employment section. The 29
importance of the other parts of the programs in the Land Use and Transportation Element that address 30
mobility and housing – transit and housing for the employees because this is what benefits the 31
employers and this is how we’re helping keep business – economic vitality and so a reference – I had 32
some language in here. A reference in the narrative and perhaps also a policy somewhere in the plan. I 33
think under Goal B that addresses – that recognizes that we should continue the work and the programs 34
and the other elements that help employees, which then help employers. The other thing I suggested is 35
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 39 of 48
there’s a policy under Goal 5, it’s 5.4, it says businesses of all kinds should be encouraged to advance 1
Palo Alto’s commitment to both fiscal and environmental sustainability. That really belongs under Goal 2
B-1 so I suggest moving that policy under Goal B-1. The other substantive thing is I think you should add 3
Town and Country back in as a reginal center. Just because it’s described elsewhere in greater detail, all 4
you need is one sentence but to not have it there when you have all the other centers, which are also 5
addressed in the Land Use Element in different ways. Just to say, don’t put it in there because we talk 6
about it elsewhere is -- doesn’t make sense to me. All you have to say is recognize and preserve Town 7
and Country Villages that is an attractive retail center servicing Palo Alto and residents of the wider 8
region. That’s the first sentence of the land use program or policy or whatever it is but that’s all you 9
have to put in here. That’s what I would recommend. My last point was adding a general policy that 10
refers to the Land Use and Transportation Element which support housing and transit opportunities to 11
support the employees and that benefits economic vitality. The rest are just some verb suggestions; 12
rewrites. Thank you 13
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you, Bonnie. Ellen. 14
Ellen Uhrbrock: All I have to say is this subcommittee for business and economics was the best 15
subcommittee and best Committee working I have ever seen in this group. I had wonderful Staff people 16
that also shared it and I’m sorry I missed the second round of when you did this but I have great 17
confidence that what you did was as good as could be done at this time so congratulations. 18
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Annette. 19
Annette Glanckopf: Well, I have a couple comments and I still think that this general introduction is to 20
flowery. I – unfortunately, I’m a crisp, technical writer and I think it sounds like a PR announcement from 21
the Chamber with all – apologizes to the Chamber. I don’t ever remember specifically, discussing shuttle 22
serving retail centers although it’s a good idea. Throughout this document there seems to be a lot of 23
emphasis on the office of economic development and up to this time, it’s just really been a number of 24
bean counters and so there’s a lot of implications about additional Staff like on page B-7, the office – the 25
OED plays a key role. Well, it hasn’t ever so far in supporting business growth so that to me is very 26
concerned and ‘the office can serve as a facilitator between residents and businesses.’ I think that’s 27
really a planning or building function. This is also reflected on page B-9 and go – Program B-1.1.1, 28
implement the office of economic development policy to guild business development. I would use the 29
word direct if you have to have that in there and Policy 1 – B-.1.4, I think the City should attractive 30
businesses and I agree, rather than OED and I think there needs to be much more areas other than 31
mobility and sustainability. There is a lot discussion about partnerships between public and private 32
space for community non- profits. I think that’s a great goal but you know, as long as you’re going to do 33
that, it might be good to put the concept of private sector providing meeting spaces or connecting – 34
reaching out to the community as well. There’s lots of things they could do for transportation and 35
parking. I, again, saw that the tree system, because it was referenced in the Staff report, it -- I never did 36
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 40 of 48
find it in the document and again, I support putting it back in. When I look at Goal B-2, which is sort of 1
out there -- and I am really concerned about Policy B-2.2, strong inter dependence between commercial 2
centers and surrounding neighborhoods. I’m not sure what that really means and who is going to do 3
this? To make any kind of this connection work, there really needs to be the right type of retail and a key 4
plan to have someone whether – just to finish this point – to reach out and work with the residents. I 5
think if we were going to focus on something, we should as a City, start trying to develop especially, in 6
the small neighborhood centers, to form a merchant’s association and just – since I am running out of 7
time. There is – along in Goal-4, I think we really do need, Jennifer mentioned this, to really focus on 8
small independent locally serving businesses, especially in the neighborhood centers. We need to attract 9
the right business to the right location and assist in keeping them. That is very, very true but the real 10
problem these days is not – that fact is that they’re in the wrong place and we should – and the problem 11
is the cost in rents as opposed to maybe the viability of the business or even being in the wrong place. 12
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you, Annette. Jennifer. 13
Jennifer Hetterly: I’d like to commend the subcommittee also. I think this is greatly improved from the 14
last go around. I don’t think it’s balanced but I think it is a vast improvement. I do think it’s irresponsible 15
for us to promote a Comprehensive Plan that doesn’t acknowledge – even an interest in striving for 16
moderation in the pace of job growth and that has been eliminated from this first goal as well as Policy 17
B-2.3 I guess is the closest one in this latest draft. Seems like, with intense local and regional criticism of 18
our jobs and housing balance, it’s undeniable impacts on the local and regional economy and quality of 19
life. I just don’t see how we can put forward a Comp. Plan that doesn’t say we’re going to at least try to 20
pace job growth. That aside, I was thrilled to see the At Places comments today because I agree with all 21
three of you on virtually all of your comments so I was happy to see that consensus and I hope that Staff 22
and the subcommittee will incorporate those where there is agreement. I was sorry to see that there are 23
no policies or programs in the compatibility and interdependency section that address compatibility or 24
how the business environment will complement the residential neighborhoods so I would love to see 25
that fluffed up a little bit with something to acknowledge the compatibility piece of that heading. I also 26
noticed the street tree policy that was referenced in the Staff report is gone so I assume that’s going 27
back in. 28
Male: (Inaudible) 29
Jennifer Hetterly: Ok, awesome. Great. 30
Male: That policy will go in there. I’m sorry. 31
Jennifer Hetterly: Then, under predictability and flexibility, Policy B-4.4, which was about large – 32
attracting and retaining large employers in the Stanford Research Par. I’d like to see that rewarded to 33
say concentrate large employers in the Stanford Research Park. It seems to me that it’s Stanford role to 34
attract and retain leaseholders within the Research Park and it’s the City’s job to talk about where they 35
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 41 of 48
want what type size. Then again as Annette mentioned, small independent and community services 1
businesses are distinct from -- just any retail business is really valuable in Palo Alto and I would like to 2
see that highlighted more and just lastly, Policy B-5.3, about strengthening the office of economic 3
development. I think it absolutely needs to be strengthen but I would go beyond just communication 4
between residents and businesses and navigating procedures and have that office serve a role in 5
attracting and retaining local serving retail and services because that’s – clearly, we’re saying all over the 6
place retail is suggesting here and that’s what we need is somebody that can help them bridge – make 7
that connection. Thank you. 8
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Len. 9
Len Filppu: Yes, thanks. I too like this rev. a lot and I think we’re definitely getting in there. On Goal B-1, 10
the policies that moderate the pace of job growth has been deleted. I’m wondering if an alternative 11
might be considered. Something along the lines of policies that support prudent growth. That’s a 12
possibility and I offer it because in the meaning of prudent, showing thought and care for the future. On 13
Policy B-2.2, I agree with Annette’s view. I offer – support a strong interdependency. You could change 14
that to make it more proactive, support strong, synergistic programs between existing commercial 15
centers and surround neighborhoods. That gets us active to take advantage and leverage the 16
interdependence that exists. Not just acknowledge the interdependence. Policy B-2.3, at the end of the 17
sentence it says such as – coordinate on shared concerns such as traffic, parking issues. I’d include 18
livability. Recognize that business and neighborhoods need to coordinate on a shared concern such as 19
traffic, parking, and livability issues. It isn’t just traffic and parking, there’s more involved. Then here’s 20
the one that I’m wrapping up. These are the pink box comments. Some of these indicate that this 21
program has been put over to land use and if land use doesn’t have any programs, then I would really 22
like to consider inserting these programs into this element. Especially, the comments that are identified 23
as JJ6, JJ8, and JJ10, all of which deal with the appearance of streets, enhancing sidewalks, preserving 24
adequate parking, widening sidewalks, narrowing travel lanes, that kind of thing so if we’re going to lose 25
them in land use, let’s put them in here. Thank you. 26
Co-Chair Garber: Thanks. Doria. 27
Doria Summa: Yes, great work by the subcommittee. Something that Jennifer had in her comments that 28
she didn’t mention is Figure B-2 and B-3 are contradictory and that probably needs to be cleared up and 29
kind of hard to understand. In the discussion about business employment districts on page B-8, its noted 30
that 1/3 – over 1/3 of the jobs in Palo Alto are located in the Stanford Research Park. It goes on to talk 31
about Stanford University medical center. I think it would be very helpful to know approximately how 32
many people work in the medical center also and to have those two figures in the same place. Policy B-33
1.3, I agree with an early speaker that said just take business out, ‘engage with all stake holders in the 34
community.’ The tree thing is taken care of. Policy B-2.3, I agree with Len that livability should be added 35
back in and I thought B-2.1 was just written in kind of a confusing way so maybe take a look at that. B-36
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 42 of 48
4.4, retain and attract large employers in the Stanford Research Park. I think that the – I think there 1
should be a recognition that that’s where – the Stanford Research Park is where a large employer are 2
appropriate as opposed to other business areas in the City. In B-4.7, encourage and support the retail – 3
operations small independent retail businesses and other services that service community. I think some 4
of those – small independent is taken out. I think it should be put back in. I’m not sure if this is the right 5
place to evaluate the effectiveness of ground floor retail requirements and preserving retail space. I 6
would recommend removing that. About Goal B-5 in B-1.2, improve design guild lines to reduce 7
ambiguity more clearly – articulate design principles. I think what we really want to talk about here are 8
the compatibility rules not design. Let’s see, economic development – just some other things. Oh, I also 9
think the – B-7.3, invest – encourage investment in activity along El Camino and within the Stanford 10
Research Park that compliments the Research Park and enhances its physical appearance. It should 11
include that enhances adjacent neighborhoods to the Research Park not just the Research Park. Thank 12
you. 13
Co-Chair Garber: Thanks. Julia. 14
Julia Moran: Just a couple comments. Like Ellen said, I was only able to make the first subcommittee 15
meeting but we had a very productive meeting and I see a significant amount reflected in the revised 16
element. It’s much, much better than it was before and much less combative between living in Palo Alto 17
and working Palo Alto. The – it still feels to me a little too focused on the current economic situation of 18
Palo Alto of strained retail and very strong office space economic environment, which is what’s 19
happening today but it is not necessarily what will be happening in 10-years. I’d like to see something 20
that reflects what our policies are if there aren’t jobs here or empty office spaces. Then second, I’d also 21
– I didn’t see anything about our neighboring huge companies like Facebook, Google type companies 22
and the economic impact those have on our City and if one of those chooses to move, what that means 23
for us and just in general, what the impact of those – the significant amount of employees in those 24
companies to our downtown retail and health services and everything else. I know those are broad 25
comments but I’d like to see those reflected. Thanks. 26
Co-Chair Garber: Thanks. Whitney. 27
Whitney McNair: Great, thank you. It was a great discussion with the subcommittee. Let’s see, I agree 28
with Julia’s comments about the snap shot – the information on the pie charts; they’re just one year. 29
They don’t really show you any trends. I think it would be better to have a trend line. One of the 30
interesting trends is sales tax that – just for instance, the Research Park shows 3 million dollars in sale 31
tax revenue in 2015 but it was up to 10 million in 2013 and it’s been 6 and 10 and 4.5 so what’s the 32
trend in sales tax. You also have transfer tax, which makes that a more complete picture. The economy 33
may change. It’s currently strong but some areas it might be diminishing so if you want to – if the City 34
wants to attract certain businesses, it has to be more than just saying, that’s what I want to have come 35
here to Palo Alto. There needs to be – I like to think of it as an on switch. If you determine what kind of 36
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 43 of 48
business you want to have, what levers can you turn on in order to encourage those types of companies 1
– that business sector to come to Palo Alto and there isn’t anything in here really, that’s giving you that, 2
that on switch. It still has a regulatory tone to it. To that degree, I agree with Annette’s comments about 3
the office of economic development. I’m not even sure how fully Staffed it is at this point but there’s a 4
lot of responsibility in the element played to OED. Just trying to consider how that would Staff its self-up 5
in order to reach out to companies, whether it’s retail companies or small companies up to big 6
companies. What is it that the City can do in order to keep you here with in Palo Alto? Then a few little 7
things. Let’s see, there was a program, B-5.1.4, and it says that it’s revised the zoning and other 8
regulations to encourage revitalization of aging retail structures and then there was a new – just quickly. 9
There was new tag onto that, ‘and encourage the preservation of Class B and C office spaces’ and that 10
says it’s an existing program in the Comp. Plan. I went back to the existing Comp. Plan and that last 11
piece of it is not in there at all. It was about encourage revitalization of ageing retail areas so I 12
understand there has been some discussion about trying to maintain some spaces for smaller 13
independent consultants – independent practitioners but to now, put in there something that’s 14
preserving Class B and Class C office spaces. I think that goes against some of the sustainability practices 15
and some ideas about revitalizing some of these older businesses in buildings, especially like in the 16
Research Park. If you want to have smaller spaces for smaller firms then say that. I don’t think that this 17
roundabout way of saying preserve Class C office buildings I the way to do it. Just be clear on what it is 18
that you want to get at. I think – oh, and I just had – just a fact on the – the business registry that the 19
City put out, indicates that the Research Park has 29,000 employees and so these pie charts are saying 20
there’s 36% of the jobs are in the Research Park, which would be a lot high than that 29,000 so I just 21
don’t know what that data source is. If you could just look to confirm that that percentage is actually 22
accurate. 23
Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Alex. 24
Alex Van Riesen: I to enjoyed being on the Committee and I was unable to make the last meeting but 25
I’ve – the other comments that I’ve heard echo mine so I’ll pass. 26
Co-Chair Garber: Arthur. 27
Co-Chair Keller: Firstly, I’m hearing that there are lots of tweaks. Not major changes but lots of tweaks 28
that people are asking to be made. I’m wondering – I’m going to first as Staff, does it make sense since I 29
don’t think this is going to Council right way, to have the Committee do – meet one more time to reflect 30
these changes – subcommittee meet one more time to reflect these changes in the element and have it 31
come back to us on consent next time and hopeful people will just be able to review it. Then not actually 32
have us meet on it but it doesn’t seem like it’s 100% ready for prime time. 33
Hillary Gitelman: I guess let me ask a question of the group. In past elements, you were able to adopt 34
them subject to the changes that we could incorporate from the comments that were made that 35
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 44 of 48
evening and those that we couldn’t include, we were instructed to attach when we transmitted it to the 1
council. Do you not think that that would be appropriate? I’m just asking because we are chock-a-block 2
with things that we have to do like Staff reports for Council meetings and for the implementation 3
subcommittee and all the rest. 4
Co-Chair Keller: Well, in – ok, let me try a different thing. How about if we do not have the 5
subcommittee meet but instead Staff make the changes and bring it back to us so that we can actually 6
see them and bringing it back on consent, rather than having us not see what happens until months 7
later when it goes to Council. 8
Co-Chair Garber: Arthur, can I ask – Stephen, is one of the Committee Members and maybe some of the 9
other Committee Members might want to add on. 10
Stephen Levy: There have been two sets of what you call tweaks. One set dealing with the elements 11
that were redundant, dealing with the pattern of growth in the City, dealing with the word livability. 12
These were unanimously 6-0 approved by the subcommittee the way they are. There are other language 13
tweaks that the Staff may consider but this Committee, which everyone has praised, was very deliberate 14
and very much in unanimity on illuminating the redundant arguments. Not making this element a 15
debate about the growth of the city, which will come up in the scenarios and very consciously 16
illuminating the word livability. 17
Co-Chair Garber: Hamilton. 18
Stephen Levy: I think the comments today would go back on that. 19
Hamilton Hitchings: The only thing it say is – I agreed to the illumination of livability within the context 20
of adding that one policy I mentioned earlier and it didn’t make it in so – and I know a number of other 21
Committee Members want to see, and I heard today, some language in there around protecting the 22
neighborhoods. It’s not very controversial language. It’s just saying you’re going to take it into account. 23
To have – to say we’re not going to put anything in there about businesses having to have any impacts, I 24
think, is a little bit much. I mean, I would like to see something added in there about that. 25
Co-Chair Garber: I don’t want to open this up a great deal here but Hillary, do you have a suggestion 26
about how we can move through this? 27
Hillary Gitelman: I think there are two choices. If the Committee feels like this is close enough. That with 28
some of the changes that have been recommended you would feel comfortable recommending this to 29
the Council subject to those revisions and ask us to transmit any comments we can’t include. For 30
example, comments that might conflict with the Committees discussion. That’s choice number one. 31
Choice number two is Arthur’s suggestion that this needs enough work that it should come back on 32
consent at your next meeting. 33
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 45 of 48
Co-Chair Garber: Could it be that Staff makes modifications, minor they may be, and they sent a draft to 1
the subcommittee for review. They don’t have to meet but could then sent back comments and then it 2
could come back to the meeting here on consent. 3
Hillary Gitelman: What I’m really trying to do is have the Staff have – and consultants have to work on 4
multiple sets of revisions. I mean in past elements; this group has felt comfortable… 5
Co-Chair Garber: You’re trying to avoid that. 6
Hillary Gitelman: Giving us enough direction that we just have to update the element once and transmit 7
it to Council. Obviously, if you not comfortable doing that here, we can make the changes and bring it 8
back to the CAC but what we’d like to do in that case is not get further revisions but just get comments 9
we would enclose with the element. 10
Co-Chair Garber: Subcommittee? We’re not doing motions. 11
Co-Chair Keller: (Inaudible) 12
Co-Chair Garber: Oh, that’s true. I suppose it is. 13
Co-Chair Keller: (Inaudible) 14
Co-Chair Garber: I have not forgotten that. Stephen. 15
Stephen Levy: Ironically, we had an almost 2-hour discussion about reading the mind of Council 16
Members with all sorts of words like appalling and disrespecting and throwing the baby out with the 17
bath water yet when you come back with the subcommittee nearly 6-0 on every item. To which Staff 18
can report to Council a sense of the subcommittee. That (inaudible) goes out the window, you know? I 19
don’t know what our subcommittee worked on if (inaudible)(crosstalk) 20
Co-Chair Garber: I think there are… 21
Stephen Levy: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. 22
Co-Chair Garber: Yeah? 23
Stephen Levy: We had a long discussion about quality of life and livability, ok? And tried, with 24
Hamilton’s help, to find some way that wasn’t a code work in the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s and we 25
did. The idea that the neighborhoods and the businesses aren’t connected and need to work together is 26
all through the element. If Hamilton has a word or two to make it better but I see no reason to go back 27
and go over with the subcommittee a discussion that we had in quite depth, in two meetings on some of 28
these. There are other issues that the Staff can look at. Some wording changes about whether Town and 29
Country is in or some other stuff and make a decision. 30
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 46 of 48
Co-Chair Garber: I was actually… 1
Stephen Levy: (Inaudible) 2
Co-Chair Garber: …more focused on topics that were not having to do with livability because I think 3
there have been a number of conversations or a number of suggestions here that I think could make the 4
element better. Annette and then Hamilton. 5
MOTION 6
Annette Glanckopf: I’d just like to make a motion. I would like to make a motion that to save Staff work, 7
it comes back on consent. I think you can’t think of everything in a Committee is – it’s great the work 8
you’ve done. I heard a number of very compelling arguments that are not about livability and I think that 9
I’m very happy to see how Staff incorporates them. Bring them back on consent and … 10
Co-Chair Garber: Move from there. 11
Annette Glanckopf: That’s my motion. Bring is back on consent. Any comments would just be added to 12
the transmittal and so I hope I get a second. 13
Co-Chair Keller: I second. 14
Co-Chair Garber: Well, we have not finished out substantive comments from both Arthur or me yet. A 15
motion has been noted. It has been seconded by the Co-Chair. Let’s get some discussion around this. 16
You’ve already spoken on your motion. Do you want to speak on it anymore, Annette? 17
Annette Glanckopf: No but it’s 8:30 and so I don’t think – this is very academic where we are going on 18
this. I think we need to cut to the chase so I’d like to call the discussion to an end. 19
Co-Chair Garber: The secondary to the motion. 20
Co-Chair Keller: I’m happy to have the vote on it. I think it will be clear but Dan and I have not made 21
substitutive comments on the substance of the element and so we should have the motion taken quickly 22
after we make our substantive comments. Firstly, with respect to University Avenue in down town and 23
California (inaudible), there’s a mention (inaudible) of office in University Avenue. We really should be 24
talking about small office, profession office, not large RND. In particular, the mention that was made of 25
concentrating large businesses in the Stanford Research Park, I think that that’s missing and needs to be 26
added. Julia mentioned the effect of large businesses like Google and Facebook on our retail. I also 27
wonder about the effect of Google and Facebook on our housing and their impact on Palo Alto housing 28
needs because they don’t supply the housing on site. Also, with respect to not large RND within Stanford 29
– within California Avenue, Ventura, El Camino. Those are not places for RND. I think we should have 30
some policy in there about retaining local professional – serving professional services in small offices 31
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 47 of 48
and limit their displacement, especially by large RND. I think that’s something that needs to happen. I 1
think we saw that at 550 Hamilton. We’re seeing that happen in the former Bank of America building 2
where people are being displaced for a large RND building. I don’t think it’s appropriate. Those are my 3
substantive comments and I agree entirely with Annette’s motion. 4
Co-Chair Garber: If I may, I will make a couple of comments and then we’ll go to the vote. First of all, I 5
think I support almost all of the comments that have been said but let me just point out a couple of 6
them in particular. Hamilton, I think that your revision of the tall tree piece I think is good. I mean my 7
concern initially about that was not to redo what we did in the Natural Element but the fact that it is a 8
part of what the vision, what the environment is, the branding -- although I hate to use that word -- of 9
our town, I think it’s appropriate. It’s an appropriate thing to do there. I do have some quibbles with the 10
vision. The word duel suggests to me that the business world and the residential world exist together 11
but in parallel and it doesn’t suggest that these two parts are in fact dependent and reliant on each 12
other to for the City that we know. For me, the test is sort of simple. Without our businesses, we’d be 13
something more like Atherton. Without our neighborhoods, we’d be come – we could become all sorts 14
of different things. A biggest East Palo Alto, a mosaic of big box stores and office or office buildings. I 15
don’t know – Yeah, Emeryville – fine. The second piece there and this is going to be kind of controversial 16
I suspect but I think some of you know that I have been writing a history of Oregon Expressway and I 17
lecture for PAST and at other places on the history of Palo Alto. Ignoring for the moment that we have 18
had no neighborhoods if Stanford hadn’t created Palo Alto over 100 years ago. There’s no mention of 19
Stanford’s central role in driving the vitality in innovation of Palo Alto’s business community. We simple 20
wouldn’t be the Silicon Valley if Stanford where not here. What we would have become possibly, was 21
the town of Mayfield, which would have like been annexed either to Menlo Park or Mountain View a 22
couple of decades ago. I don’t know if that deserves to go into the vision but I think there needs to be 23
some acknowledgement that the fact is that all of our business reputation stems from that and the 24
adjacency and closeness we have with that. To Whitney’s point, I was going to make the exact same 25
comment. Jennifer, thank you for the catch on the – those two pie charts not adding up. I do think that 26
seeing that as a trend is, for me, almost the heart of this element because it gets to the question of 27
where you can start to ask, what do I get? What do I get from all that money and what is it doing for me 28
in the community? I would also like, frankly, to see another graphic in there and that is because the 29
taxes and fees are generated from the use of our land is so central to how our community sees itself as 30
well as funding more than half the general fund. That includes our community services. I would have 31
liked to have seen a graphic that trended and shows that relationship in there as well. Finally, to 32
Annette’s comment about the economic development office, spot on. We have an extraordinary weak 33
to non-existent development, economic, whatever you want to call it. I have worked in a variety of other 34
cities where that role is a key in dynamic and power role and that just simple doesn’t exist. I think 35
importantly for a town like Palo Alto, if can help us tie the visions and the needs of the neighborhoods to 36
the mission of the business community and that would be something of great value. With that, all those 37
in favor of the motion as its stated say aye? 38
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 48 of 48
Group: Aye. 1
Co-Chair Garber: All those opposed? All those abstaining? 2
Stephen Levy: I don’t even know what the motion is. 3
Hamilton Hitchings: (Inaudible) 4
Co-Chair Keller: The motion is to have the item to come back on consent at the next meeting – the 5
element. 6
Stephen Levy: (Inaudible) 7
MOTION PASSED 13-0 WITH STEPHEN LEVY ABSTAINING. 8
Co-Chair Garber: Folks, it is 8:35, thank you very much. 8:33 to the Co-Chairs watch. We are adjourned. 9
Feedback for Continuous Improvement: 10
Future Meetings: 11
Next meeting: March 21, 2017 – Rinconada Library (Embarcadero Room) 12
13
Adjournment: 8:35 p.m. 14
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 12
Special Meeting
January 30, 2017
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:07 P.M.
Present: DuBois arrived at 5:15 P.M., Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou,
Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach
Absent:
Closed Session
1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-EXISTING LITIGATION
Subject: Buena Vista MHP Residents Association v. City of Palo Alto,
Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 115-CV-284763
Subject Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1).
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach
to go into Closed Session.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent
Council went into Closed Session at 5:07 P.M.
Council returned from Closed Session at 6:06 P.M.
Mayor Scharff announced no reportable action.
Special Orders of the Day
2. Selection of Applicants to Interview on February 1, 2017 for the
Historic Resources Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and
the Planning and Transportation Commission.
MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to:
A. Interview all new applicants for the Parks & Recreation Commission
and the Planning & Transportation Commission; and
ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 12
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 1/30/17
B. Interview all previously interviewed applicants for the Parks &
Recreation Commission and the Planning & Transportation Commission
if they would like a second interview; and
C. Limit Planning & Transportation Commission interviews to 10 minutes.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to interview all new applicants for the Parks & Recreation
Commission and the Planning & Transportation Commission.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
None.
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to approve
Agenda Item Numbers 3-4.
3. Approval of the Acceptance and Expenditure of Citizens Options for
Public Safety (COPS) Funds on Various Law Enforcement Equipment
and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Law Enforcement
Services Fund.
4. Resolution 9664 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto in Collaboration With the Cities of Redwood City, Menlo Park, and
Mountain View Directing Staff to Participate in Sub-regional Planning
on Bike Routes.”
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Action Items
5. Comprehensive Plan Update: City Council Review & Direction
Regarding the Draft Land Use & Community Design Element and the
Revised Draft Transportation Element.
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to
direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update:
ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 12
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 1/30/17
A. Cumulative Cap:
Policy L-1.10 would maintain a Cumulative Cap of 1.7 million square
feet, which is the square footage remaining under the existing cap,
focus the Cap on Office/R&D uses and apply it citywide rather than
only in “monitored areas.” It would also exempt medical office uses in
the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) area (the current cap
does not apply to this geographic area), and require annual monitoring
to assess the effectiveness of development requirements and
determine whether the cap and the development requirements should
be adjusted; and
B. Annual Limit:
Direct Staff to return with a permanent Ordinance addressing the
Annual Limit, separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update; and
C. Downtown Cap:
Eliminate the Downtown cap found in existing Program L-8 and focus
on monitoring development and parking demand.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council
Member DuBois to replace Part C of the Motion with, “retain the existing
Downtown Cap for 45,000 square feet and exempt retail from the Cap.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Amendment, “and hotels” after
“exempt retail.”
AMENDMENT RESTATED: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by
Council Member DuBois to replace Part C of the Motion with, “Program
L-1.16.4 would retain a Downtown Cap of about 45,000 square feet for
Office/R&D similar to Program L-1.16.2, and would also Cap new hotel
development at 50,000 square feet.”
AMENDMENT AS AMENDED FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou
yes
AMENDMENT: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member
Tanaka to add to Motion Part A, “with the exception of the Stanford
Research Park” after “apply it citywide.”
AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-7 Fine, Tanaka yes
ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 12
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 1/30/17
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to replace Part B of the Motion with, “direct Staff
to make permanent the Annual Limit Ordinance of 50,000 Square Feet,
separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update.”
AMENDMENT: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member
XX to add to Motion Part C, “and initiate a community driven Specific Area
Plan for the Downtown Area.”
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER
AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council
Member Holman to replace Part B of the Motion with, “Policy L-1.14 would
perpetuate the interim annual limit of 50,000 square feet of Office/R&D and
expand it to apply citywide, except that an additional 50,000 square footage
allocation would be provided for the Stanford Research Park (SRP), and that
allocation could be carried forward to future years if unused, up to the
existing allowable square footage in the SRP. Stanford University Medical
Center (SUMC) would be exempt from the annual limit. This exemption could
be clarified to apply only to approved uses only if desired.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMEND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Amendment, “establish a baseline
traffic measure for the Stanford Research Park.”
AMENDMENT AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved,
seconded by Council Member Holman to replace Part B of the Motion with,
“Policy L-1.14 would perpetuate the interim annual limit of 50,000 square
feet of Office/R&D and expand it to apply citywide, except that an additional
50,000 square footage allocation would be provided for the Stanford
Research Park (SRP), and that allocation could be carried forward to future
years if unused, up to the existing allowable square footage in the SRP.
Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) would be exempt from the
annual limit. This exemption could be clarified to apply only to approved
uses only if desired. Establish a baseline traffic measure for the Stanford
Research Park.”
AMENDMENT AS AMENDED FAILED: 3-6 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved,
seconded by Mayor Scharff to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the
Comprehensive Plan Update:
ACTION MINUTES
Page 5 of 12
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 1/30/17
A. Cumulative Cap:
Policy L-1.10 would maintain a Cumulative Cap of 1.7 million square
feet, which is the square footage remaining under the existing cap,
focus the Cap on Office/R&D uses and apply it citywide rather than
only in “monitored areas.” It would also exempt medical office uses in
the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) area (the current Cap
does not apply to this geographic area), and require annual monitoring
to assess the effectiveness of development requirements and
determine whether the Cap and the development requirements should
be adjusted; and
B. Annual Limit:
Direct Staff to make permanent the Annual Limit Ordinance of 50,000
Square Feet, separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update; and
C. Downtown Cap:
Eliminate the Downtown Cap found in existing Program L-8 and focus
on monitoring development and parking demand.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou no
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach
to maintain the current 50 foot height limit separate from the
Comprehensive Plan Update, continuing as an Ordinance.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to replace in the Motion, “the current 50 foot height limit
separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update, continuing as an Ordinance”
with “any but only existing language in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan
relating to height limits.”
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member Kou to add to the Motion, “include Policy L-6.7 and add possible,
limited exceptions to the Fry’s and Cubberley sites.
AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-6 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes
MOTION PASSED: 7-2 DuBois, Holman no
Council took a break at 8:49 P.M. and returned at 9:00 P.M.
ACTION MINUTES
Page 6 of 12
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 1/30/17
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss
to direct Staff to exclude from the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Update “child care” from the list of typical Neighborhood Commercial uses.
MOTION PASSED: 6-3 Filseth, Fine, Tanaka no
MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member
DuBois to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Update:
A. Pursue multifamily housing at the Stanford Shopping Center, provided
adequate parking is maintained, as alluded to in Policy L-4.7 (the
language could be strengthened); and
B. Pursue multifamily housing in the Stanford Research Park, particularly
along the El Camino Real frontage as alluded to in Program L-5.4.1
(the language could be strengthened); and
C. Reinstate the language in previous Policy L-33 (now Policy L-4.12 and
Program L-1.12.3) about housing potential in the Town & Country
area; and
D. Include a new program to pursue multifamily housing near Stanford
University Medical Center (SUMC) and/or in the western part of the
Stanford Research Park.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to replace Part B of the Motion with, “Program
L-5.4.1 explore with Stanford University various development options for
adding to the Stanford Research Park a diverse mix of uses, including
residential, commercial hotel, conference center, commercial space for small
businesses and start-ups, retail, transit hub, and other community-
supporting services that are compatible with the existing uses, to create a
vibrant innovation-oriented community.” (New Part E)
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Kniss to add to the Motion Part C, “which would be limited to second floor
office conversion.”
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER
AMENDMENT: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman
to replace Part C of the Motion with, “not support housing in the Town &
Country area.”
AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Fine, Tanaka, Wolbach no
ACTION MINUTES
Page 7 of 12
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 1/30/17
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in Parts A and D of the Motion,
“pursue” with “explore.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to remove from Motion Part D, “and/or in the
western part of the Stanford Research Park.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A, “and vibrant retail”
after “adequate parking.”
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved,
seconded by Council Member DuBois to direct Staff to include in the final
draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update:
A. Explore multifamily housing at the Stanford Shopping Center, provided
adequate parking and vibrant retail is maintained, as alluded to in
Policy L-4.7 (the language could be strengthened); and
B. L-5.4.1 Explore with Stanford University various development options
for adding to the Stanford Research Park a diverse mix of uses,
including residential, commercial hotel, conference center, commercial
space for small businesses and start-ups, retail, transit hub, and other
community-supporting services that are compatible with the existing
uses, to create a vibrant innovation-oriented community; and
C. Not support housing in the Town & County area; and
D. Include a new program to explore multifamily housing near Stanford
University Medical Center (SUMC).
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to
direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, a
new program to eliminate housing sites along San Antonio Road and
increase residential densities in Downtown and the California Avenue Area to
replace potential units on the sites eliminated.
MOTION PASSED: 6-3 Filseth, Kniss, Kou no
MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
direct Staff to eliminate from the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Update Development Requirements and Community Indicators.
ACTION MINUTES
Page 8 of 12
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 1/30/17
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to consider a
Community Indicator Program as part of the next iteration of the Annual
Performance Report or another on-going monitoring effort.” (New Part B)
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by
Council Member Kou to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the
Comprehensive Plan Update: to articulate the purposes and topics for
development requirements in the Comprehensive Plan, but develop details
later via Comprehensive Plan program and reference tables L-1 and L-2 and
include Staff comments regarding these tables and include references to
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) wherever Level Of Service (LOS) is included in
the Comprehensive Plan.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou yes
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by
Council Member Holman to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the
Comprehensive Plan Update to articulate the purposes and topics for
development requirements in the Comprehensive Plan, but develop details
later via an implementation program excluding Comprehensive Plan
Programs.
SECOND WITHDRAWN BY THE SECONDER
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved,
seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to direct Staff to include in the final draft of
the Comprehensive Plan Update:
A. Eliminate Development Requirements and Community Indicators in the
Comprehensive Plan; and
B. Direct Staff to consider a Community Indicator Program as part of the
next iteration of the Annual Performance Report or another on-going
monitoring effort.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-1 Holman no
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Holman
to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update
to create new opportunities for retail/residential mixed use and pursue
conversion of some non-retail commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to
ACTION MINUTES
Page 9 of 12
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 1/30/17
residential FAR as alluded to in Policy L-6.12, this policy will be separated
into two Programs, Program L-1.16.5, and Program L-1.12.3.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0-1 Tanaka abstain
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member
Fine to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Update, Policy L-2.3 about encouraging a mix of housing types and sizes
designed for greater affordability and Policy 3.4 about encouraging a mix of
smaller housing types.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0-1 DuBois abstain
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Fine to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Update Policy L-3.5 and associated Program L-3.5.1 regarding ways to
minimize displacement of existing residents.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0-1 Tanaka abstain
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach
to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update,
policies and programs like Policy L-4.1, Program L-3.2.1, and Program
L-6.12.4 about preserving ground floor retail space.
MOTION PASSED: 5-0-4 Filseth, Holman, Kou, Scharff abstain
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Kou to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Update, maintain Policy L-3.3 and/or Policy L-3.6 (some repetition can be
eliminated) and associated Program L-3.3.1 about preserving existing
housing that is affordable, such as small cottage clusters, removing from
Program L-3.3.1, “and the replacement of rental housing units with
ownership housing units.”
MOTION PASSED: 6-0-3 Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach abstain
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss
to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update,
Program L-1.16.5 (we will fix the numbering problem here) or L-7.12.1
(some repetition can be eliminated) to revise or consider revising the
Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Program Downtown to create bonus
residential rather than commercial square footage.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0-2 Filseth, Tanaka abstain
ACTION MINUTES
Page 10 of 12
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 1/30/17
MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka to
direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, a
program to explore increasing hotel Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 2.0 to 3.0.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “in areas inside of
Downtown and 2.5 in other areas.”
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by
Council Member Tanaka to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the
Comprehensive Plan Update, a program to explore increasing hotel Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) from 2.0 to 3.0 in areas inside of Downtown and 2.5 in
other areas.”
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-3-1 DuBois, Holman, Kou no, Filseth
abstain
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Update, Policy L-4.10 regarding enhancing the pedestrian environment
along El Camino Real and Program L-9.4.1 specific to sidewalk widths and
building design.
MOTION FAILED: 4-1-4 Fine no, Filseth, Kniss, Scharff, Wolbach abstain
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Update converting Policy L-4.10 regarding enhancing the pedestrian
environment along El Camino Real to a Program and maintain Program
L-9.4.1 specific to sidewalk widths and building design.
MOTION FAILED: 3-5-1 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes, Fine abstain
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Filseth to direct Staff to eliminate from the final draft of the Comprehensive
Plan Update Program L-4.2.1 regarding preparation of a Coordinated Area
Plan for South El Camino (pp. L-48 through L-49).
MOTION PASSED: 6-2-1 Fine, Tanaka no, Filseth abstain
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Filseth to direct Staff to restore in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Update, existing Policy L-6 language about preserving neighborhood
character (“avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential
and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different
ACTION MINUTES
Page 11 of 12
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 1/30/17
densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land
uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than
along streets wherever possible.”) This is in lieu of the new language
proposed in Policy L-6.11.
MOTION PASSED: 5-2-2 Scharff, Wolbach no, Fine, Tanaka abstain
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member
Fine to direct Staff to remove from the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Update, all Programs from the Land Use Element, not required by State Law
to be taken up at future dates as policy discussions and use the
implementation section of the Plan to indicate the relative cost and priority
of each Program.
MOTION FAILED: 4-2-3 DuBois, Kou, no, Filseth, Holman, Scharff abstain
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member
Fine to direct Staff to remove from the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Update, all Programs from the Land Use Element, not required by State Law
to be taken up at future dates as policy discussions and use the
implementation section of the plan to indicate the relative cost and priority
of each Program.
MOTION PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou no
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to
remove all Programs from the Transportation Element.
MOTION PASSED: 6-1-2 Holman no, Filseth, Kniss abstain
MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to
continue the Revised Draft Transportation Element to a date uncertain.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
DuBois to continue the Land Use Element to a date uncertain.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
None.
ACTION MINUTES
Page 12 of 12
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 1/30/17
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
None.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:59 P.M.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/6/2017 1:28 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Don McDougall <mcdougall.don@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 06, 2017 10:57 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hetterly, Jennifer
Subject:Comprehensive Plan structure Discussion March 20, 2017
Attachments:CAC Comments - 2-21-17 Final .docx
Honorable Gregory Scharff, Mayor
Honorable Liz Kniss, Vice Mayor
Honorable City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto CA 94301
Re: March 20, 2017, Discussion of CAC Goals. Policies and Programs Structure
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and City Council Members,
Please see the attached joint memo Jennifer Hetterly and I submitted to the CAC meeting of February 21st. The memo
reflects our concerns about the form and structure of the Comprehensive Plan and has received attention and discussion.
We are concerned that Council has seriously threatened:
Public trust in the Council and the CAC;
Hard-earned consensus within the CAC;
Contextual cohesion of the Plan;
Transparency and accessibility of the Plan; and
The city’s current and future guidance and flexibility to act.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Respectfully,
Don McDougall
CAC Comments for 2/21/17 Meeting Jennifer Hetterly and Don McDougall
1
As Palo Alto citizens, we are appalled by Council’s blanket removal or even separation of the
Programs from the body of the draft Comprehensive Plan. As CAC members, we are deeply
offended.
TRUST
The city told the community the Comp Plan was very important. Citizens and stakeholders were
asked to sacrifice their time and invest their energy beginning with the “Our Palo Alto 2030”
process so that their interests were fully represented. Citizens and stakeholders did so, by the
hundreds.
The city tasked the CAC with the work of reviewing that input and striking a balance among
competing interests to produce a Comprehensive Plan. The CAC has done that through 20
months of difficult and often contentious effort.
Council asked that the Plan be developed in an Element – Vision - Goals - Policies - Programs
fashion. Frequently Vision and Goals were dictated by Council. That process placed Programs
throughout the Comp Plan as integral and fundamental to the desired balance. In many cases,
Program inclusion was the lynchpin to achieve agreement and consensus. Several Policies were
designed with the expectation that the Programs would provide necessary detail and clarity.
Without adoption of that context, staff, Council, and most importantly the community, can only
speculate as to the meaning or implications of those Policies. To suggest that the Policies, taken
alone, could represent CAC intentions and consensus is inaccurate and misleading.
Council’s blanket approach to the Land Use and Transportation Programs belittles the effort,
subverts the balance and invalidates the consensus. This is not a mere formatting change, nor
can it accurately be described as “accept[ing] strong consensus where it existed.”
In the name of Council flexibility, Council has damaged public trust and undermined the very
work enabling them to earn it.
SPECIFICS MATTER IN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Substantively, a Comprehensive Plan without Programs is barely a “Plan” at all. Yes, several
Policies in the draft Comp Plan include specifics, but for many, the Programs provide important
clarity about what is intended. The Comprehensive Plan must offer sufficient specifics to be
actionable and for staff, Council and citizens to know what the plan is and get on board. The
Programs inform the public what to expect and allow them to hold the city accountable – these
are the keys to public trust.
In fact, the existing Comp Plan clearly states that the “Implementation Chapter is not a Plan
Element,” nor is an appendix. Thus, Programs located in an un-adopted chapter or appendix
carry no authority for (or expectation of) action. Council has rendered them largely irrelevant.
It is also argued that because the Council chose to simplify the S/CAP by removing action items
from the body of that plan, it would be equally appropriate to do so with the Comp Plan. Unlike
the S/CAP, however, the Comprehensive Plan provides the underpinning for all city action. It is
State-mandated and has much more comprehensive impacts than the S/CAP. Nonetheless, even
for the S/CAP, the removal of all proposed action items from the body of the Plan necessitated
CAC Comments for 2/21/17 Meeting Jennifer Hetterly and Don McDougall
2
substantial modification and expansion of the Goals and Policies in several sections. Council
proposed no such revisions for the draft Comp Plan.
A COMP PLAN WITHOUT PROGRAMS IS LESS NIMBLE
Programs adopted in a Comprehensive Plan provide direction for city staff to pursue specific
efforts without undergoing an additional, lengthy legislative process. They are what makes the
Plan readily actionable. According to the State’s General Plan Guidelines, adopted Comp Plan
Programs provide a short term mechanism for the city to “quickly respond to the demands of
new funding sources, the results of their own activities, and the jurisdiction’s immediate needs
and problems.”
By eliminating authorization for any Programs, in the name of simplicity and flexibility,
Council’s action actually created a significant barrier to implementation. Now, before any
Program can be implemented, the city staff or Council leadership must bring it forward to be
taken up by the full Council.
Several high-priority Programs may well successfully compete for limited Council time. But
where the Program is non-controversial or doesn’t require specific budget authorization, that
legislative time is wasted and only delays implementation. The bulk of the CAC recommended
Programs do not merit individualized legislative attention, but are nonetheless very important to
the community. They are recommended for adoption in the Comp Plan to reflect that importance
and enable staff implementation in an efficient manner. Requiring further Council review in
order to act creates a significant burden on both staff and Council.
With a poorly considered action, Council has:
1. Threatened public trust; 2. Destroyed hard-earned consensus;
3. Undermined the contextual cohesion of the Plan;
4. Removed Plan transparency; and
5. Hindered the city’s flexibility to act.
We recommend reconsideration by Council and a unified voice of concern from the CAC.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/8/2017 11:01 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Chang Hetterly <jchetterly@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 08, 2017 10:59 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James
Subject:March 20, 2017 Discussion of Comprehensive Plan
Attachments:Open Letter to City Council .pdf
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
The City Council’s January 30 action directing wholesale displacement of implementation programs from the
Land Use and Transportation Elements of the draft Comprehensive Plan was of great concern to the CAC and to
the community. Please see the attached letter outlining our concerns. A draft of this letter was shared with our
fellow CAC members at our February 21st meeting. In addition to several public speakers, and throughout a
two hour public discussion of the topic, the vast majority of both voting and ex officio members present
expressed similar concerns.
In addition to creating confusion, we believe the decoupling of Policies and Programs threatens public trust,
undermines hard earned consensus and the contextual cohesion of the Plan, and impairs the City’s ability to act
in an efficient manner on measures of significant importance to the community.
We hope that City Council will revisit the Land Use and Transportation Elements with a view to restoring the
interconnected implementation programs required for a coherent, inclusive, and “comprehensive” Plan.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Respectfully,
/ Len Filppu
/ Annette Glanckopf
/ Jennifer Hetterly
/ Hamilton Hitchings
/ Shani Kleinhaus
/ Mark Nadim
/ Alex Van Riesen
OPEN LETTER TO PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL from members of the Citizens
Advisory Committee for the Comprehensive Plan Update
We respectfully acknowledge City Council’s prerogative to revise or reject policies or programs
recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Comprehensive Plan (CAC).
Nonetheless, we feel compelled to formally voice our objection to:
1. The wholesale removal of all implementation programs from the body of the Land Use and
Transportation Elements, or any other Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and
2. The fast track voting process employed on January 30, 2017 that allowed for their removal
without full opportunity for Council debate or public comment and without a clear and
common understanding of the impact of that action.
The across-the-board decoupling of policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan destroys
the cohesive balance of the Plan, impairs the city’s ability to act and sends a dangerous “just trust
us” message to the public at the very moment comprehensive community input was rejected
without review.
Rather than defining the city’s path into the future based on thorough deliberation and consensus
building, (as a Comprehensive Plan is intended to do), City Council’s recent action leaves the
public, staff, and City Council uncertain about intended strategies, lacking data to inform
decisions and measure impacts, and devoid of tools for accountability for years to come. In
addition, Council’s fast-track disposition of all implementation programs devalues the
challenging and responsible efforts of the CAC and the input of hundreds of citizens. It
undermines and discourages future citizen engagement in the self-governance of the City.
We ask that Council restore implementation programs to the body of the Land Use and
Transportation Elements to reinstate the cohesion, balance and accountability represented in
those important chapters. Our city faces intractable challenges. In Palo Alto’s current political
climate, public trust is fragile. Wholesale rejection of community compromises and flying blind
into the future in the name of simplicity and flexibility will not fortify it.
The CAC was appointed to reflect a diversity of views across the community. We considered
hundreds of broad based pleas from community members and worked for 20 months to develop a
draft Comprehensive Plan that promotes more affordable housing, addresses traffic and parking
issues, and preserves our environment and residential neighborhoods while improving our
business districts as we continue to grow. These top concerns were further reflected in Palo
Alto’s annual, statistically valid Citizen’s Survey, along with declining satisfaction that citizen’s
interests are well represented.1
As in most city General Plans, the policies and programs throughout the Draft Comp Plan are
interdependent. Together, they were debated, negotiated and crafted by the CAC to balance
1 On the following measures, excellent/good ratings declined by statistically meaningful percentages:
• The job Palo Alto does at welcoming citizen involvement: -11%
• How well Palo Alto government does at generally acting in the best interest of the community: -9%
• Opportunities to participate in community matters: -7%
• Treating all residents fairly: -6%
often competing citizen interests and to meaningfully address community challenges in ways that
were actionable by city staff. In the few areas where the CAC was unable to achieve
compromise, we put forward policy and program options for the Council to deliberate. Taken
together, the policies and programs as well as the wording of the non-consensus “options”
garnered the unanimous recommendation of the diverse CAC.
At its retreat on Saturday January 28, the City Council voted, in part based on the Citizen's
Survey, to make Transportation and Housing two of the city’s highest priorities for 2017. Yet
two days later, under a fast-track voting procedure that forestalled open deliberation, Council
removed all implementation programs from both the Transportation and Land Use Elements of
the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Without public notice of that intent, there was no opportunity for
public or CAC questions or comments regarding the significance and impact of the wholesale
displacement of implementation programs. The community is rightfully confused and upset.
Council’s action eliminates important contextual detail reflecting community priorities related to
specific policies. For example:
The policy to “[p]rovide for sufficient but not excessive parking” is open to broad
interpretation and lacks actionable substance without the associated program direction: “For
each commercial center and employment district, conduct a parking needs assessment in
consultation with business owners, employers and local residents to establish a baseline for
parking need. Evaluate the need to update parking standards in the municipal code, based on
local conditions, different users’ needs and baseline parking need.”
A program calling for improved code enforcement and review of regulatory tools to enhance
and preserve the livability of residential neighborhoods and the vitality of commercial and
employment districts helps guide interpretation and implementation of an otherwise vague
policy to “[p]rovide positive stewardship of development and manage change to benefit the
community.”
In addition, the blanket relegation of implementation programs to an “appendix” renders
impotent several required Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measures as well as substantial
content pertaining to studies, data collection, monitoring and reporting. Some examples include:
• Monitor non-residential development, tracking new square footage by use as well as
commute trips by single occupancy vehicle and parking demand;
• Study the feasibility of unbundled parking for office, commercial, and multi-family
residential developments that are well served by transit and demonstrated walking and biking
connections;
• Collect, analyze and report transportation data through surveys and other methods, to
evaluate implementation of related policies on a regular basis;
• Complete a nexus study to identify the impacts of peak period motor vehicle trips from new
development and the cost of needed transportation improvements.
Finally, decoupling all programs from their related policies and placing them outside the body of
the element leaves valued priorities in indefinite limbo to be taken up at whim, if at all. It
eliminates authorization for significant and time-sensitive planning tools such as Coordinated
Area Plans for the Fry’s site area, South El Camino Corridor and Downtown/Transit Station.
Furthermore, many of the recommended programs authorize valued undertakings and time-tested
approaches that are too small to compete on their own for future City Council attention.
Adopting them as part of the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with past practice, would have the
positive impact of directing city effort towards strategies that may be less high profile, but
nonetheless serve important community needs and concerns:
• Review development standards to discourage the loss of housing units and the replacement of
rental housing units with ownership housing units.
• Provide better east-west connections across El Camino Real to bring the Ventura and Barron
Park neighborhoods together and to improve linkages to local schools and parks.
• Encourage private schools within the community to develop Walk and Roll Maps as part of
Transportation Demand Management strategies to reduce vehicle trips.
• Periodically update the Adopted School Commute Corridors Network to include updated
school commute routes. Ensure these routes are prioritized for safety improvements and
considered in land use planning decisions.
We sincerely hope that City Council will reaffirm its commitment to inclusive and collaborative
city governance, recognize the critical interdependence of policies and programs, and value the
practical and hard won balance of community interests reflected in the CAC recommendations.
Please revisit the Land Use and Transportation Elements with a view to restoring the
interconnected implementation programs required for a coherent, inclusive, and
“comprehensive” Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
/ Len Filppu
/ Annette Glanckopf
/ Jennifer Hetterly
/ Hamilton Hitchings
/ Shani Kleinhaus
/ Mark Nadim
/ Alex Van Riesen