Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 7966
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7966) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/12/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Comp Plan Update Title: Comprehensive Plan Update: Review of the Introduction, Governance, and Implementation Sections Recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee and Referral of the Entire Draft Comprehensive Plan Update to the Planning & Transportation Commission From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: A. Review the draft Introduction, Governance, Implementation and Glossary sections developed by the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and provide comments for incorporation in to a revised draft of these sections; B. Review the summary of changes to the Transportation, Land Use, Natural Environment, Safety, and Business & Economics Elements made in response to the Council’s comments and direction on May 1, May 15, and May 22, 2017; and C. Refer the entire draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for review and recommendation within 90 days of receipt of an updated draft document reflecting the Council’s direction. (Note: Tracked changes versions of the Introduction, Governance, Implementation, and Glossary sections are included as Attachments A, B, C, and D and reflect the CAC’s recommended changes to these sections of the existing Comprehensive Plan. Additional comments from the CAC are in Attachment F. A summary of the changes to the draft Transportation, Land Use, Natural Environment, Safety, and Business & Economics Elements made in response to City Council comments and direction is provided in Attachment E, along with a link to tracked-changes versions on the website. A clean draft of the Comprehensive Plan City of Palo Alto Page 2 Update dated June 1, 2017 is being provided in a separate, bound volume as noted in Attachment G. This document will be revised to incorporate the City Council’s comments on the Introduction, Governance, and Implementation sections and provided to the PTC for review on or before June 30, 2017.) Executive Summary The City is nearing completion on an update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which establishes goals, policies, and programs to guide land use and development decisions, infrastructure investments, and City regulations related to land use, transportation, resource conservation, and other topics. With the requested actions, the City Council would offer comments on four sections of the plan they have not reviewed previously (the Introduction, Governance, Implementation, and Glossary sections), review changes made to the Elements of the plan based on prior comments and direction, and refer the complete draft of the Comprehensive Plan to the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) for a recommendation. Following the Council’s referral, the PTC will have 90 days to complete their review and make a recommendation about the draft Comprehensive Plan and the accompanying Final EIR. The 90- day review period would commence upon the transmittal of the document to the PTC, on or before June 30, to provide staff time to incorporate Council’s input tonight and prepare the transmittal package. After the PTC’s review, the City Council will be able to consider certification of the Final EIR and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Staff is working to tee-up a suite of implementing actions to be considered concurrently or immediately after plan adoption. Background The Introduction, Governance, Implementation, and Glossary sections of the Comprehensive Plan Update presented this evening were recommended for adoption by the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) on April 18, 2017 (Implementation) and May 16, 2017 (Introduction, Governance, Glossary). None of these sections are required by State law and all are considered “sections” or “chapters” rather than “elements” of the Plan. These chapters are background information for users of the Comprehensive Plan. These sections are nonetheless important, and all are contained in the current Comprehensive Plan. Tracked changes have been used to indicate recommended updates/changes from the text of the current Plan in all sections including the introductory text of the Implementation section. Tracking changes was not feasible in the table which lists the CAC’s recommendations on the timing for implementation programs from all of the elements of the Comprehensive Plan The draft Community Services Element presented here was last reviewed by the City Council on City of Palo Alto Page 3 February 8, 2016 and incorporates comments and direction from that meeting. A copy of the staff report from that meeting is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50814 and a transcript is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51455. Although no formal motion was adopted, the Council members provided a list of specific changes and agreed that the draft element should be streamlined. Following that Council meeting, the CAC reviewed and approved on May 17, 2016 a revised and shortened draft element that was consistent with Council direction. The draft Land Use and Transportation Elements presented here were last reviewed by the City Council on May 1, 2017 and incorporates comments and direction from those meetings. Changes made in response to the Council’s direction are explained below and in Attachment E. A copy of the staff report is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57258 and minutes are available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57863. The draft Safety, Natural Resources, and Business & Economics Elements presented here were last reviewed by the City Council on May 15, 2017 (Safety & Natural Resources) and May 22, 2017 (Business & Economics). Changes made in response to the Council’s direction are explained below and in Attachment E. A copy of the staff report is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57709. When available, minutes can be found here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp. In all cases, the draft elements have been revised to reflect the Council’s comments and direction, as described further below. Discussion The City’s Comprehensive Plan addresses topics that are required under State law and topics that are optional. All of the required topics and most of the optional topics have been reviewed by the City Council in their review of individual elements. Additional optional sections are scheduled for their first review by the Council this evening and comprise an Introduction, a revision to the Governance chapter of the current Comp Plan, and an Implementation Chapter which introduces and describes the relative timing for implementation programs found in the elements of the plan. This staff report also provides a summary of changes to elements of the Comprehensive Plan Update based on the Council’s prior comments and direction (Attachment E), and asks the Council to refer the revised draft to the Planning & Transportation Commission for a recommendation. More explanation is provided below. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Draft Introduction The Introduction Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan provides an overview of the basic requirements, and format of the Plan, as well as the public participation and implementation processes. Subsections about the purpose and use and organization of the Comprehensive Plan sections describe the legal requirements for the Plan set forth by the State and have not changed substantially. The subsection on major themes has been updated to describe the current planning challenges and opportunities addressed by this update, specifically, the themes of “meeting housing supply challenges” and “protecting and sustaining the natural environment.” A new section –“maintaining a safe community” – has been added to reflect the new, separate Safety Element. Also, the comprehensive plan update process section has been completely replaced with a description of the roles and contributions of the CAC, Council and PTC to the Plan’s overall structure, vision, goals, policies and programs. This section also describes the Plan’s community engagement framework, including the Summit and Open City Hall. Draft Governance Chapter Substantive changes recommended to the Governance Chapter mostly focus on the new technologies and tools for citizen participation that have been developed since the last Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Other recommended changes focus on improving clarity and reducing redundancy. Specifically: Narrative portions of the chapter were moved to the beginning in keeping with the structure of the other elements and were edited and revised for clarity and sequence. Policies and programs under Goal G-1, Public Participation, were revised to reflect new technologies and current communication tools. A new policy regarding transparency and accountability was added. Policies and programs under Goal G-2, Civic and Neighborhood Organizations, were revised to better address interaction between the City and neighborhood organization to emphasize two-way communication. (See Policy G2.3.) The title of Goal G-3 was changed from Regional Leadership to Regional Collaboration to reflect the CAC’s desire that City officials prioritize local issues rather than striving to be a leader at the regional level. Goal G-4 about Volunteerism was shortened to stress the value of volunteering, and the programs under this goal were consolidated. The wording of Goal G-5, Managing Change, was updated to reflect current approaches to stakeholder collaboration. The title of Goal G-6 was changed from Process Management to Development Review, as the policies are focused on functional, well-defined and participatory development review processes. An existing policy about the role of the PTC and ARB was revised based on CAC input and moved from Goal G-1 to Goal G-6 because it focuses on the planning and design review process. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Draft Implementation Chapter Councilmembers should carefully review the short narrative section of the Implementation Chapter. This narrative explains how programs implement the Comp Plan and how the timing of that implementation is established by decision-makers based on evolving priorities and available resources. The narrative clarifies that it may not be feasible to implement all of the programs over the 15 year life of the plan. This means that the City will have to prioritize, and the text acknowledges that priorities will have to be adjusted from time to time. The narrative also calls on the PTC to conduct an annual review of the plan as required by State law, and concludes with a caveat: “The Implementation Plan was designed to advance the overarching vision and themes of the Comprehensive Plan. The City recognizes there are resource constraints and a need to focus those resources.” The table of implementing actions included with this transmittal is still a work in progress. For this reason, staff would prefer that the Council reserve its comments on the table until their final review of the entire plan in the fall. By then, the table will have been updated to accurately reflect (and repeat) all the programs from the other elements/sections of the plan. Similar to the current draft, the final table will also identify the relative level of effort and a relative priority (in terms of timeframe) for each program based on what we know today. (The current draft was developed by staff with input from a subcommittee of the CAC and the full CAC.) Summary of Changes to Transportation, Land Use & Other Elements Attachment E contains details from City Council motions directing changes to the Land Use, Transportation, Natural Resources, Safety, and Business & Economics Elements.1 In each case, staff and consultants have indicated how the Council’s directed changes have resulted in additions, deletions, or modifications to the updated elements. Most of the changes are straight forward, and a small number are highlighted below.2 Autonomous Vehicles The Council requested a policy on autonomous vehicles and staff is suggesting the following policy be included in the Transportation Element: 1 Changes to the Community Services Element were based on Council comments, and not a formal motion, so that element has not been included in Attachment E. 2 Please note that staff has not had time to update the data included in the narrative section of the Draft Business & Economics Element. The data will be reviewed with budget staff and the charts will be updated prior to the PTC’s review. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Policy T-1.5: “Support the introduction of fleets of autonomous, shared, electric motor vehicles with the goals of improving roadway safety (especially for vulnerable road users), improving traffic operations, supporting core mass transit routes, reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing transportation opportunities for the disadvantaged, and reclaiming valuable land dedicated to motor vehicle transportation and parking.” [New Policy] This language recognizes that innovations in technology may lead to positive change, but could also lead to more driving, traffic, and greenhouse gas emissions if we’re not careful. Thus, the emphasis is on shared, electric autonomous vehicles, as well as safety, environmental, and societal goals. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) and Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Council directed staff to “explore” use of MMLOS, which required further adjustments to Program T2.3.1 to retain a commitment to using intersection LOS to assess conformance with the Comprehensive Plan after it is no longer a part of the CEQA process. With modifications, the program now reads: Program T2.3.1: “When adopting new CEQA significance thresholds for compliance with SB 743 (2013), adopt standards for vehicular LOS and also adopt explore desired standards for multi-modal levels of service (MMLOS), which includes motor vehicle LOS, at signalized intersections for use in evaluating the consistency of a proposed project with the Comprehensive Plan.” Transportation Mitigation & Transportation Impact Fees Concurrent with the draft transportation element, staff has been working with consultants to prepare the Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan Update and to prepare a nexus study that would allow the City to update and consolidate its transportation impact fees. Based on this work, staff has incorporated a number of modest changes to the programs in the Transportation Element excerpted below: Program T1.2.2: “Formalize Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements by ordinance and require new developments above a specific size threshold by stablishing standards and guidelines that outline when new development should be required to prepare and implement a TDM Plan to meet specific and the performance standards. Require regular monitoring/reporting and provide for enforcement with meaningful penalties for noncompliance. The ordinance should also: o Establish a list of effective TDM measures that include transit promotion, prepaid transit passes, commuter checks, car sharing, carpooling, parking cash-out, bicycle lockers and showers, shuttles to Caltrain,, requiring TMA membership, and education and outreach to support the use of these modes. City of Palo Alto Page 7 o Allow property owners to achieve reductions by contributing to citywide or employment district shuttles or other proven transportation programs that are not directly under the property owner’s control. o Provide a system for incorporating alternative measures as new ideas for TDM are developed. o Establish a mechanism to monitor the success of TDM measures and track the cumulative reduction of daily peak period motor vehicle trips. TDM measures should at a minimum achieve the following reduction in daily peak period motor vehicle trips, with a focus on single-occupant vehicle trips. Reductions should be based on the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category: - 50 45 percent reduction in the Downtown district - 35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area - 30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park - 30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor - 20 percent reduction in other areas of the city o Require new development projects to pay a Transportation Impact Fee for all those daily motor vehicle trips that cannot be reduced via TDM measures. Fees collected would be used for capital improvements aimed at reducing vehicle trips and traffic congestion. which will be used to offset or reduce impacts to congestion citywide to the extent feasible through transit services, shuttles, similar public services, bicycle lanes, and other capital improvements that enhance multimodal travel.” Program T1.24.1: “As part of the effort to reduce traffic congestion, regularly evaluate the City’s current Transportation Impact Fee and modify as needed to implement transportation infrastructure improvements projects. Modifications to the impact fee program should be structured in keeping with the City’s desire to require new development to reduce daily motor vehicle trips , and consider new fees that new development projects must pay to the City for use in reducing roadway congestion impacts to the extent feasible through TDM plans and by contributions to the provision of transit services, shuttles, carpool/rideshare incentives, bicycle lanes, and similar programs and capital improvements.” School Impacts The Council requested retention of a policy from the current Comprehensive Plan about school impacts and staff is suggesting the following updated version (to reflect State law) be included as a policy in the Land Use Element (rather than the Community Services Element): City of Palo Alto Page 8 Policy L-2.11: “Ensure regular coordination between the City and PAUSD on land development activities and trends in Palo Alto, as well as planning for school facilities and programs. Under State law, impacts on school facilities cannot be the basis for requiring mitigation beyond the payment of school fees or for denying development projects or legislative changes that could result in additional housing units. The City will, however, assess the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of development projects that result in new school construction or enrollment.” [Revision of Previous Policy C-6 and related Programs] Historic Resources In November 2016, Councilmember Holman had requested a number of edits and clarifications to policies and programs related to historic resources and these were never memorialized in a Council motion. Then on May 1, 2017, the Council asked staff to consider adjustments to Policy L-7.2, which seemed overly broad. As a result, staff has clarified the programs and policies to clarify that there are four historic districts, not two and the State Historic Building Code is available to historic resources, and has modified Policy L-7.2 as follows: Policy L-7.2: “If a proposed development project would substantially affect the exterior of a potential historic resource that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, City staff shall consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in the City’s State or federal registers prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations permit. Minor exterior improvements that do not affect the architectural integrity of potentially historic buildings shall be exempt from consideration. Examples of minor improvements may include repair or replacement of features in kind, or other changes that do not alter character-defining features of the building.” This policy focuses on structures that are eligible for State or federal registers rather than the local inventory because City staff would be performing the evaluation and Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code gives the Council, and not the staff, the authority to determine whether buildings are eligible for listing on the local inventory. Urban Forest = Natural Infrastructure On May 1, 2017, the Council directed staff to research past direction about characterizing the urban forest as infrastructure and elevate the importance of this concept. The Council’s prior direction on this issue, provided in a motion directing measures to incorporate into Comp Plan EIR Scenarios 5 and 6, was to use the term “natural infrastructure” and this has been incorporated in Policy N2-1 as follows: Policy N2-1: “Recognize the importance of the urban forest as a vital part of the City’s natural and green infrastructure network that contributes to public health, resiliency, City of Palo Alto Page 9 habitat values, appreciation of natural systems and an attractive visual character which must be protected and enhanced.” [NEW POLICY] [N1] Review by the Planning & Transportation Commission The Palo Alto Municipal Code (Section 19.04.080) describes two processes for adoption of a comprehensive plan update which reflect the state law as it existed in 1955. One process involves the Planning Commission adopting the comprehensive plan update and certifying it to the City Council which would in turn adopt the plan. (Former Gov’t. Code sections 65506- 65510.) The second process involves the City Council initiating the comprehensive plan amendment. (Former Gov’t. Code section 65511.) This later process is the one applicable to the Comp Plan Update underway. In 2006, the City Council initiated the Comp Plan Update. Under the applicable process, the City Council refers the proposed changes or additions to the comprehensive plan to the Planning & Transportation Commission for a report. (Former Gov’t. Code section 65512.) Before making its report, the PTC must hold at least one noticed public hearing. (Former Gov’t. Code section 65512.) The PTC has 90 days from the date of the Council referral to submit its report; after that date the proposed change or addition is deemed approved by the PTC. (Former Gov’t. Code section 65513.) The City Council must then hold at least one noticed public hearing prior to adoption. This process is similar to the one under current state law, which provides that the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on proposed comprehensive plan amendments, and the City Council alone is empowered to adopt such amendments. Under current state law, however, the Planning Commission has only 45 days after council referral to submit its report. (Gov’t. Code section 65356.) By following the prior law incorporated into the Municipal Code, the PTC review period would be 90 days. Staff is proposing that the 90 days begin when the PTC receives the Council’s referral, which will be on or before June 30. Policy Implications & Relationship to Other City Plans The Comprehensive 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 is also meant to support at a general level other, more specific issue- oriented plans such as: the Urban Forest Master Plan; the Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan; the Baylands Master Plan; the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; and the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan. Some of these plans have already been adopted, some are still in progress and all are expected to be amended from time to time over the life of this Comp Plan. This draft of the Comp Plan strives to be consistent with the adopted versions of the city’s more specific issue-oriented plans. It is intended that these specific issue-oriented plans and the Comp Plan will continue to be consistent as they are amended over time. City of Palo Alto Page 10 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 Tonight’s hearing provides an opportunity for review of remaining sections of the plan and for a referral of the entire revised Comp Plan to the Planning and Transportation Commission. The City Council will review a full draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update and a Final EIR following receipt of a recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Upcoming events and next steps are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1: Timeline and Next Steps for Council and PTC Date Topics/Action Requested June 12, 2017 Council Review of draft Introductory Materials/Governance and referral to the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) July/Aug/Sep 2017 PTC Review & Recommendation Regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan Update Oct/Nov/Dec 2017 Council Receipt of the PTC’s recommendation and the Final EIR for consideration and action Oct/Nov/Dec/Jan/Feb PTC and City Council consideration of initial implementing actions Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, May 2017 As noted in Table 1, staff is hoping to bring the City Council a short list of implementing actions either concurrent with or immediately following plan adoption. At present, staff anticipates the list will address the following policies/programs: Adopt an updated Transportation Impact Fee ordinance (Program T1.24.1); Increase residential densities (Programs L2.4.1 and L2.4.7) and provide incentives for small dwelling units; (Policy L-2.3) Provide incentives to preserve cottage clusters and similar existing, smaller units; (policies L-2.3 and L-3.3) Convert some commercial density (FAR) to residential FAR in appropriate areas like Downtown and California Avenue (Program L2.4.4); Initiate a Coordinated Area Plan for the Fry’s area (Program L4.8.1); and Initiate discussions with Stanford regarding housing in the Research Park, Shopping Center, and SUMC vicinity (Program L2.4.3). City of Palo Alto Page 11 Environmental Review A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared; it will respond to comments on the Draft EIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR and describe the “preferred scenario” based on the Council’s input on March 27, 2017 and May 1, 2017. The Final EIR must be completed and certified before the City Council can take action to approve the Comprehensive Plan Update. Currently, the Final EIR is anticipated to be published in late July 2017 to be available for PTC hearings in August alongside their review of the draft Comprehensive Plan. The Council would then take action on the EIR as part of their final review and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in fall/winter 2017. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Introduction Chapter_ Tracked (PDF) Attachment B: Draft Governance_Tracked (PDF) Attachment C: Draft Implementation Chapter_tracked (PDF) Attachment D: Glossary_052517_June12CC_Tracked (PDF) Attachment E: Council Motions Table_w_links (PDF) Attachment F: CAC Comments and Minutes (PDF) Attachment G: Draft Comprehensive Plan Elements June 1 2017 (Hard Copy only for Council) (PDF) INTRODUCTION CACCOUNCIL DRAFT – MARCH 17JUNE 12, 2017 I-1 1 This draft Element presents changes made to the Existing Comp Plan Element, in response to CAC recommendation on May 16, 2017. I PURPOSE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains the City’s official policies on land use and community design, transportation, housing, natural environment, safety, business and economics, and community services. Its policies apply to both public and private properties. Its focus is on the physical form of the city. The Plan is used by the City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission to evaluate land use changes and to make funding and budget decisions. It is used by City staff to regulate building and development and to make recommendations on projects. It is used by citizens and neighborhood groups to understand the City’s long-range plans and proposals for different geographic areas. The Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and the foundation for its capital improvements program. VISION: Each of us has a vision of what Palo Alto should be like in the future. Although our visions are different, they share common qualities. We aspire to create a safe, beautiful City for ourselves, our children, and future generations. We envision a City with diverse housing opportunities and a sustainable transportation network, where the natural environment is protected, where excellent services are provided, and where citizens have a say in government. We aspire to create a City that is economically healthy and a good place to do business. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan strives to build a coherent vision of the City’s future from the visions input of a diverse population. It integrates the aspirations of the City’s residents, businesses, neighborhoods, and officials into a bold strategy for managing change. The Comprehensive Plan is the primary tool for guiding the future development of the City. On a daily basis the City is faced with tough choices about growth, housing, transportation, neighborhood improvement, and service delivery. A Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for making these choices by describing long-term goals for the City’s future as well as policies to guide day-to-day decisions. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTRODUCTION I-2 REVISED CAC COUNCIL DRAFT – MARCH 17JUNE 12, 2017 The Comprehensive Plan is a legal document and must meet specific State requirements for content. State law establishes the topics that must be addressed and the maps and diagrams the Plan must contain. The Plan must be comprehensive, long-range, and internally consistent. Its policies apply to all property within Palo Alto’s “sphere of influence,” a boundary that includes all land within the City limits,limit, the Stanford University campus, and other property in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Although the County is not obligated to comply with the Plan in the unincorporated area, mutual cooperation provides benefits to the City, County, and University. The 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement between the City, the County, and University outlines this cooperation. MAJOR THEMES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan has seveneight major themes, summarized here. BUILDING COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS Palo Alto’s diverse, livable neighborhoods are the building blocks of the community. Public facilities, schools, libraries, parks, public facilitiesarts and community centers and small businesses, and cultural, environmental, social service and neighborhood associations are an essential partcomponents of neighborhood life and help build the bridge between neighborhoodneighborhoods and the wider community. The City is committed to building upon the strengths of its neighborhoods, keeping them safe and attractive, maintaining a distinct identity for each, and delivering top-quality community services tothat meet the needs of and benefit all residents. MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING COMMUNITY CHARACTER The community treasures the special qualities of the city, including its historic buildings, pedestrian scale, high-quality architecture, thriving urban forest, and beautiful streets and parks. Maintaining the physical qualities of the city is an overarching consideration, incorporated in all parts of the Plan. The Land Use and Community Design Element includes specific provisions to maintain Palo Alto’s best features and enhance and improve those areas where these features are lacking. Future land use decisions will encourage sustainable development, preserve neighborhoods and focus infill within the Urban Service Area. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTRODUCTION REVISED CACCOUNCIL DRAFT – MARCH 17 JUNE 12, 2017 I-3 REDUCING RELIANCE ON THE AUTOMOBILE The Plan provides new policies and specific actions for reducing the impacts of cars on the environment and improving options for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.traffic congestion and auto emissions by facilitating an increase in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use and encouraging evolving technologies like electric vehicles. In the future, a greater emphasis will be placed on improving the City’s multi-modal transit stations. New light rail, shuttle bus, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities are envisioned.Expanded Caltrain service, bus service, shuttles, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities are envisioned. In coordination with other transportation demand management initiatives, the Plan provides parking-related policies and parking management strategies that optimize use of existing spaces. Caltrain grade separations will be prioritized to improve east-west connections for automobiles, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and to reduce traffic congestion, improve safety, and reduce noise impacts. The City will strive to create a development pattern where people can walk, bicycle or take public transit rather than drive, and will work collaboratively to find regional solutions that reduce single-occupant vehicle trips. MEETING HOUSING SUPPLY CHALLENGES Palo Alto is perceived as a built-out city. Increasing the and has a substantially higher number of jobs than residents. This imbalance has contributed to skyrocketing housing supply and maintaining the costs, affecting long-time and new residents and creating concern about Palo Alto’s future diversity and quality. Providing a mix of Palo Alto's housing stock are challenges. This Comprehensivetypes is a community priority and this Plan seeks to meet these challenges by increasingincrease the supply of housing at all price levels.that is affordable. The Plan also safeguards existing single family neighborhoods and rental housing. It proposes new map designations, encourages smaller units such as studios and cottages, and sets the stage for redevelopment where higher densities are allowed in appropriate locations and includes new policies to ensure that the remaining housing sites are used efficiently. The Housing Element is updated more frequently than the rest of this Plan and must respond to very specific State requirements. PROTECTING AND REPAIRINGSUSTAINING THE NATURAL FEATURESENVIRONMENT With most of the baylands and foothills already protected as permanent open space, the Comprehensive Plan’s focus turns inward to the fragile ecosystems within developed portions of the City. The City’s creeks, many of which have been altered PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTRODUCTION I-4 REVISED CAC COUNCIL DRAFT – MARCH 17JUNE 12, 2017 by flood control projects, are envisioned as greenbelts and community gateways. A pilot project in urban creek restoration is identified. The Plan also emphasizes the benefits of street trees and promotes an urban forest throughout the City.The natural infrastructure, which includes a network of trees, open spaces, parks and other green spaces, and the connections between them, will provide access to nature. The City’s urban forest, which benefits humans, plants, animals, and microorganisms, will be promoted throughout the city. The Plan fosters energy and water conservation, healthy soils, and a sustainable water supply. During the life of this Plan, climate change is expected to affect Palo Alto’s physical infrastructure and natural ecology. To minimize these impacts, and to protect the natural environment, Palo Alto will maintain a holistic approach to managing its creek corridors, habitat areas, and green infrastructure, which have been a source of civic pride. Implementation of the climate change adaptation strategies identified in the Plan will ensure that Palo Alto meets today’s needs without compromising the needs of future generations. KEEPING PALO ALTO PREPARED Like every community, Palo Alto is subject to the unpredictability of future natural and human-caused hazards. Particularly in the face of climate change, the Plan implements a range of adaptive improvements that will ensure the City’s natural and built infrastructure are resilient. The Plan also reinforces the City’s commitment to preparing for emergencies, raising awareness of risks, and minimizing the impacts of these hazards to Palo Alto residents and visitors alike. The framework in the Plan complements the City’s existing disaster preparedness strategies and balances a complex series of safety-related factors through the adoption of best practices and technological innovations, as well as through coordination with relevant organizations. The City believes that safety begins internally, and the Plan affirms education, awareness and action at the neighborhood level. MEETING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS Palo Alto is well known as a desirable residential community and as a City with a healthy, competitivedynamic, vital business community. Meeting the demandsneeds of eachall facets of the community is a major theme of the Plan. The Plan establishes the physical boundaries of residential and commercial areas and sets limits where necessary to ensureensures that business and housing remain compatible. and interdependent. It encourages commercial enterprise, but not at the expense of the City’s residential a thriving business community that provides services to local residents and revenue to the City while also working to protect neighborhoods. and PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTRODUCTION REVISED CACCOUNCIL DRAFT – MARCH 17 JUNE 12, 2017 I-5 the environment. The City is committed to retaining existing businesses, maintaining vitalvibrant commercial areas, and attracting quality newinnovative small and independent businesses. PROVIDING RESPONSIVE GOVERNANCE AND REGIONAL LEADERSHIP The Plan emphasizes the City’s commitment to strong community participation. It encourages collaboration among citizens, businesses, neighborhood associations, service organizations, and local officials. It affirmsacknowledges Palo Alto’s role as a leaderan effective participant in addressing planning issues and initiatives at a regional issuesscale. USE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan is to be used by all members of the community, as well as any other person or organization interested in the future of the city. The hundreds of citizens and officials who have preparedparticipated in the preparation of the Plan hope you will find it a useful, clear and easy -to-read document understand. A key concept in each Element of the Plan is the idea of a Vision for Palo Alto—a shared dream of Palo Alto in the future. A vision is not a binding goal, and in fact may not be achievable in the lifetime of those participating in drafting the Comprehensive Plan, or even the next generation. However, The long-term idealisticaspirational thinking embodied in each vision statement was the foundation of the development of the Plan. State law requires that local plans contain seven mandatory sections, or “elements.” The State provides considerable flexibility in how these elements are organized. The table at leftTable 1 shows the State-mandated elements and their counterparts in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan addresses all the topics required by State law but, as permitted by the law, has tailored the organization of the topics to the Palo Alto context. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTRODUCTION I-6 REVISED CAC COUNCIL DRAFT – MARCH 17JUNE 12, 2017 TABLE 1 STATE-MANDATED AND PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS* State-Mandated Element Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Element Land Use Land Use & Community Design Circulation Transportation Housing Housing (adopted 2015) Open Space ConservationSafety Noise Natural Environment Safety Safety Optional Elements Business & Economics Community Services & Facilities * This table shows the Elements of the Comprehensive Plan; other components that are not Elements are described below. Palo Alto’s Plan departs fromutilizes the structure suggestedflexibility allowed by the Statestate law to include local goals and issues in a number of ways. The scope of the Land Use Element has been broadened to address community design. The Natural Environment Element incorporates open space, conservation, public safety and noise.energy, climate change and noise. The Safety Element encompasses both natural and human-caused threats to public safety. The Plan also includes a Business and Economics Element and a Community Services and Facilities Element. Although these two elements address topics that are not required by State law, the issues they address are fundamental to the future quality of life in Palo Alto. Once adopted, the optional elements have the same legal status as the mandatory elements. No single element or subject supersedes any other. The Elements of the Plan share a common format and use similar terms and references. Each Element contains background information on specific subjects to make the Comprehensive Plan more useful as a reference document and to provide the technical basis for its policies and programs. Each Element contains maps that provide current information about the City, or graphic illustrations of the City’s policies for specific geographic and topical areas, or theas well as sidebars to PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTRODUCTION REVISED CACCOUNCIL DRAFT – MARCH 17 JUNE 12, 2017 I-7 highlight major proposals for transportation, public facilities and environmental protectionthemes and concepts. Each Element includes goals, policies, and programs that are the essence of the Plan and are to be consultedprovide a framework to guide decisions on a wide range of issues. As you use this Comprehensive Plan, keep in mind that the goals, policies and programs are just as important as the maps in making land use and development decisions. To be consistent with the Plan, a project must not only be permitted on the Land Use and Circulation Map, it must also meet the intent of the Plan’s policies. The meaning of goals, policies and programs is described below. A Goal is a general end towards which the City will direct effort. A Policy is a specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental agency sets to follow, in order to meet its goals and objectives before undertaking an action program. A Program is an action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to an adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective. Programs require resources—primarily time and money—to complete. This is a long-range plan and the City intends to implement these programs over time. The Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council will conduct regular reviews of the Implementation chapter to prioritize programs for implementation. OTHER CONCEPTSCOMPONENTS OF THE PLAN The Land Use and CirculationDesignations Map is included by reference as a part of this document. It is probably the most familiar part of the Plan and identifies land use designations for each property in the city. The type of development allowed within each designation shown on the Map is described in the Land Use and Community Design Element. The Plan includes a Governance Chapter intended to provide guidance to citizens and community groups participating in the planning process.City decision-making. The Governance Chapter is a vehicle for implementation rather than a Plan element and is, therefore, not subject to the State requirements for consistency and comprehensiveness. It is background information, not policy direction. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTRODUCTION I-8 REVISED CAC COUNCIL DRAFT – MARCH 17JUNE 12, 2017 The Plan also includes an Implementation Chapter that identifies specific actions to be taken to carry out the Plan. For each action, the timing, fundingpriority, anticipated level of effort, and responsible agency or department is identified. Like Governance, the Implementation Chapter is not a Plan Element, but is intended as a description of the steps to be taken in order to achieve the Plan’s goals. In the Appendix is the Housing Element Technical Document, which contains detailed information on the City’s housing programs; as well as one or more concept plans which contain policies specific to key areas of the City. A Glossary and Index are provided for reference. Although not a component of this Plan, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for this Plan and is contained in a separate document. The EIR evaluates the effects of the Plan’s policies and programs on Palo Alto’s environment. It identifies where more detailed environmental analysis may be required as specific projects are proposed in the future. HOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS DEVELOPED The Comprehensive Plan (Our Palo Alto 2030) is the product of an over fivea multi- year effort that involved hundreds of Palo Alto residents and other interested parties. Early in this effort,As a city that experiences acute development pressures associated with its location in the heart of Silicon Valley, issues such as traffic congestion, housing affordability, and environmental protection are important to its residents, and contributed to strong interest in the Comprehensive Plan Update process. Palo Alto recognized the need to update the Plan in 2006 and began the process in earnest in 2008, when a consultant was retained to work with staff and the City’s Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). The 2015-2023 Housing Element was created and adopted through a separate process to meet State legal deadlines. The first phase of the process focused on Concept Area Plans for two parts of Palo Alto most likely to change over the next 10 to 15 years: the California Avenue area, including the Fry’s Electronics site; and the East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way area. City staff reached out to key stakeholders, interest groups, residents, neighborhood organizations, business representatives, home owners’ associations, school district representatives and other interested parties who desired to be involved in the update process. The draft Concept Area Plans are intended to preserve space for PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTRODUCTION REVISED CACCOUNCIL DRAFT – MARCH 17 JUNE 12, 2017 I-9 small businesses, preserve of retail and community services to support new residential growth, and incorporate sustainability concepts. The PTC’s review of the Comprehensive Plan continued from 2010 to 2013 and was provided to the City Council in early 2014. The PTC focused on organizational changes to delete redundancies and make the text more accessible and user friendly, emphasizing the existing Comprehensive Plan themes and ensuring they were represented throughout document, as well as increasing the emphasis on environmental sustainability issues. After considering the PTC’s work product, in early 2014, the City Council adopted a schedule and strategy for “reframing” the long-running update to include expanded community engagement and a full evaluation of alternatives, cumulative impacts, and mitigation strategies. A Leadership Group of local citizens formed in 2014 to advise City staff on community engagement portion of the planning process. The Group met monthly between late 2014 and mid-2015 and was a key resource in planning engagement activities. At the May 30, 2015 Summit, the City hosted a gathering of over 350 community members that included presentations, informational booths, and small group discussions. Participants brainstormed approaches for managing growth, improving the jobs-housing balance, preserving ground-floor retail, providing a diversity of housing types, encouraging transportation innovations, and reimagining the future of the City’s major transit corridors. . Following the Summit, the Council appointed a 38-member Comprehensive Plan the Citizens Advisory Committee (CPACCAC) made up of 28 community members, 10 alternates, and 9 representatives of boards and commissions. A professional facilitation firm was retained to direct the CPAC’s work and lead other aspects of 22 community members, plus 3 non-voting members representing Stanford University, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and the PTC. On a monthly basis over almost two years, from July 2015 to May 2017, the full CAC held 23 public involvement. Additional consultants were utilized to provide expertise in the areas of the environment, traffic, noise, air quality, geotechnical conditions, cultural resources, biology, urban design, graphic design, and editing.meetings, and CAC subcommittees held 29 public meetings, to advise the Council on incorporating PTC input and other changes to the existing Comprehensive Plan policies and programs. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTRODUCTION I-10 REVISED CAC COUNCIL DRAFT – MARCH 17JUNE 12, 2017 At these meetings, the CAC considered public comment and discussed critical issues to arrive at their recommendations regarding the policies and programs for each of the Plan’s seven Elements or to propose policy options for Council consideration. The CPAC developed the Vision Statements and prepared the draft Goals, Policies and Programs based on a series of meetings, newsletters, educational forums, telephone surveys, video "Outreach Kits" and weekend workshops, as well as hearings before City Boards and Commissions including the Planning Commission and City Council. The document itself was written by synthesizing the extensive public input, including more than 1,000 directives, ranging from broad visions for the City's future to detailed programs for specific sites. These were refined and reorganized to establish a cohesive planning document. These directives have been supplemented with maps, text and graphics to create a plan that articulates the City’s aspirations and expectations for the future. Over the course of 2016 and 2017, the Council reviewed and provided direction on the draft Elements forwarded by the CAC. The PTC reviewed a complete draft Plan in summer and fall 2017, and the Council considered and incorporated PTC input at final adoption hearings in late 2017. The Comp Plan was adopted on [date.] IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through the actions of City staff, the Planning Commission, other Boards and Commissions, and the City Council. Plan policies will be carried out through the adoption and revision of ordinances like the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations, through annual budgeting and capital improvement programming, through the empowerment of neighborhood and community groups, and through on-going decisions on future development proposals. Long-range planning in Palo Alto does not end with the adoption of this document. It is important to continue the steps necessary to bring forth the vision of the Plan. As such, decisions about development projects, capital improvements, subdivision maps, specific plans, area plans, and other plans and policies affecting land use, transportation, and the physical environment will be reviewed to evaluate consistency with the Plan, thus advancing its vision and policy framework. The Plan is intended to be a living document, to grow and change evolve as local conditions change. In fact, the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the Planning CommissionPTC to review the Comprehensive Plan annually and recommend to the City Council any PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTRODUCTION REVISED CACCOUNCIL DRAFT – MARCH 17 JUNE 12, 2017 I-11 modifications that it considers necessary. Additionally, the City Council may change the prioritization of programs through the regular five-year review cycle of the Implementation Plan. It may, at times, be necessary to amend the Plan. While mostsome amendments change the land use designation of a particular property, any part of the Plan may be amended as circumstances change. Amendments may be initiated by property owners, the Planning CommissionPTC, the City Council, or City staff. All amendments require public hearings by the Planning CommissionPTC and City Council and evaluation of the environmentalpotential impacts to Palo Altos’ physical environment, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Only through continuing to use, evaluate and amend the Plan on a regular basis can Palo Alto reach towards the vision sought by all the dedicated people who contributed to the development of the Plan. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTRODUCTION I-12 REVISED CAC COUNCIL DRAFT – MARCH 17JUNE 12, 2017 GOVERNANCE COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 G-1 9 This draft Element presents changes made to the Existing Comp Plan Element, in response to CAC recommendation on May 16, 2017. G. INTRODUCTION The Governance chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is a non-mandatory section that addresses community involvement and participation in the city planning process. It is not an Element of the Plan. The chapter provides background information and guidance to citizens and neighborhood groups seeking to participate in this process. It also provides guidance to those carrying out the policies and programs in this Plan. The chapter is intended as a vehicle for implementation rather than a Plan “element” in the traditional and legal sense. Consequently, it is not subject to the State requirements for consistency and comprehensiveness that apply to the eElements arlier sections of the Plan. The Governance chapter begins by describing the framework within which local planning decisions are made. It profiles the City’s governing bodies and major departments as well as the funding sources for municipal activities. This sets the stage for the goals, policies, and programs that follow. VISION: Palo Alto will maintain a positive civic image and be a leader in the regional, state, and national policy discussions affecting the community. The City will work with neighboring communities to address common concerns and pursue common interests. The public will be actively and effectively involved in City affairs, both at the Citywide and neighborhood levels. Where appropriate, the City Council will delegate decision-making responsibilities to local boards and commissions. The Council will also assign advisory roles to these bodies as well as other community groups. Residents, businesses, and elected and appointed officials will work collaboratively to address the issues facing the City in a timely manner. This inclusive, participatory process will help build a sense of community. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE G-2 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 FRAMEWORK FOR LOCAL DECISION-MAKING FORM OF GOVERNMENT Palo Alto was incorporated as a Chartered City in 1909. The City has adopted a strong City Council/City Manager form of government. In 2014, residents voted to reduce the size of the City Council from nine members to seven, a change effective in 2018. Each City Council member serves a four-year term, with a mayor and vice- mayor who are elected to one-year terms by their fellow Council members. The City Council has two three standing committees: the Finance Committee, and the Policy and Services Committee, and City/School Liaison Committee. In addition to their legislative duties, Council members represent the City on a variety of local, county, regional, and statewide boards, commissions and other organizations. These include the Santa Clara County Cities Association, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), among others. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS The City Council has created a number of boards and commissions to advise the Council on policy issues. With the support of a series of temporary citizen committees that advise on specific projects and issues, these standing groups serve a variety of specific functions such as development review, protection of historic resources, and youth relations. The purpose and membership specifics of each board and commission are summarized in Table G-1 below. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Palo Alto citizens are highly engaged in the work of the City. There are numerous opportunities for public participation in the decisions and policies of local government. These range from in-person meetings and community workshops, to online technologies to mobile applications. Citizens can serve on boards and commissions, as well as issue-specific committees that address programs and activities across the City. Every City Council meeting also offers the opportunity PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE CITY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 G-3 TABLE G8-1 CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Board or Commission No. of Members Term Length (Years) Requirements for Membership Purpose Supporting Department or Division Architectural Review Board (ARB) 5 3 City Council appointment; Aat least three architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals. DDesign review of all new construction of, and changes and additions to, commercial, industrial and multiple-family projects. Planning Division Historic Resources Board (HRB) 7 3 City Council appointment; aAt least three architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals; one owner/ occupant of a category one or two historic structure or structure in an historic district; and one possessor of an academic education or practical experience in history or related field. To rReview and make recommendations to the ARB and City Council on exterior changes to, and reclassifications of, buildings on the Historic Building Inventory. Planning Division Human Relations Commission (HRC) 7 3 City Council appointment of Palo Alto residents who are cy; not Council Members, officers, or employees of the City. To act with respect when any person or group does not benefit fully from public or private opportunities or resources in the community, or is treated unfairly or differently treated duewith respect to factors of concern to the Commission, including housing, employment, education and government services. Office of Human Services Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) 7 4 City Council appointment of Palo Alto residents who are not Council Members, officers, or employees of the City. MPrepare, adopt and make recommendations to the City Council on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinanceregarding development and transportation; zoning changes; subdivisions and appeals; and other policies affecting land use in Palo Alto. . Make recommendations to Council regarding land use policies & specific development applications. Planning Division Public Art Commission (PAC) 7 3 City Council appointment of individuals who are not Council Members, officers, or employees of the City, and who are either members of the ARB, experienced visual artists, and/or visual art educators, scholars or collectors. Acquire and site permanent works of art, specifically outdoor sculpture; and advise the City in matters pertaining to the quality, quantity, scope & style of art in public places. Arts and Cultural Division PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE G-4 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 TABLE G8-1 CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Board or Commission No. of Members Term Length (Years) Requirements for Membership Purpose Supporting Department or Division Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) 7 3 Utility customer or authorized representative of a utility customerUtility customers or authorized representatives of a utility customer, six of whom are Palo Residents. Provide advice on the development of electric, gas and water resources; joint action projects which involve such resources; and environmental implications of utilities projects, conservation and demand management. Utilities Department Library Advisory Commission 5 3 City Council- appointment of Palo Alto residents who are not Council Members, officers, or employees of the City. Advise the City Council on matters relating to the Palo Alto City Library, including planning and policy, state legislative proposals, budgeting, and community input. Planning Division Parks and Recreation Commission 7 3 City Council- appointment of individuals who have demonstrated interest in parks and open space matters, and who are not Council Members, officers, or employees of the City.. Advise the City Council on matters pertaining to the activities of the Open Space, Parks and Golf Division and the Recreation Division of the Community Services Department, including master planning and policy, state legislative proposals and community input. Planning Division Citizen Corps Council 8 + staff varies Representatives of civic, business, labor, veterans, professional or other organizations having an official emergency responsibility, as appointed by the director with consent of the City Council. Harness the power of individuals, businesses, and organizations through education, training and volunteer service to make communities resilient, safe, strong, and prepared to respond to and recover from threats. Office of Emergency Services PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 G-5 for citizens to speak about an agenda item or topic and to watch the proceedings on their local cable channel. Palo Alto recognizes the importance of inviting all residents into civic life. In such a diverse community, it is vital that all citizens feel comfortable participating, regardless of how long they have lived in Palo Alto, their national or ethnic background, or whether they rent or own. Palo Alto engages in two- way conversations with citizens across a variety of accessible technologies, including social media and dedicated online portals for direct citizen input. There are also a number of City mobile applications that citizens can download and use to report issues or problems they would like the City to address. Palo Alto maintains a transparent development review process that targets predictable outcomes, is user-friendly, and invites public involvement. Palo Alto continues to seek out new technologies, engagement opportunities and neighborhood communication programs that will allow interested residents to engage more effectively in the civic life of the City. Palo Alto invites and encourages the public to participate in local government affairs. Citizens may serve on boards and commissions and ad hoc committees addressing a variety of civic concerns. Meeting are open and highly interactive so that all members of the community may take part in shaping local decisions. The advent of electronic media and on-line services has created new opportunities for public input and participation. Palo Alto will continue to use these and other emerging technologies to improve access to information. The City will consider changes to the City Charter that would delegate more responsibility for land use decisions to the Planning Commission. Many land use decisions now require both Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Delegating more decision-making to the Planning Commission, subject to appeal to the City Council, would streamline the application process and relieve applicants of unnecessary proceedings. The City Council is committed to delegating more responsibilities to existing boards and commissions. The creation of new advisory bodies by either the City Manager or City Council, when a particular expertise or broader base of input is required, would allow PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE G-6 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 people who are interested to be more effectively engaged in and connected to the civic affairs of the community. Regular community input on relevant urban design issues can keep the City decision- makers and staff informed as to community concerns early in design processes and can facilitate the solution of urban design problems. SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS, CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS AND NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONSGROUPS Palo Alto encourages supports the formation and operation of programs to support neighborhood connectedness, and civic organizations, and volunteer service. Many individuals find it easier and more compelling to engage in neighborhood improvement, rather than citywide activities the best way to improve their city is to work at the neighborhood level or to get involved with a topic they feel strongly about. The City has developed a number of community-building initiatives that foster strong neighborhoods and build connections block by block. Many citywide objectives such as emergency preparedness and neighborhood beautification may be more easily achieved through the efforts of individual neighborhood and civic groups than they might be through a centralized City program Neighborhood organizations are the foundation of civic involvement for many residents, and provide residents with opportunities to learn about citywide issues on a localized scale. They also provide a useful means of relaying local priorities and concerns back to the City Council and others involved in City government. In addition to neighborhood groups, there are dozens of organizations providing services in child care, youth and senior activities, local schools, environmental protection, emergency response, and civic engagement. VOLUNTEERISM One of Palo Alto’s greatest assets is its highly motivated and talented citizenry. Residents offer their time and skills to the City in a variety of capacities, ranging from service on boards and commissions to construction of public improvements to delivery of services like recreation and elder care. The City is committed to continuinged and expandinged use of volunteers, and to developing young volunteers by exploring innovative, hands-on classroom programs coordinated with local schools. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 G-7 CITY DEPARTMENTS The City Council is served by four Council-appointed officers: the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Auditor. The organization of City departments and their major functions is illustrated in the following chart. Figure G-1 City of Palo Alto Organizational Chart PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE G-8 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 REGIONAL COLLABORATION Many issues affecting Palo Alto are best addressed are at the regional level in nature, by working collaboratively with other cities. Palo Alto believes that it has a responsibility to be an active participant in regional problem solving as these issues are addressed and resolved. The City will be a leader in regional problem-solving. BUDGET The City of Palo Alto’s budget as approved by the City Council reflects resource allocations consistent with City policies, goals, and priorities. It also communicates an action plan for the upcoming fiscal year to citizens and staff, including program goals and the standards by which the delivery of services to the public will be measured. Palo Alto maintains full transparency of its actual and adopted budgets. As part of the City’s Internet-based Open Data Portal, citizens are able to explore and analyze City expenses and revenues, each broken down by a series of user-selected filters such as Departments, expense/revenues types, funds, and fiscal years. The City’s budgets can be compared over time and the results downloaded in graphic form. The City uses a “mission-driven” budget process. Through this process, City services are grouped into functional areas and major activities, each with a defined mission and criteria for evaluat- ing howwell that mission is being achieved. Each City department must identify its customers and the services it provides to the public and other City departments. Major components of the budget include the General Fund and the Utilities Fund. General Fund revenues are generated by sales tax, property tax, and utility user tax collections, along with service fees and other revenues and transfers from the Utilities Fund. Expenditures include general City services (such as administration, fire, planning and public works), school district leases, capital projects, and debt service, among others. Utilities Fund revenues are generated through rates for various City services including water, sewer, gas, electric, refuse, and storm drainage. Expenditures cover the cost of providing these services. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 G-9 STRUCTURES OF DECISION MAKING The Palo Alto City Council performs two levels of decision-making: Legislative, meaning adopting local laws and regulations, and Quasi-Judicial, meaning applying existing local laws and regulations based on evidence and facts. Legislative decisions typically affect many different properties; examples include the adoption of a zoning code update or a Coordinated Area Plan. Quasi-judicial decisions usually affect individual applications being considered for approval; examples include a Conditional Use Permit or approval of a subdivision map. Both types of decision- making must occur within a public forum – Council meetings – and both must be based “on the record,” meaning Councilmembers are limited in their ability to receive information outside the hearing. A third level of City government decision-making is ministerial. Ministerial decisions are those that can be decided by applying an ordinance or regulation. These are objective, mandatory decisions to evaluate whether a project or application meets fixed standards and quantitative measurements: whether, for example, a new building has an adequate number of fire sprinklers. If a project meets the requirements, the City must allow it. Most ministerial decisions are made at the staff level and do not involve noticing or, and publicor public input is not required. MANAGING CHANGE Palo Alto intends to uphold its reputation as one of the country’s most livable cities. This will require that the City revisit the way that planning and development decisions are made from time to time. Although the City’s planning process is already open and inclusive, new ways to fine tune and modernize certain aspects of development reviewmay be desirable. In particular, the process could benefit by providing more opportunities to bring diverse community interests together prior to the design of individual projects. The City has identified the “coordinated area plan” as a tool for achieving this type of participation in the future. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOAL G-1 Effective opportunities for public participation in local government. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE G-10 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Policy G-1.1 Maintain public trust through transparency and accountability on planning issues. [New Program] Initiate a charter amendment for the ballot that would delegate specific final decision-making authority to the Planning Commission. [Previous Program G-1] Use advisory bodies and ad hoc committees to assist to assist City staff and the City on policy issues. [Previous Policy G-2] Policy G-1.2 Enhance communication between community members residents, neighborhood associations, other organizations and the City Council by providing access to information and opportunities for engagement through technology via electronic media and other methods. [Previous Policy G-3] Continue to hold regular, Town Hall-style meetings Program G1.2.1 in neighborhoods. [New Program] Periodically review the suite of engagement options Program G1.2.2 used to solicit citizen input and expertise on policy issues. Periodically assess the need for citizen input on various policy issues and appoint advisory bodies and ad hoc committees as needed. [Previous Program G-2] Use design workshops or charrettes to address design issues within the City. [Previous Program G-3] Establish Continue to rely on neighborhood Program G1.2.3 organizations, the City website, local media, online technologies and other communication platforms to keep residents informed of current issues and to encourage citizen engagementa City/neighborhood liaison system using electronic and print media to inform residents of current issues and facilitate resident feedback to the City Council and staff. [Previous Program G-4] Create electronic bulletin boards to increase opportunities for interaction between citizens and PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 G-11 government, including the posting of meeting agendas and other items of broad interest. [Previous Program G-5] Provide access to communications technologies at Program G1.2.4 City facilities, including public libraries and City Hall, and explore innovative locations for communication. advanced communication opportunities for the public at City libraries. [Previous Program G-6] Continue to release City Council staff reports to the Program G1.2.5 public up to 10 days prior to Council hearings to increase public awareness of City decision-making. [New Program] CIVIC AND NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS GOAL G-2 Informed and involved civic, cultural, environmental, social service and neighborhood organizations and residents. Policy G-2.1 Encourage the formation success of civic, cultural, environmental, social service and neighborhoodneighborhood organizations to in facilitatinge effective resident participation in the community. [Previous Policy G-4] Establish consistent definitions of neighborhood boundaries to facilitate notification and communication. [Previous Policy G-8] Policy G-2.2 Increase Establish and build relationships betweencoordination between City staff and non-profit or private civic, environmental, cultural, neighborhood and social service organizations by establishing and maintaining a variety of avenues for participation in the City’s decision-making framework. neighborhood groups to enhance communication between the two. [Previous Policy G-5 and Policy G-6, merged] Support participation by community organizations in the governing process. [Existing Policy G 6 – merged, above] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE G-12 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Prepare a handbook of information about neighborhood and civic organizations addressing subjects like earthquake preparedness, neighborhood beautification, event planning, communicate with City Hall, and guidelines for establishing and managing neighborhood and civic organizations. [Previous Program G-7] Where feasible, assist residents with neighborhood improvement, beautification, and planting projects. Work with neighborhood and civic organizations on emergency preparedness and security programs. [Previous Program G-10 – covered in Safety Element] Continue to offer the use of City facilities to non-Program G2.2.1 profit civic, environmental, cultural, neighborhood and social service organizations for meetings and events at discounted or complimentary rates and via sponsorship programs. [New Program] REGIONAL COLLABORATIONLEADERSHIP GOAL G-3 A Leadership Role onCollaboration Regionalwith regional issuespartners and support on regional issues. Policy G-3.1 Support active participation of City Council members, other City leaders, and City staff in the resolution of regional issues that are relevant to Palo Alto, including ongoing collaboration with the Palo Alto Unified School District. [Existing Policy G-7] Policy G-3.2 Encourage Palo Alto residents, civic organizations and businesses to actively participate in regional programs and organizations. [Existing Policy G-8] Recognize that crime is a regional problem and crime prevention requires multi-jurisdictional cooperation. [Previous Policy G-9] VOLUNTEERISM GOAL G-4 Active involvement of local citizens as volunteers in the delivery of community services. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 G-13 Policy G-4.1 Encourage citizen volunteers at all ages , including youth and seniors, to provide augment the delivery of community services. Where feasible, appropriate, allocate City staff time and resources to projects initiated by volunteers that could not otherwise be accomplished. [Previous Policy G-10] Continue and expand programs to enhance Program G4.1.1 volunteer opportunities for volunteer assistance and the community’s awareness of public and nonprofit organizations serving the City. [Previous Program G- 11 and G-12, merged] Continue and expand opportunities for public and nonprofit organizations serving the City to provide information about themselves to the public. [Previous Program G-12] Continue the program to Publicly recognize the Program G4.1.2 efforts of individuals, groups, and businesses that. who provide volunteer services within the City. [Previous Program G-13] Coordinate with the Palo Alto Unified School Program G4.1.3 District to develop classroom-based leadership, governance and civic participation programs. [New Program] Support the transition from school-based Program G4.1.4 volunteering to civic participation via outreach to parent volunteers and student leaders. [New Program] Coordinate with the real estate community to Program G4.1.5 develop a welcome package for new residents, containing City resources, information and ways to contribute to livability. [New Program] MANAGING CHANGE GOAL G-5 New Ways to EncourageStakeholder collaboration among the public, property owners, and the city in areas whereto effectively manage facilitate change is desired. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE G-14 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Policy G-5.1 Encourage the development of new planning, community advisory, social service, education and environmental improvement processes that emphasize collaborative exchanges and implementation of ideas. Retain City Council authority over decision- making in these processes.[Existing Policy G-2 and G--11] Establish a procedure that allows the City Council to initiate coordinated area plans for certain large areas that it has targeted for change. [Existing Program G-14] Explore opportunities to establish a process for developing precise development or economic revitalization plans for smaller areas, frequently with multiple ownership, where redevelopment, reuse, or redesign is needed. [Previous Program G-15] Encourage use of the Preliminary Development Review (pre- screening) Ordinance for specific development proposals that may require changes to current City policies. As appropriate, test and refine application of this Ordinance. [Previous Policy G-16] DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS MANAGEMENT GOAL G-6 More clearly defined procedures, standards, and expectations for development review. Policy G-6.1 Facilitate informed, focused and efficient review, analysis and recommendations on planning issues, regulations and projects. Use Delegate appropriate decision-making to the Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board, with an appeal process to the City Council, to advise staff and the Council on these topics. simplify and shorten the project review process for certain types of projects. [Previous Policy G-1] Policy G-6.2 Assist decision-makers, applicants, and residents with improved tools for understanding planning regulations. [Previous Policy G-12] Use illustrations and a “form code” to simplify the Zoning Ordinance, to make it more understandable to readers, and to promote well-designed neighborhoods. [Previous Program G-17] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 G-15 Provide clear information across multiple Program G6.2.1 communications platforms to guide citizens and businesses through the City review and approval process. [Previous Program G-18] Continue and expand customer-oriented process Program G6.2.2 improvement efforts. ] [Previous Program G-19] Use the pre-screening process to obtain early Program G6.2.3 feedback from the City Council and the community regarding ordinance changes intended to facilitate specific development proposals. [Previous Policy G-16] Develop, use, and update when necessary, design guidelines for various geographic areas of the City or types of projects to supplement the Architectural Review Board Ordinance. [Existing Program G-20] Continually educate and remind policy and decision-makers, staff, and the public about the distinction between quasi-judicial and legislative decision-making. [Previous Program G-21] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOVERNANCE G-16 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 IMPLEMENTATION COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 1 This Council draft chapter was recommended by the full CAC at their April 18, 2017 meeting. Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan will be implemented both through the day-to-day decisions that rely on its vision, goals, and policies, as well as the implementation programs identified in this chapter. All substantive decisions about development projects, capital improvements, zoning changes, and other plans and policies affecting land use, transportation, and the physical environment will be reviewed for conformance with this Comprehensive Plan, thus advancing the Plan’s overall vision and policy framework. To complement the implementation of this plan that will occur as a review of individual decisions are made, the City has identified a list of implementation programs intended to provide an overall sense of the priorities for future actions in support of accomplishing the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It provides the key mechanism to link Comprehensive Plan implementation to Palo Alto budget process, and it will ultimately be the yardstick against which Palo Alto can measure its Comprehensive Plan accomplishments. Introduction The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is the primary tool for guiding the future development of the City. Its Introduction describes the following seven major themes: Building Community and Neighborhoods Maintaining and Enhancing Community Character VISION: Palo Alto’s Implementation Plan is intended to provide an overall sense overview of the priorities for future actions in support of accomplishing to accomplish the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It provides the a key mechanism to link Comprehensive Plan implementation to Palo Alto’s budget process, and it will ultimately be the a yardstick against which Palo Alto can measure its Comprehensive Plan accomplishments. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 2 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Reducing Reliance on the Automobile Meeting Housing Supply Challenges Protecting and Repairing Natural Features Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs Providing Responsive Governance and Regional Leadership Priorities Zoning Ordinance The Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance forms a foundation for development and redevelopment in the City, but it has not had a comprehensive update for over twenty years. Nearly fifty of the Comprehensive Plan programs will be addressed by updating the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance has a major focus on Land Use and Community Design, and it touches on all of the seven major themes of the Plan listed above. An updated Zoning Ordinance will help build a base for dealing with two critical needs in both Palo Alto and the region - housing and transportation. Changes to the Zoning Ordinance can support the Comprehensive Plan's vision to aggressively pursue a variety of housing opportunities that enhance the character, diversity and vitality of the City". Because there is a strong link between land use and transportation, Zoning Ordinance changes can address, in part, our transportation problems by alte1ing underlying land use patterns and encouraging exploration of alternative transportation modes. Work on the Zoning Ordinance began in 1998, and it is planned that the new Zoning Ordinance will be complete within four years. Transportation Strategy The Comprehensive Plan calls for a total transportation strategy with emphasis on reducing reliance on the automobile. The strategy includes altering traffic and parking patterns, exploration of a local shuttle system, traffic calming, the allowance of higher density developments near multi-modal transit locations, and seeking regional transportation solutions. A main objective of the Transportation Strategy is to improve and increase local transit services in the near future. Establishment of a local shuttle system is being explored in 1999, and other local transit services need to be explored and assessed as well. In order to evaluate the most effective actions, cost/benefit analysis should be done for key transportation programs to guide Palo Alto's decisions. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 I-3 Coordinated Area Plans The Comprehensive Plan calls for creation of a number of Coordinated Area Plans and smaller area plans to guide evolution of sub-areas of the City. These area plans, too, will address a majority of the Comprehensive Plan's seven themes. A Coordinated Area Plan for the South of Forest Avenue/ Palo Alto Medical Foundation (SOFA/PAMF) area is the first. Palo Alto will review the schedule for the remaining area plans based on the experiences with the SOFA/ PAMF plan, and will proceed with successive plans as rapidly as is feasible. Updating the Zoning Ordinance will address many of the issues associated with the need for area plans. Therefore, preparation of area plans should not impinge on resources dedicated to the Zoning Ordinance update. FORMAT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION TABLE The following table presents programs the City wants to undertake to help achieve the goals in the Comprehensive Plan, to the extent that resources are available. The programs in the Implementation Table describe and prioritize actions to implement various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Some programs are already budgeted and ongoing, while the City Council will need to identify resources during future budget cycles in order to implement other programs. The Planning & Transportation Commission may recommend changing priorities or adding or subtracting programs in the course of their annual review, and staff may likewise recommend prioritization or funding during the annual budget process. The City Council may change the prioritization of programs through the regular five-year review cycle of the Comprehensive Plan’s implementation. For each program, the Implementation Table identifies the following: Lead Department or Agency: The City Department that would have primary responsibility for tracking and completing the program. Note that many programs will require collaboration between multiple departments as well as outside agencies; collaboration with appropriate parties would be coordinated by the Lead Department named in this column. Timing: This column identifies the timing for each program. While it would be desirable to pursue every program and policy immediately, the Comprehensive Plan is a long-range document that will be implemented over a number of years and priorities must be established to focus the City's efforts and to allocate the City's resources (City Council emphasis, staff time and PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 4 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 budget resources). At the initiation of this Plan in 1998-1999, the City sees the following three broad priorities.With resource constraints and changing circumstances, it is expected that the timing identified here may change. For example, as short-term programs begin, they will change to “In Progress.” Also, given these constraints together with the breadth of programs included, the City anticipates and expects that it may not be able to complete all of the programs listed within a specified timeframe. Five categories are used: • R: “Routine” activities that are part of the normal course of business for staff; • IP: “In progress” – programs that are already underway to complete a specific, defined work effort; • S: “Short-term” – programs planned for implementation within the first five years after Comprehensive Plan adoption; • M: “Medium-term” – typically means programs that would be implemented or completed roughly within five to ten years after Comprehensive Plan adoption; and • L: “Long-term” – programs that would be implemented or completed more than ten years after Comprehensive Plan adoption. Anticipated Level of Effort: Gives an order-of-magnitude of cost in terms of staff and monetary resources required to implement the program. It is difficult to determine the exact cost of most of the programs and the specific staffing requirements needed to support the scope of future detailed work plans. In general, physical improvements and major planning efforts are the most expensive type of investment the City can make; revisions to existing plans or studies would likely fall in the middle of the range; and some ongoing staff roles, such as providing education or some one-time activities, would be least expensive. There are more than three hundred programs and program-like policies in this Comprehensive Plan. More than half of these programs are "on-going", that is, at the beginning of this Plan have at least some current funding and are being undertaken by staff. Close to one hundred programs are new. Most of new programs come from the Land Use and Community Design Chapter and the Transportation Chapter, which indicates where Palo Alto sees a need for major change and PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 I-5 improvement. As noted above, approximately fifty programs relate to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Update. For each Program, the Implementation Plan matrix defines the Lead Department or Agency, the Timing, the Financing, and Action Areas. Timing indicates when programs will be started and when the majority of the programs will be completed. Financing indicates a very broad range of cost and a designation for "on-going" or "one-time" funding. There are six Action Areas ranging from "revising or creating new ordinances" to "public outreach and education". The Comprehensive Plan is being incorporated into the City Budget and the Capital Improvement Program. The Implementation Plan will serve as a tracking system for future review and continued coordination with budgeting. RESOURCES Although Palo Alto would like to implement all these programs during the term of this Plan, there are capital resource and staffing limitations, as well as limitations to the amount of work that the City and the City Council can focus on effectively during this period. The completion of actions is contingent upon the availability of funding resources.It is difficult to determine the exact cost of most of the programs and the specific staffing requirements needed to support the scope of future detailed work plans. Issues that cannot be anticipated may arise in the future that may act to divert resources from the programs and priorities of the Comprehensive Plan. It is hoped that by acknowledging and focusing on Comprehensive Plan priorities, the City can avoid diversion of resources and attention. REVIEW AND UPDATE The Comprehensive Plan is a living document. Palo Alto's priorities will evolve through the life of this Plan, and therefore changes will need to be made to the Implementation Plan. Annually, as required by State Law and to measure what has been accomplished. This will be accomplished throughthe Municipal Code, the staff directed Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, through an annual report for Planning and Transportation Commission review and integrationwill submit a report to the City Council on the status of the Comprehensive Plan projects in the City's budget process.and its implementation. This review can be combined with the PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 6 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Commission’s review of the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which also occurs on an annual basis. CONCLUSION The Implementation Plan was designed to advance the overarching vision and themes of the Comprehensive Plan. The City recognizes there are resource constraints and a need to focus those resources. The Plan also recognizes the capacity of City resources and the need to focus those resources. It is hoped that the Implementation Plan appropriately addresses those themes, sets priorities for use of resources and creates a framework to answer the question that might be asked in 2010 - "What did the City of Palo Alto do and what actually changed, as a result of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan?" PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 1 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 2. Land Use Element Goal L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities, and open spaces. L1.3.1 Work with neighbors, neighborhood associations, property owners, and developers to identify barriers to infill development of below market rate and more affordable market rate housing and to remove these barriers, as appropriate. Work with these same stakeholders to identify sites and facilitate opportunities for below market rate housing and housing that is affordable. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ L1.5.1 Review regulatory tools available to the City and identify actions to enhance and preserve the livability of residential neighborhoods and the vitality of commercial and employment districts, including improved code enforcement practices. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ L1.7.1 Maintain and update as appropriate the 1985 Land Use Policies Agreement that sets forth the land use policies of the City, Santa Clara County, and Stanford University with regard to Stanford unincorporated lands. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $ L1.9.1 Reevaluate the cumulative cap when the amount of new office/R&D square footage entitled since January 1, 2015 reaches 67 percent of the allowed square footage, or 1,139,000 square feet. Concurrently consider removal or potential changes to the cap and/or to the amount of additional development permitted by the City’s zoning ordinance. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of “community” with development designed to foster public life, meet citywide needs and embrace the principles of sustainability. L2.2.1 Explore whether there are appropriate locations to allow small-scale neighborhood-serving retail facilities such as coffee shops and corner stores in residential areas. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ L2.4.1 Amend the Housing Element to eliminate housing sites along San Antonio Road and increase residential densities in Downtown and the California Avenue area to replace potential units from the sites eliminated. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 2 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 2. Land Use Element L2.4.2 Allow housing on the El Camino Real frontage of the Stanford Research Park and at Stanford Shopping Center, provided that adequate parking and vibrant retail is maintained and no reduction of retail square footage results from the new housing. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ L2.4.3 Explore multi-family housing elsewhere in Stanford Research Park and near Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC). Planning & Community Environment Department M $ L2.4.4 Assess non-residential development potential in the Community Commercial, Service Commercial, and Downtown Commercial Districts (CC, CS, and CD) and the Neighborhood Commercial District (CN), and convert non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR, where appropriate. Conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in Town and Country Village. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ L2.4.5 Update the municipal code to include zoning changes that allow a mix of retail and residential uses but no office uses. The intent of these changes would be to encourage a mix of land uses that contributes to the vitality and walkability of commercial centers and transit corridors. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ L2.4.6 Explore changing the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ordinances for both buildings of historic significance and for seismic retrofits so that transferred development rights may only be used for residential capacity Planning & Community Environment Department M $ L2.4.7 Explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing density near multimodal transit centers. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ L2.5.1 Collaborate with PAUSD in exploring opportunities to build housing that is affordable to school district employees. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ L2.7.1 Review development standards to discourage the net loss of housing units. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 3 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 2. Land Use Element L2.8.1 Conduct a study to evaluate various possible tools for preventing displacement of existing residents. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ L2.8.2 Develop and implement a system to inventory the characteristics of existing housing units and track changes in those characteristics on a regular basis. Make the information publicly available. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ Goal L-3: Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character and within walking distance of shopping, services, schools, and/or other public gathering places. L3.2.1 Evaluate and implement strategies to prevent conversion of residential and neighborhood-serving retail space to office or short-term vacation rentals. Planning & Community Environment Department IP? $ L.3.5.1 Develop a program to assess and manage both the positive and negative impacts of basement construction in single family homes on the community and the environment, including: Impacts to the natural environment, such as potential impacts to the tree canopy, groundwater supply or quality, and soil compaction. Safety issues such as increased surface flooding, increased groundwater intrusion with sea level rise, emergency access and egress, or sewage backflows. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ Goal L-4: Inviting pedestrian scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the city’s residential neighborhoods and employment districts. L4.1.1 Evaluate the effectiveness of formula retail limits adopted for California Avenue. Develop incentives for local small businesses where warranted. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ L4.1.2 Explore and potentially support new, creative and innovative retail in Palo Alto. Planning & Community Environment Department L $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 4 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 2. Land Use Element L4.3.1 Study the feasibility of using public and private funds to provide and maintain landscaping and public spaces such as parks, plazas, sidewalks and public art within commercial areas. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ L4.3.2 Through public/private cooperation, provide well-signed, clean, and accessible restrooms. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ L4.3.3 Collaborate with merchants to enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all Centers. Encourage the formation of business improvement districts and undertake a proactive program of maintenance, repair, landscaping and enhancement. Planning & Community Environment Department R $$ L4.3.4 Identify priority street improvements that could make a substantial contribution to the character of Centers, such as widening sidewalks, narrowing travel lanes, creating medians, restriping to allow diagonal parking, and planting trees. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$$ L.4.4.1 Explore increasing hotel FAR from 2.0 to 3.0 in the University Avenue/Downtown area, and 2.5 in areas outside of Downtown. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ L4.6.1 Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$$ L4.7.1 While preserving adequate parking to meet demand, identify strategies to reuse surface parking lots. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ L4.7.2 Explore adding additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for retail at Stanford Shopping Center. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 5 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 2. Land Use Element L4.8.1 Prepare a coordinated area plan for the Fry's site and surrounding California Avenue area. The plan should describe a vision for the future of the Fry's site as a walkable neighborhood with multi‐family housing, ground floor retail, a public park, creek improvements, and an interconnected street grid. It should guide the development of the California Avenue area as a well-designed mixed use district with diverse land uses and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$$ L4.8.2 Create regulations for the California Avenue area that encourage the retention or rehabilitation of smaller buildings to provide spaces for existing retail, particularly local, small businesses. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ Goal L-5: High quality employment districts, each with their own distinctive character and each contributing to the character of the city as a whole. L5.1.1 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. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. L6.1.1 Promote awards programs and other forms of public recognition for projects of architectural merit that contribute positively to the community. Planning & Community Environment Department L $ L6.3.1 Develop guidelines for bird-friendly building design that minimizes hazards for birds and reduces the potential for collisions. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ L6.6.1 Modify design standards for mixed use projects to promote a pedestrian-friendly relationship to the street, including elements such as screened parking or underground parking, street-facing windows and entries, and porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways, and landscaping, and trees along the street. Avoid blank or solid walls at street level. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 6 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 2. Land Use Element L6.7.1 Implement architectural standards to assure they effectively address land use transitions. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ Goal L-7: Conservation and preservation of Palo Alto’s historic buildings, sites, and districts. L7.1.1 Update and maintain the City’s Historic Resource Inventory to include historic resources that are eligible for local, State, or federal listing. Historic resources may consist of a single building or structure or a district. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ L7.1.2 Reassess the Historic Preservation Ordinance to ensure its effectiveness in the maintenance and preservation of historic resources, particularly in the University Avenue/Downtown area. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ L7.8.1 Promote and expand available incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of buildings with historic merit in all zones and revise existing zoning and permit regulations to minimize constraints to adaptive reuse. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ L7.8.2 Create incentives to encourage salvage and reuse of discarded historic building materials. Planning & Community Environment Department L $ L7.8.3 For proposed exterior alterations or additions to designated Historic Landmarks, require design review findings that the proposed changes are in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ L7.8.4 Seek additional innovative ways to apply current codes and ordinances to older buildings. Use the State Historical Building Code for designated historic buildings. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ L7.11.1 Review parking exceptions for historic buildings in the Zoning Code to determine if there is an effective balance between historic preservation and meeting parking needs. Planning & Community Environment Department L $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 7 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 2. Land Use Element Goal L-8: Attractive and safe civic and cultural facilities provided in all neighborhoods and maintained and used in ways that foster and enrich public life. Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the city. L9.1.1 Evaluate existing zoning code setback requirements to ensure they are appropriate for scenic routes. Planning & Community Environment Department L $ L9.3.1 Review standards for streets and signage and update as needed to foster natural, tree-lined streets with a minimum of signage. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ L9.6.1 Analyze existing neighborhoods and determine where publicly accessible shared, outdoor gathering spaces are below the citywide standard. Create new public spaces, including public squares, parks and informal gathering spaces in these neighborhoods. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$$ L9.7.1 Develop a strategy to enhance gateway sites with special landscaping, art, public spaces, and/or public buildings. Emphasize the creek bridges and riparian settings at the entrances to the City over Adobe Creek and San Francisquito Creek. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ L9.8.1 Establish incentives to encourage native trees and low water use plantings in new development throughout the city. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ L9.11.1 Continue the citywide undergrounding of utility wires. Minimize the impacts of undergrounding on street tree root systems and planting areas. City of Palo Alto Utilities R $$$ L9.11.2 Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, backflow preventers, and telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. City of Palo Alto Utilities R $ L9.12.2 Implement the findings of the City’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee and its emphasis for rebuilding our civic spaces. Department of Public Works IP $$$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 8 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 2. Land Use Element L9.12.3 Identify City-owned properties where combinations of wireless facilities can be co-located, assuming appropriate lease agreements are in place. City of Palo Alto Utilities M $ Goal L-10: Maintain an economically viable local airport with minimal environmental impacts. L10.1.1 Relocate the terminal building away from the Runway 31 clear zone and closer to the hangars, allowing for construction of a replacement terminal. Department of Public Works L $$$ L10.1.2 Update the Airport Layout Plan in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration requirements, as needed, while ensuring conformance with the Baylands Master Plan to the maximum extent feasible. Department of Public Works M $$$ L10.1.3 Identify and pursue funding to address maintenance, safety and security improvements needed at PAO. Department of Public Works R $ L10.3.1 Establish and implement a system for processing, tracking and reporting noise complaints regarding local airport operations on an annual basis, Department of Public Works S $$ L10.3.2 Work with the airport to pursue opportunities to enhance the open space and habitat value of the airport. These include: maintaining native grasses; reconstructing levees to protect the airport from sea level rise while enhancing public access and habitat conservation; and evaluating the introduction of burrowing owl habitat. This program is subject to federal wildlife hazard requirements and guidelines for airports. Community Services Department R $$ L10.4.1 Continue to provide a bicycle/pedestrian path adjacent to Embarcadero Road, consistent with the Baylands Master Plan and open space character of the baylands subject to federal and State airport regulations. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 9 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 3. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation, and other methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the use of single occupancy motor vehicles. T1.2.1 Create a long-term education program to change the travel habits of residents, visitors, shoppers, and workers by informing them about transportation alternatives, incentives, and impacts. Work with the Palo Alto Unified School District and with other public and private interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce and Commuter Wallet partners, to develop and implement this program. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ T1.2.2 Formalize Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements by ordinance and require new developments above a certain size threshold to prepare and implement a TDM plan to meet specific performance standards. Require regular monitoring/reporting and provide for enforcement with meaningful penalties for non-compliance. The ordinance should also: Establish a list of effective TDM measures that include transit promotion, prepaid transit passes, commuter checks, car sharing, carpooling, parking cash-out, bicycle lockers and showers, shuttles to Caltrain, requiring TMA membership and education and outreach to support the use of these modes. Allow property owners to achieve reductions by contributing to citywide or employment district shuttles or other proven transportation programs that are not directly under the property owner’s control. Provide a system for incorporating alternative measures as new ideas for TDM are developed. Establish a mechanism to monitor the success of TDM measures and track the cumulative reduction of daily motor vehicle trips. TDM measures should at a minimum achieve the following reduction in daily motor vehicle trips, with a focus on single-occupant vehicle trips. Reductions should be based on the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category: • 50 percent reduction in the Downtown district • 35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area • 30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park • 30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor Planning & Community Environment Department S $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 10 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 3. Transportation Element • 20 percent reduction in other areas of the city Require new development projects to pay a Transportation Impact Fee for all those daily motor vehicle trips that cannot be reduced via TDM measures. Fees collected would be used for capital improvements aimed at reducing vehicle trips and traffic congestion. T1.2.3 Evaluate the performance of pilot programs implemented by the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association and pursue expansion from Downtown to California Avenue and other areas of the city when appropriate. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $ T1.2.4 Site City facilities near high-capacity transit and revise existing regulations, policies, and programs to encourage telecommuting, satellite office concepts, and work-at-home options. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ T1.3.1 Develop an electric vehicle promotion program that identifies policy and technical issues, barriers and opportunities to the expansion of electric vehicles. Office of Sustainability M $$ T1.3.2 Use low-emission vehicles for the Palo Alto Free Shuttle and work with transit providers, including SamTrans and VTA, to encourage the adoption of electric, fuel cell or other zero emission vehicles. Also work with private bus and shuttle providers, delivery companies, and ride services. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$$ T1.4.1 Update the Zoning Code to ensure compatibility with the electric vehicle infrastructure requirements. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ T1.4.2 Periodically review requirements for electric and plug-in vehicle infrastructure in new construction. Consider and periodically review requirements for electric and plug-in infrastructure for remodels. Consider costs to the City, including identifying payment options. Office of Sustainability R $ T1.6.1 Collaborate with transit providers, including Caltrain, bus operators and rideshare companies, to develop first/last mile connection strategies that boost the use of transit and shuttle service for local errands and commuting. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 11 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 3. Transportation Element T1.6.2 Continue to work with Caltrain, Amtrak, and public bus operators to expand bicycle storage on public transit vehicles and at transit hubs during both peak and off-peak hours. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $ T1.11.1 Collaborate with Stanford University, VTA, Caltrain and other agencies to pursue improvements to the Palo Alto Transit Center area aimed at enhancing pedestrian experience and improving circulation and access for all modes, including direct access to El Camino Real for transit vehicles. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $$$ T1.11.2 In collaboration with Caltrain and Stanford Research Park, pursue expansion of service to the California Avenue Caltrain Station and creation of an enhanced transit center at the Station, including connections to VTA bus service, the Palo Alto Free Shuttle, the Marguerite, and other private shuttles serving the Research Park. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$$ T1.12.1 Strongly recommend that VTA maintain existing service and coverage levels in Palo Alto. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $ T1.12.2 Work with VTA to expand VTA express bus service routes to serve the Stanford Research Park, California Avenue, Stanford University, and Downtown. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ T1.12.3 Study the feasibility of, and if warranted provide, traffic signal prioritization for buses at Palo Alto intersections, focusing first on regional transit routes. Also, advocate for bus service improvements on El Camino Real such as queue jump lanes and curbside platforms. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ T1.13.1 Investigate a pilot program to subsidize a taxi, rideshare, or transit program for Palo Altans to get to/from downtown, including offering education and incentives to encourage users. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ T1.14.1 Evaluate the shuttle system in collaboration with community members, people with special needs, and PAUSD to: Evaluate current routes and ridership; Identify potential service improvements, including new or modified routes; Planning & Community Environment Department IP $$$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 12 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 3. Transportation Element expanded schedules that accommodate daytime, evening, and weekend demand; facilitating transit connections, and improvements to the safety and appearance of shuttle stops; Explore partnerships with other services that could complement and supplement the Palo Alto Shuttle; Develop clear and engaging materials to explain and promote shuttle use with the purpose of reducing barriers to use; and Establish a schedule for regular evaluation and reporting to optimize shuttle system use and effectiveness. T1.16.1 Continue regular surveys of bicycle use across the city, by collecting bicycle counts on important and potential bicycle corridors. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $$ T1.16.2 Consider marketing strategies such as a recurring Palo Alto Open Streets program of events, potentially in coordination with local business groups, which would include street closures and programming. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ T1.16.3 Encourage private schools to develop Walk and Roll Maps as part of Transportation Demand Management strategies to reduce vehicle trips. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $ T1.16.4 Participate in local and regional encouragement events such as Palo Alto Walks and Rolls, Bike to Work Day, and Bike Palo Alto! that encourages a culture of bicycling and walking as alternatives to single occupant vehicle trips. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ T1.19.1 Adjust the street evaluation criteria of the City's Pavement Management Program to ensure that areas of the road used by bicyclists are maintained at the same standards as, or at standards higher than, areas used by motor vehicles. Include bicycle and e-bike detection in intersection upgrades. Department of Public Works M $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 13 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 3. Transportation Element T1.19.2 Prioritize investments for enhanced pedestrian access and bicycle use within Palo Alto and to/from surrounding communities, including by incorporating improvements from related City plans, for example the 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the Parks, Trails & Open Space Master Plan, as amended, into the Capital Improvements Program. Department of Public Works IP $$$ T1.19.3 Increase the number of east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossings across Alma Street and the Caltrain corridor, particularly south of Oregon Expressway. Department of Public Works L $$$ T1.19.4 Encourage the use of bike sharing, and the provision of required infrastructure throughout Palo Alto, especially at transit stations and stops, job centers, community centers, and other destinations. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $ T1.19.5 Improve amenities such as seating, lighting, bicycle parking, street trees, public art, and interpretive stations along bicycle and pedestrian paths and in City parks to encourage walking and cycling and enhance the feeling of safety. Planning & Community Environment Department & Department of Public Works IP $$$ T1.22.1 Collect, analyze and report transportation data through surveys and other methods on a regular basis. Track progress on build-out of the 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan network. Planning & Community Environment Department R $$ T1.25.1 As part of the effort to reduce traffic congestion, regularly evaluate the City’s current Transportation Impact Fee and modify as needed to implement transportation infrastructure improvements. Modifications to the impact fee program should be structured in keeping with the City’s desire to require new development to reduce daily motor vehicle trips to the extent feasible through TDM plans and by contributions to the provision of transit services, shuttles, carpool/rideshare incentives, and similar programs. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $ T1.26.1 In collaboration with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions, identify and pursue funding for rail corridor improvements and grade separation. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 14 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 3. Transportation Element Goal T-2: Decrease delay, congestion, and vehicle miles travelled with a priority on our worst intersections and our peak commute times, including school traffic. T2.1.1 Implement computerized traffic management systems to improve traffic flow when feasible. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $$$ T2.1.2 Implement a program to monitor, coordinate, and optimize traffic signal timing a minimum of every two years along arterial and residential arterial streets. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $$ T2.2.1 Work in partnership with the Palo Alto TMA and Stanford University to aggregate data and realize measurable reductions in single-occupant vehicle commuting to and from Downtown and in the Stanford Research Park. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $ T2.3.1 When adopting new CEQA significance thresholds for compliance with SB 743 (2013), adopt standards for vehicular LOS, and also explore desired standards for multi-modal levels of service (MMLOS), which includes motor vehicle LOS, at signalized intersections for use in evaluating the consistency of a proposed project with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ T2.4.1 Revise protocols for reviewing office, commercial, and multi-family residential development proposals to evaluate multimodal level of service and identify gaps in the low stress bicycle and pedestrian network. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ Goal T-3: Maintain an efficient roadway network for all users. T3.5.1 Continue to use best practices in roadway design that are consistent with complete streets principles and the Urban Forest Master Plan, focusing on bicycle and pedestrian safety and multi-modal uses. Consider opportunities to incorporate best practices from the National Association of City Transportation Officials guidelines for urban streets and bikeways, tailored to the Palo Alto context. Department of Public Works S $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 15 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 3. Transportation Element T3.5.2 Establish procedures for considering the effects of street design on emergency vehicle response time. Department of Public Works & Palo Alto Police Department & Palo Alto Fire Department R $ T3.10.1 Support increased public transit, traffic management and parking solutions to ensure safe, convenient access to and from the Stanford Shopping Center/ Medical Center area. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ T3.10.2 Implement and monitor Development Agreement traffic mitigations at Stanford Medical Center. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $ T3.10.3 Provide safe, convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections between the Stanford Shopping Center/Medical Center areas and housing along the Sand Hill Road/Quarry Road corridors to Palo Alto Transit Center, Downtown Palo Alto, and other primary destinations. Planning & Community Environment Department R $$$ T3.10.4 Pursue extension of Quarry Road for transit, pedestrians and bicyclists to access the Palo Alto Transit Center from El Camino Real. Also study the feasibility of another pedestrian and bicycle underpass of Caltrain at Everett Street. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ T3.15.1 Undertake studies and outreach necessary to advance grade separation of Caltrain to become a “shovel ready” project and strongly advocate for adequate State, regional, and federal funding for design and construction of railroad grade separations. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$$ T3.15.2 Conduct a study to evaluate the implications of grade separation on bicycle and pedestrian circulation. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 16 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 3. Transportation Element T3.17.1 Complete a Palo Alto Avenue crossing study to identify potential near-term safety and accessibility improvements. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ T3.17.2 Work with Caltrain to ensure that the rail tracks are safe and secure with adequate fencing and barriers. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ Goal T-4: Protect local streets that contribute to neighborhood character and provide a range of local transportation options. T4.2.1 Identify specific improvements that can be used to discourage drivers from using local, neighborhood streets to bypass traffic congestion on arterials. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ T4.2.2 Periodically evaluate residential areas for traffic impacts and use the results of that evaluation to prioritize traffic calming measures. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $$ T4.3.1 Use landscaping and other improvements to establish clear “gateways” at the points where the Oregon Expressway, University Avenue and Embarcadero Road transition from freeways to neighborhoods. Department of Public Works L $$$ Goal T-5: Encourage attractive, convenient, efficient and innovative parking solutions for all users. T5.1.1 Evaluate the need to update parking standards in the municipal code, based on local conditions, different users’ needs and baseline parking need. Allow the use of parking lifts for Office/R&D and multifamily housing as appropriate. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ T5.1.2 Consider reducing parking requirements for retail and restaurant uses as a way to encourage new businesses and the use of alternative modes. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 17 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 3. Transportation Element T5.1.3 Work with stakeholders in each commercial center and employment district to monitor conditions and determine the appropriate timing for revisions to parking requirements. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ T5.1.4 Study the feasibility of unbundled parking for office, commercial, and multi-family residential developments (including senior housing developments) that are well-served by transit and demonstrated walking and biking connections. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ T5.1.5 Consider reducing parking requirements for multi-family uses as a way to encourage new multi-family housing and the use of alternative modes, where reduction in parking would not impact the neighborhood. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ T5.2.1 Use technology to help identify parking availability and make it easy to pay any parking fees. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$$ T5.2.2 Study and implement pricing strategies for public parking in commercial districts, taking into consideration both employee parking demand and the needs of retailers and customers. Use pricing to encourage short term parking on street, long term parking in parking garages, and the use of alternative modes of transportation Planning & Community Environment Department IP $$ T5.2.3 Implement Council-adopted recommendations from the parking management study for the Downtown area, which address the feasibility of removing color- coded parking zones, and dynamic pricing and management policies to prioritize short-term parking spaces closest to the commercial core for customers, garage parking for employees, and neighborhood parking for residents. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$$ T5.4.1 Explore incentives to encourage privately initiated shared parking among individual property owners when developments have excess parking that can be available for other businesses to use. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 18 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 3. Transportation Element T5.8.1 Study the feasibility of retrofitting City-owned surface parking lots to implement best management practices for stormwater management and urban heat island mitigation, including green infrastructure, permeable pavement and reflective surfaces. Department of Public Works S $$ T5.8.2 Identify incentives to encourage the retrofit of privately owned surface parking areas to incorporate best management practices for stormwater management and urban heat island mitigation as well as incentives for the provision of publicly accessible bicycle parking in privately owned lots. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ T5.8.3 Update City requirements regarding trees and other landscaping that capture and filter stormwater within surface parking lots to take advantage of new technology. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ T5.11.1 Coordinate with neighborhood groups and local businesses and other stakeholders to evaluate the need for a residential parking permit program in areas without existing programs. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ T5.12.1 Work with employers, merchants, schools, and community service providers, to identify ways to provide more bicycle parking, including e-bike parking with charging stations, near existing shops, services and places of employment. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ T5.12.2 Install secure electronic bike lockers such as the BikeLink system, at high theft locations, including transit stations and parking garages. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ T5.12.3 Assess the need to provide additional bicycle parking in City-owned parking lots and rights-of-way. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ Goal T-6: Provide a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists on Palo Alto streets. T6.1.1 Follow the principles of the safe routes to schools program to implement traffic safety measures that focus on Safe Routes to work, shopping, downtown, community services, parks, and schools. Planning & Community Environment Department R $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 19 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 3. Transportation Element T6.1.2 Develop, distribute and aggressively promote maps and apps showing safe routes to work, shopping, community services, parks and schools within Palo Alto in collaboration with stakeholders, including PAUSD, major employers, TMAs, local businesses and community organizations. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $$ T6.1.3 Address pedestrian safety along Alma Street between Embarcadero Road and Lytton Street. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ T6.1.4 Address pedestrian safety on shared-use paths through the use of signs, pavement markings, and outreach to users, encouraging them to be safe and courteous. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ T6.2.1 Regularly collect severity and location data on roadway collisions for all modes of travel, including fatalities and severe injuries, and use this data to make roadway design decisions. In collaboration with Santa Clara County, develop an up-to-date, public database for this information. Planning & Community Environment Department R $$ T6.4.1 Consider the Adopted School Commute Corridors Network and adopted “Walk and Roll” maps when reviewing development applications and making land use and transportation planning decisions. Incorporate these requirements into City code when feasible. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ T6.4.2 Establish standards and procedures for maintaining safe bicycling routes, including signage for warnings and detours during construction projects. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $ T6.4.3 In collaboration with PAUSD, provide adult crossing guards at school crossings that meet established warrants. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ T6.6.1 Periodically evaluate safety on roadways and at intersections and enhance conditions through the use of signal technology and physical changes. Consider the construction of traffic circles for improved intersection safety. Planning & Community Environment Department R $$$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 20 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 3. Transportation Element T6.6.2 Continue to provide educational programs for children and adults, in partnership with community-based educational organizations, to promote the safe use of bicycles, including the City-sponsored bicycle education programs in the public schools and the bicycle traffic school program for juveniles. Planning & Community Environment Department R $$ T6.6.3 Work with PAUSD and employers to promote roadway safety for all users, including motorized alternatives to cars and bikes such as mopeds and e-bikes, through educational programs for children and adults. Planning & Community Environment Department R $$ T6.6.4 Complete a mobility and safety study for downtown Palo Alto, looking at ways to improve circulation and safety for all modes. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ T6.6.5 Identify and construct safety improvements for pedestrian underpasses, including on Embarcadero Road. Planning & Community Environment Department L $$$ T6.6.6 Improve pedestrian crossings by creating protected areas and better pedestrian and traffic visibility. Use a toolbox including bulb outs, small curb radii, high visibility crosswalks, and landscaping. Planning & Community Environment Department R $$$ T6.6.7 Establish a program to educate residents to keep sidewalks clear of parked cars, especially on narrow local streets in neighborhoods with rolled curbs. Survey for compliance annually. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ T6.7.1 Evaluate the performance of safety improvements and identify methods to encourage alternative transportation modes. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ Goal T-7: Provide mobility options that allow people who are transit dependent to reach their destinations. T7.1.1 Expand transportation opportunities for transit-dependent riders by supporting discounts for taxi fares, rideshare services, and transit, by coordinating transit systems to be shared by multiple senior housing developments, and by maintaining a database of volunteer drivers, and other transit options. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 21 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 3. Transportation Element T7.1.2 Coordinate with social service agencies and transit agencies to fill gaps in existing transportation routes and services accessible to transit-dependent riders no matter their means and design new bus routes that enable them to access those services. Planning & Community Environment Department R $$$ T7.1.3 Pursue expanded evening and night time bus service to enhance mobility for all users during off-peak times. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ Goal T-8: Influence the shape and implementation of regional transportation policies and technologies to reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. T8.3.1 Continue to participate in regional efforts to develop technological solutions that make alternatives to the automobile more convenient and thereby contribute to reducing congestion. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ T8.6.1 Advocate for provision of a new southbound entrance ramp to Highway 101 from San Antonio Road, in conjunction with the closure of the southbound Charleston Road on-ramp at the Rengstorff Avenue interchange in Mountain View. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ T8.6.2 Advocate for improved connectivity to transit to serve workers who live in the South Bay and work in Palo Alto. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ T8.10.1 Work with regional transportation providers, including BART and Caltrain, to improve connections between Palo Alto and the San Francisco International Airport and Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ T8.12.1 Identify and improve bicycle connections to/from neighboring communities in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties to support local trips that cross city boundaries. Also advocate for reducing barriers to bicycling and walking at freeway interchanges, expressway intersections, and railroad grad crossings. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $$$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 22 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 5. Natural Environment Goal N-1: Protect, conserve and enhance Palo Alto’s citywide system of open space, including connected and accessible natural and urban habitats, ecosystems, and natural resources, providing a source of public health, natural beauty and enjoyment for Palo Alto residents. N1.1.1 Develop Comprehensive Resource Conservation Plans for the Pearson Arastradero Preserve, Esther Clark Preserve, and Foothills Park to steward the protection of local ecosystems. Community Services Department S-M $$$ N1.1.2 Promote and support ecosystem protection and environmental education programs in Palo Alto and neighboring school districts. Community Services Department S $ N1.3.1 Work to maintain Williamson Act agricultural preserve contracts within the City. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ N1.3.2 Provide information and support programs that encourage residents to enhance their private yards with native plant species and low impact landscaping. Planning & Community Environment Department R $$ N1.4.1 Periodically review CEQA thresholds of significance regarding special status species to identify changes in listed species recommended by professionally recognized scientific experts. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ N1.4.2 Explore the feasibility of expanding the use of overlay tools such as the Site and Design (D) Review Combining District or similar development review and restriction tools to protect special-status species and their habitats from development. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ N1.4.3 Assess opportunities to expand habitats of special –status species within publicly- owned open spaces. Community Services Department R $$ N1.5.1 Maintain the value of local wetlands as habitats by ensuring adequate flow from the Bay and minimizing effluent. Community Services Department R $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 23 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 5. Natural Environment N1.6.1 Continue to coordinate City review, particularly by Planning, Public Works and Community Services Departments, of projects that might impact the City’s foothills and hillside areas. Planning & Community Environment Department R $$ N1.7.1 Examine and improve existing management practices, including the provision of access to open space for City vehicles and equipment, to ensure that natural resources are protected. Community Services Department R $$ N1.7.2 Protect wildlife in public open space areas by improving litter collection, restricting the use of non-recyclable plastics, prohibiting the feeding of wild, feral and stray and domestic animals in open space, and enforcing dog leash laws Community Services Department R $ N1.7.3 Provide information about responsible behavior in environmentally-sensitive areas through signage, pamphlets and documents on the City’s website. Community Services Department R $ N1.7.4 Review and map existing easements and maintenance roads for potential trails and trail connections. Community Services Department S $$ N1.10.1 Use City funds and seek additional sources of funding, including State and federal programs, to finance open space acquisition, maintenance or conservation. Community Services Department R $ N1.10.2 Create mechanisms to monitor, assess and respond quickly to land acquisition opportunities that would expand or connect the City’s system of parks and open spaces, and establish a long-term funding strategy for acquisition that would enable the City to move quickly when opportunities arise. Community Services Department S $$$ Goal N-2: A thriving urban forest that provides public health, ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto. N2.1.1 Explore ways to prevent and ameliorate damage to trees and tree roots by above and below ground infrastructure and buildings. Department of Public Works R $ N2.2.1 Periodically update the Urban Forest Master Plan and Tree Protection Ordinance to ensure policies and regulations remain relevant set leading standards for tree health practices. Department of Public Works R $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 24 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 5. Natural Environment N2.4.1 Promote landscape design that optimizes soil volume, porosity, structure and health, as well the location, shape and configuration of soil beds. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ N2.7.1 Maintain and irrigate healthy trees in parks, open space, parking lots, and City rights-of-way, while identifying and replacing unhealthy trees in those areas. Department of Public Works S $$ N2.7.2 Continue to invest in the care, irrigation and monitoring of street trees during drought conditions. Department of Public Works R $$ N2.7.3 Actively pursue funding for tree planting to increase canopy cover significantly across the city, avoid a net loss of canopy at the neighborhood level, and attain canopy size targets in parks, open space, parking lots, and City rights-of-way. Department of Public Works R $ N2.9.1 Increase awareness, severity and enforcement of penalties for tree damage. Department of Public Works M $ N2.9.2 Develop a program for using the City’s Urban Forestry Fund to replace trees lost to public improvement and infrastructure projects, with replanting occurring onsite or as close to the original site as is ecologically appropriate. Department of Public Works M $$ N2.10.1 Continue to require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ N2.10.2 As part of the update of the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, consider expanding tree protections to include additional mature trees and provide criteria for making site-specific determinations of trees that should be protected. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ N2.10.3 Consider revisions to the appeals process to increase transparency regarding tree removals and expanded opportunities for community members to appeal the removal of trees. Planning & Community Environment Department L $$ N2.11.1 Develop a transparent and publicly accessible street tree removal and replacement schedule. Department of Public Works M $ N2.11.2 Develop a program to replace unhealthy public trees over time. Department of Public Works M $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 25 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 5. Natural Environment N2.12.1 Explore ways to leverage the fact that Palo Alto’s urban forest alleviates climate change by capturing and storing carbon dioxide. Department of Public Works M $ N2.13.1 Work with local nonprofits to establish one or more tree planting programs that are consistent with the UFMP, and rely on locally native, resilient species. Review existing tree planting guidelines to ensure they achieve these objectives. Department of Public Works S $$ N2.13.2 Provide on-going education for City staff, residents, and developers regarding landscape, maintenance, and irrigation practices that protect the urban forest and wildlife species. Department of Public Works R $ N2.13.3 Involve tree owners in tree maintenance programs. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ N2.13.4 Cooperate with the Palo Alto Unified School District, Stanford University, Caltrain, Caltrans, PG&E, and other public and private entities to ensure that their tree planting, tree removal, and maintenance practices are consistent with City guidelines. Department of Public Works R $ Goal N-3: Conservation of both natural and channelized creeks and riparian areas as open space amenities, natural habitat areas, and elements of community design. N3.3.1 Update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to explore a setback along natural creeks in open space and rural areas west of Foothill Expressway that prohibits the siting of buildings and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and ornamental landscaped areas within 150 feet of the top of a creek bank. Allow passive or intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle pathways along natural creeks where there are adequate setbacks to protect the natural riparian environment. Within the setback area, provide a border of native riparian vegetation at least 30 feet along the creek bank. Updates should establish: Conditions under which single family property is exempt from the 150-foot setback. Appropriate setbacks and creek conservation measures for undeveloped parcels west of Foothill Expressway. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 26 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 5. Natural Environment Regulation of existing development within the 150-foot setback. Design recommendations for development or redevelopment within the setback, consistent with basic creek habitat objectives and significant net improvement in the condition of the creek. N3.3.2 Examine the development regulations of the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance, with stakeholder involvement, to establish appropriate setback requirements that reflect the varying natural and channelized conditions along creeks east of Foothill Expressway. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ N3.3.3 For all creeks, update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to minimize impacts on wildlife by: Limiting the development of recreational trails to one side of natural riparian corridors. Requiring careful design of lighting surrounding natural riparian corridors to maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and riparian corridors and direct lighting away from the riparian corridor. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ N3.4.1 Develop a community creek stewardship program to promote existing creek clean-up days, organize new events, and increase appreciation of riparian corridors. Department of Public Works M $$ N3.6.1 Review and update the Grading Ordinance to ensure that it adequately protects creeks from the erosion and sedimentation impacts of grading. Department of Public Works M $$ N3.8.1 Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to develop a maintenance, restoration and enhancement improvement program that preserves flood protection while preserving riparian habitat, and identifies specific stretches of corridor to be restored or daylighted, standards to be achieved, and sources of funding. Include provisions for tree and vegetation planting to enhance natural habitat and shade cover. Department of Public Works M $$ N3.8.2 Participate cooperatively in the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to achieve increased flood protection, habitat preservation, enhancement and improved recreational opportunities along San Francisquito Creek. Department of Public Works IP $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 27 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 5. Natural Environment Goal N-4: Water resources and infrastructure that are managed to sustain plant and animal life, support urban activities, and protect public health and safety. N4.2.1 Educate customers on efficient water use (indoor and outdoor), tree care, and landscaping options. Department of Public Works R $ N4.5.1 Study the supply and quality of local groundwater aquifers to better understand their utility as natural water storage. City of Palo Alto Utilities L $ N4.5.2 Work with local public agencies to educate residents regarding the public health, fire, and overall quality of life risks associated with long-term drought. City of Palo Alto Utilities R $ N4.6.1 Encourage residents to use rain barrels or other rainwater reuse systems. City of Palo Alto Utilities S $ N4.7.1 Advocate for Santa Clara Valley Water District to prepare a high-quality groundwater management plan that will address groundwater supply and quality, including, as appropriate: An understanding of subsurface hydrology. Strategies to reduce depletion. Opportunities to recharge groundwater, including through use of recycled water and extracted groundwater. Methods to ensure that uncontaminated, toxin-free groundwater is used in a manner that benefits the community, for example in irrigation of parks, street cleaning, and dust suppression. An approach to metering extracted groundwater. Department of Public Works S $ N4.7.2 Work with neighboring jurisdictions and regional agencies to protect ground water. Department of Public Works R $ N4.7.3 Support the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to implement their mandate to protect groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses. Department of Public Works S $ N4.7.4 Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to identify and map key groundwater recharge and stormwater management areas for use in land use planning and permitting and the protection of groundwater resources. Department of Public Works IP $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 28 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 5. Natural Environment N4.8.1 Research and promote new construction techniques and recharge strategies developed to reduce subsurface and surface water impacts and comply with City dewatering policies. Department of Public Works IP $ N4.8.2 Explore appropriate ways to monitor all excavations and other projects to ensure that dewatering does not result in recharge into the aquifer where needed. Department of Public Works S $ N4.9.1 Monitor and implement practices for reducing water pollution. Examples include state-of-the-art best management practices (BMPs), land use planning approaches, and construction of modern stormwater management facilities. Department of Public Works R $$$ N4.9.2 Continue public education programs on water quality issues, including best management practices for residents, businesses, contractors, and City employees. Department of Public Works R $ N4.9.3 Implement swift and rigorous spill response, cleanup, and follow-up investigation procedures to reduce the impacts of toxic spills on the City’s creeks and San Francisco Bay. Department of Public Works R $$ N4.9.4 Increase monitoring and enforcement of existing prohibitions on materials and practices known to impact local water quality, such as use of copper, in the design and construction industries. Department of Public Works R $ N4.10.1 Evaluate neighborhoods where parking controls may hinder street sweeping and recommend any changes that are needed. Department of Public Works M $ N4.11.1 Implement the City’s Integrated Pest Management Policy with periodic assessments of pesticide use and use of Best Management Practices to reduce pesticide applications and toxicity, and maximize non-chemical control. Department of Public Works R $ N4.11.2 Revise the City’s Tree and Landscape Technical Manual to include stronger requirements for least-toxic practices in the landscape permitting process. Department of Public Works S $ N4.11.3 Promote the value of toxin-free landscape management, and educate residents about the impacts of common fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides on local water quality. Department of Public Works R $ N4.12.1 Promote the use of permeable paving materials or other design solutions that allow for natural percolation and site drainage through a Storm Water Rebate Program and other incentives. Department of Public Works S $ N4.12.2 Develop and implement a green stormwater infrastructure plan with the goal to treat and infiltrate stormwater. Department of Public Works S $$$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 29 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 5. Natural Environment N4.12.3 Mitigate flooding through improved surface permeability or paved areas, and stormwater capture and storage. Department of Public Works M $$ N4.13.1 Establish a standardized process for evaluating the impacts of development on the storm drainage system, including point source discharge, base flow and peak flow. Department of Public Works S $ N4.13.2 Complete improvements to the storm drainage system consistent with the priorities outlined in the City's 1993 Storm Drainage Master Plan, as amended. Department of Public Works IP $$$ N4.14.1 Work with commercial and industrial dischargers to identify and implement pollution prevention measures and Best Management Practices to eliminate or reduce the discharge of metals and other pollutants of concern. Department of Public Works R $$ N4.14.2 Encourage commercial dischargers to consistently go beyond minimum requirements of the Clean Bay Business Program. Department of Public Works R $ N4.15.1 Implement approved recommendations based on the Long-Term Facilities Plan prepared for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. City of Palo Alto Utilities IP $$$ N4.15.2 Develop a plan to address ongoing operations of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant taking potential sea level rise and growth in surrounding communities into account. City of Palo Alto Utilities M $$$ N4.16.1 Evaluate the expansion of existing recycled water infrastructure to serve a larger area. Develop a plan to install “purple pipe” when streets are opened for other infrastructure work. City of Palo Alto Utilities M $$ N4.16.2 Evaluate the possibility of using recycled water as an emergency water supply. City of Palo Alto Utilities L $ N4.16.3 Investigate ways to reuse non-traditional water sources including recycled, gray, black and stormwater. City of Palo Alto Utilities R $ Goal N-5: Clean, healthful air for Palo Alto and the San Francisco Bay Area. N5.1.1 Provide City input on significant proposals for air quality legislation and state implementation plans. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 30 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 5. Natural Environment N5.1.2 Support the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in its efforts to achieve compliance with existing air quality regulations by continuing to require development applicants to comply with BAAQMD construction emissions control measures and health risk assessment requirements. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ N5.1.3 Implement BAAQMD recommended standards for the design of buildings near heavily traveled roads, in order to minimize exposure to auto-related emissions. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ N5.1.4 Explore adopting new standards that target the reduction of very fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which is associated with increased impacts on health. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ N5.2.1 Promote understanding of the impacts of extended idling on air quality, for residents, auto-dependent businesses, and schools. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ N5.2.2 Consider adopting and enforcing penalties for drivers that idle for longer than 3- 5 minutes. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ N5.3.1 Cooperatively work with Santa Clara County and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to ensure that mining and industrial operations mitigate environmental and health impacts. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ N5.3.2 Monitor particulate emissions at local California Air Resources Board monitoring stations and make the information easily available to citizens. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ N5.3.3 Promote understanding of the health impacts of particulate emissions and provide information to residents and businesses about steps they can take to reduce particulate emissions, such as reducing or eliminating wood burning or using low emission alternatives to wood-burning stoves and fireplaces. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 31 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 5. Natural Environment N5.3.4 Explore feasible and cost-effective opportunities to reduce concrete and asphalt use by the City, in parks and other public projects. Department of Public Works R $ Goal N-6: An environment that minimizes the adverse impacts of noise. N6.3.1 Continue working to reduce noise impacts created by events and activities taking place in communities adjoining Palo Alto. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ N6.3.2 Evaluate the feasibility of adopting noise criteria in the purchase of new City vehicles and equipment. Department of Public Works M $ N6.3.3 Update the Noise Ordinance, as needed, to provide for clear interpretation of the regulations, to review the effectiveness of existing standards, and to ensure that regulations address contemporary issues. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ N6.7.1 Update noise impact review procedures in the Noise Ordinance to address appropriate requirements for analysis and thresholds for impacts on residential land uses and publicly-owned conservation land. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ N6.10.1 Evaluate changes to the Noise Ordinance to further reduce the impacts of noise from leaf blowers and residential power equipment. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ N6.1011 For larger development projects that demand intensive construction periods and/or use equipment that could create vibration impacts, such as the Stanford University Medical Center or major grade separation projects, require formal, ongoing monitoring and reporting of noise levels throughout the entire construction process. The monitoring plan should identify hours of operation and could include information on the monitoring locations, durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used, and appropriate noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 32 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 5. Natural Environment N6.12.1 Continue working to reduce noise associated with operations of the Palo Alto Airport. Ensure compliance with the land use compatibility standards for community noise environments, shown in Table N-1, by prohibiting incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the airport. Department of Public Works R $$ N6.12.2 Participate in appropriate public forums and engage with other governmental agencies and representatives to ensure that future activities at airports in the region do not negatively affect noise levels in Palo Alto. Department of Public Works IP $ N6.13.1 Encourage the Peninsula Corridors Joint Powers Board to pursue technologies and grade separations that would reduce or eliminate the need for train horns/whistles in communities served by rail service. Planning & Community Environment Department IP $ N6.13.2 Evaluate changing at-grade rail crossings so that they qualify as Quiet Zones based on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules and guidelines in order to mitigate the effects of train horn noise without adversely affecting safety at railroad crossings. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$$ N6.13.3 Participate in future environmental review of the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project, planned to utilize existing Caltrain track through Palo Alto, to ensure that it adheres to noise and vibration mitigation measures. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ Goal N-7: A clean, efficient energy supply that makes use of cost-effective renewable resources. N7.1.1 Meet customer electricity needs with least total cost resources after careful assessment of environmental cost and benefits. City of Palo Alto Utilities R $ N7.2.1 Promote the adoption of cost-effective, renewable energy technologies from diverse renewable fuel sources by all customers. City of Palo Alto Utilities S $ N7.2.2 Assess the feasibility of using life cycle analysis and total cost of ownership analysis for public and private projects, completed by the project proponent, in order to minimize the consumption of energy, the production of greenhouse gases, including GHG emissions of construction materials and demolition, and costs over the life of the project. City of Palo Alto Utilities M $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 33 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 5. Natural Environment N7.4.1 Continue timely incorporation of State and federal energy efficiency standards and policies in relevant City codes, regulations, and procedures, and higher local efficiency standards that are cost-effective. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ N7.4.2 Implement cost effective energy efficiency programs for all customers, including low income customers. City of Palo Alto Utilities R $ N7.4.3 Incorporate cost-effective energy conservation measures into construction, maintenance, and City operation and procurement practices. City of Palo Alto Utilities R $$ N7.4.4 Implement gas and electric rate structures that encourage efficient use of resources while meeting State law requirements that rates be based on the cost of service. City of Palo Alto Utilities M $ N7.4.5 Continue to provide public education programs addressing energy conservation and efficiency. City of Palo Alto Utilities R $ N7.5.1 Monitor professional and medically-sound research and studies on light-emitting diodes (LEDs). City of Palo Alto Utilities M $ N7.6.1 Explore changes to building and zoning codes to incorporate solar energy, energy storage, and other energy efficiency measures into major development projects, including City owned projects. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ N7.6.2 Promote use of the top floors of new and existing structured automobile garages for installation of photovoltaic panels and green roofs. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ N7.6.3 Promote solar energy in individual private projects. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ N7.7.1 Evaluate the potential for a cost-effective plan for transitioning to a completely carbon-neutral natural gas supply. City of Palo Alto Utilities S $ N7.7.2 Explore the transition of existing buildings from gas to electric or solar water and space heating. City of Palo Alto Utilities M $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 34 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 5. Natural Environment N7.8.1 Evaluate energy efficient approaches for the treatment and reuse of organic waste that maximize resource recovery and reduce greenhouse gas generation at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant located in Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Landfill. City of Palo Alto Utilities M $ Goal N-8: Actively support regional efforts to reduce our contribution to climate change while adapting to the effects of climate change on land uses and city services. N8.1.1 Participate in cooperative planning with regional and local public agencies, including on the Sustainable Communities Strategy, on issues related to climate change, such as greenhouse gas reduction, water supply reliability, sea level rise, fire protection services, emergency medical services, and emergency response planning. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ N8.1.2 Pursue or exceed State goals of achieving zero net carbon for residential buildings by 2020 and commercial buildings by 2030, without compromising the urban forest. Office of Sustainability S $ N8.2.1 Periodically update the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) consistent with the update schedule in the approved S/CAP; this update shall include an updated greenhouse gas inventory and updated short, medium, and long-term emissions reduction goals. Office of Sustainability Services M $$ N8.3.1 Protect the Municipal Services Center, Utility Control Center, and Regional Water Quality Control Plant from the impacts of sea level rise. City of Palo Alto Utilities M $$$ N8.4.1 Prepare response strategies that address sea level rise, increased flooding, landslides, soil erosion, storm events and other events related to climate change. Include strategies to respond to the impacts of sea level rise on Palo Alto’s levee system. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 35 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 6. Safety Element Goal S-1: A safe community that is aware of risks and prepared for emergencies. S1.1.1 Expand public education programs that help and encourage each household in the City to be prepared to be self-sufficient, with enough stored water and food to support the entire household for at least one week after a major earthquake, flood, terrorism event, pandemic or other major disaster. Office of Emergency Services S $ S1.1.2 Continue to implement and fund the Emergency Services Volunteer program. Office of Emergency Services S $ S1.1.3 Conduct emergency hazard drills with key stakeholder organizations across the community to improve preparedness for known threats and hazards. Office of Emergency Services R $$ S1.1.4 Support an annual community public safety fair to educate and engage the public on preparedness and offer the opportunity to buy emergency disaster supplies for home and vehicle. Office of Emergency Services R $$ S1.1.5 Encourage local businesses and other organizations to have disaster preparedness, communication, mitigation and recovery plans in place. Office of Emergency Services R $ S1.2.1 Develop accessible, attractive marketing materials to promote involvement in community crime safety programs. Office of Emergency Services R $ S1.3.1 Explore the use of urban design principles to increase safety and prevent crime in Palo Alto. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ S1.3.2 Support programs such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Good Neighbor Next Door, which incentivizes home purchase for first responders with discounts. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ S1.4.1 Make data available to maintain an accurate, up to date, and complete real- time local crime mapping function to promote neighborhood safety. Police Department M $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 36 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 6. Safety Element S1.5.1 Promote neighborhood security by providing crime prevention information and training to residents, and continuing to fund resident involvement in neighborhood safety programs such as “Know Your Neighbor” grants and Block Preparedness Coordinators. Police Department R $ S1.5.2 Collaborate with the Palo Alto Unified School District, other school districts in the City, private schools, businesses, non-profits, and local faith-based organizations provide community safety education. Police Department R $ S1.5.3 Encourage the Palo Alto Unified School District to develop secure school facilities and collaborate with Emergency Services Volunteers on disaster preparedness activities; emergency disaster planning, exercises and drills; and disaster recovery. Office of Emergency Services R $ S1.5.4 Continue to support and encourage participation in Police Department programs to introduce youth to the importance and benefits of local law enforcement. Police Department R $ S1.6.1 Enhance public safety department training for evolving challenges, such as small- to large-scale human threats, interacting with individuals with mental illness, and non-lethal alternatives. Police Department R $ S1.6.2 Support the Palo Alto Police Department in implementing and maintaining approved technologies for data gathering, surveillance, and recording interactions with the public. Incorporate best practices in use policies with special consideration in ensuring the programs protect the public’s privacy rights and civil liberties, in accordance with current legislation. Ensure transparency by communicating new equipment implementation, usage, privacy considerations, and retention of data. Police Department S $$ S1.6.3 Program S1.6.3 Communicate transparently with the community regarding adoption of new Palo Alto Police Department equipment and/or tactics while balancing the need for operational security. Police Department S $ S1.7.1 Regularly monitor and review the level of public safety staffing and satellite police station locations required for efficient local service delivery. Police Department R $ S1.7.2 Design the new Public Safety building to meet essential service standards, the needs of the public safety departments and be resilient against known threats and hazards. Department of Public Works S $$$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 37 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 6. Safety Element S1.7.3 Provide community notifications in the event of emergency using the best available methods and explore new technologies for emergency public information and warnings. Office of Emergency Services R $$ S1.8.1 Update Palo Alto’s 2001 Terrorism Response Plan. Office of Emergency Services S $$ S1.9.1 Develop an Infrastructure Master Plan that projects the future needs of streets, underground utilities, and all City assets and plans for the incorporation of new technology that improves efficiency and effectiveness. Department of Public Works S $$$ S1.10.1 Regularly update and make publicly available the City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). Office of Emergency Services R $$$ S1.10.2 Participate in local and regional planning efforts to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies. Office of Emergency Services R $ S1.10.3 Implement the mitigation strategies and guidelines provided by the Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (LHMAP), including evolving hazards resulting from climate change. Office of Emergency Services R $$ S1.12.1 Encourage multiagency coordination in case of incidents that cross disciplinary or jurisdictional boundaries or coordination that involves complex incident management scenarios. Office of Emergency Services R $ S1.12.2 Explore the establishment of mutually-beneficial cooperative agreements between Palo Alto’s police and fire departments and those of neighboring cities. Police Department, Fire Department M $ S1.13.1 Identify solutions to add an additional power line to Palo Alto to ensure redundancy. City of Palo Alto Utilities S $$ S1.13.2 Explore incentives to adopt emerging, residential off-grid capabilities and technologies, including back-up power sources vital in the event of natural disasters or other threats. City of Palo Alto Utilities M $ S1.13.3 Continue citywide efforts to underground utility wires to limit injury, loss of life, and damage to property in the event of human-made or natural disasters. City of Palo Alto Utilities R $$$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 38 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 6. Safety Element S1.13.4 Enhance the safety of City-owned natural gas pipeline operations. Work with customers, public safety officials, and industry leaders to ensure the safe delivery of natural gas throughout the service area. Provide safety information to all residents on City-owned natural gas distribution pipelines. City of Palo Alto Utilities R $$ S1.13.5 Provide off-grid and/or backup power sources for critical City facilities to ensure uninterrupted power during emergencies and disasters. City of Palo Alto Utilities R $$ Goal S-2: Protection of life, ecosystems and property from natural hazards and disasters, including earthquake, landslide, flooding, and fire. S2.5.1 Periodically review and update the City’s Seismic Hazard Ordinance. Development Services Department IP $ S2.5.2 Continue to provide incentives for seismic retrofits of structures throughout the city, particularly those building types that would affect the most people in the event of an earthquake. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ S2.6.1 Encourage efforts by individual neighborhood or block-level groups to pool resources for seismic retrofits. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ S2.6.2 Continue to use a seismic bonus and a TDR Ordinance for seismic retrofits for eligible structures in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ S2.6.3 Evaluate the TDR Ordinance so that transferred development rights may be used for residential development on the receiver sites Planning & Community Environment Department R $ S2.6.4 Study the possibility of revising the transfer of development rights program to encourage seismic retrofits. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 39 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 6. Safety Element S2.6.5 Explore the use of Community Development Block Grants, Palo Alto Housing Funds and other sources of funding to support owners of lower income and senior housing to retrofit seismically-unsafe construction. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ S2.7.1 As part of the construction permitting process for proposed new and redeveloped buildings in areas of identified hazard shown on MapS-2, structures that would affect the most people in a seismic event require submittal to the City of a geotechnical/seismic report that identifies specific risks and appropriate mitigation measures. Development Services Department S $ S2.7.2 Review and update, as appropriate, City code requirements for excavation, grading, filling and construction to ensure that they conform to currently accepted and adopted State standards. Department of Public Works M $ S2.7.3 Utilize the results of Palo Alto’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program and inventory of potentially seismically vulnerable building types to establish priorities and consider incentives to encourage structural retrofits. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ S2.8.1 Implement flood mitigation requirements of FEMA in Special Flood Hazard Areas as illustrated on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Department of Public Works R $$$ S2.8.2 Continue participating in FEMA’s Community Rating System to reduce flood insurance for local residents and businesses and strive to improve Palo Alto’s rating in order to lower the cost of flood insurance. Department of Public Works R $ S2.8.3 Partner with appropriate agencies to expand flood zones as appropriate due to sea level rise, changes in creek channels, sheet flooding or storm drain overload due to increased likelihood of extreme storm events caused by climate change. Department of Public Works R $ S2.8.4 Collaborate with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and the Santa Clara Valley Water District on environmentally-sensitive efforts to stabilize, restore, maintain and provide one percent (100-year) flood protection adjacent to San Francisquito Creek. Department of Public Works IP $$$ S2.8.5 Work with East Palo Alto, Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority on efforts to increase the flows within the San Francisquito Creek possible solutions include replacing the City-owned Newell Road Bridge and District-owned Pope Chaucer Street Bridge. Department of Public Works S $$$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 40 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 6. Safety Element S2.9.1 Keep basement restrictions up to date with changing flood hazard zones. Planning & Community Environment Department S $ S2.10.1 Review development standards applicable in areas susceptible to flooding from sea level rise, including east of Highway 101, West Bayshore and East Meadow Circle, and the area east of San Antonio Road and north of East Charleston, and implement shoreline development regulations to ensure that new development is protected from potential impacts of flooding resulting from sea level rise and significant storm events. Regulations should be consistent with the Baylands Master Plan, as amended, and may include new shoreline setback requirements, limits on lot line adjustments to avoid the creation of vulnerable shoreline lots, and/or triggers for relocation or removal of existing structures based on changing site conditions and other factors. Planning & Community Environment Department S $$ S2.10.2 Study appropriate restrictions on underground construction in areas outside of flood zones, as shown on Map S-5, to accommodate expected higher groundwater levels due to sea level rise and minimize consequent flooding of underground construction Planning & Community Environment Department S $ S2.11.1 Work cooperatively with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to provide flood protection from high tide events on San Francisco Bay, taking into account the impacts of future sea level rise, to provide one percent (100-year) flood protection from tidal flooding, while being sensitive to preserving and protecting the natural environment. Department of Public Works R $$$ S2.11.2 Work with regional, State, and federal agencies to develop additional strategies to adapt to flood hazards to existing or new development and infrastructure, including support for environmentally sensitive levees. Department of Public Works R $ S2.12.1 Regularly review and update the Fire Department’s operations, training facilities, and programs to ensure consistency with current standards and Best Management Practices. Fire Department R $ S2.12.2 Explore technological tools, such as cameras or remote sensors, to identify smoke or fires and initiate response as quickly as possible. Fire Department S $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 41 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 6. Safety Element S2.13.1 Regularly review and fund updates to the Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan to ensure consistency with current standards and Best Management Practices. Fire Department M $$ S2.13.2 Implement the Foothills Fire Management Plan to balance conservation of natural resources with reduction of fire hazards especially in open space areas. Fire Department R $$$ S2.13.3 Minimize fire hazards by maintaining low density zoning in wildland fire hazard areas. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ S2.13.4 Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and agencies to reduce wildfire hazards in and around Palo Alto, with an emphasis on effective vegetation management and mutual aid agreements. Fire Department R $ S2.13.5 Consider implementation of CAL FIRE recommended programs in educating and involving the local community to diminish potential loss caused by wildfire and identify prevention measures to reduce those risks. Fire Department S $$ S2.14.1 Evaluate measures for optimal service delivery to improve efficiency; develop automatic or mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions, including Stanford, to improve efficiencies. Fire Department M $$ S2.14.2 Upgrade fire stations so that all remain fully functional following earthquakes. Fire Department IP $$$ S2.14.3 Periodically update the Fire Department Standards of Cover document. Fire Department S $ S2.15.1 Provide public education on fire safety, including wildland and structural fire prevention, evacuation routes and guidelines for clearance of landscaping and other hazards around structures. Fire Department R $ Goal S-3: An environment free of the damaging effects of human-caused threats and hazardous materials. S3.1.1 Continue City permitting procedures for commercial and industrial storage, use, and handling of hazardous materials and regulate the commercial use of hazardous materials that may present a risk of off-site health or safety effects. Fire Department IP $ S3.1.2 Minimize the risks of biohazards in Palo Alto, including Level 4 biohazards, by continuing to review and update, as necessary, local regulations regarding use, handling and disposal. Fire Department S $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 42 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 6. Safety Element S3.1.3 Strengthen development review requirements and construction standards for projects on sites with groundwater contamination. Development Services Department S $ S3.1.4 Establish protocols to monitor the movement of hazardous materials on Palo Alto roadways and respond effectively to spills via established truck and construction routes. Fire Department M $ S3.1.5 Work with non-profit organizations to provide information to the public regarding pesticides and other commonly used hazardous materials, environmentally preferable alternatives, and safe recycling and disposal practices to all user groups. Fire Department R $ S3.1.6 Continue providing regular household hazardous waste collection events at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant and strive to make these programs more convenient and accessible to residents. Department of Public Works R $ S3.1.7 Continue to allow small quantity generators to dispose of hazardous waste at cost. Department of Public Works R $ S3.1.8 Continue to educate residents on the proper disposal of pharmaceutical and household hazardous waste. Encourage proper disposal of medications through pharmacies or drug take-back programs rather than flushing. Department of Public Works R $ S3.6.1 Work with the freight industry to monitor the contents of freight trains intersecting Palo Alto for potentially hazardous materials, and to establish accountability for accidents and spills. Office of Emergency Services R $ S3.6.2 Work with Caltrain and the Palo Alto Unified School District, to educate students and the public on the dangers of rail trespass and the benefits of suicide support services available in Palo Alto. Community Services Department R $ S3.8.1 Encourage residential and commercial food waste reduction through incentives, educational outreach and programs. Department of Public Works R $ S3.8.2 To the extent allowed by law, use refuse rate structures that incentivize waste reduction. Department of Public Works R $ S3.8.3 Continue to work with CalRecycle and the Department of Toxic Substances Control to develop and promote long-term solid waste management, such as environmentally responsible recycling programs, composting of food waste and other organics, and City-wide electronics and digital hardware recycling efforts. Department of Public Works IP $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 43 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 6. Safety Element S3.9.1 Periodically review and update the adopted Construction and Debris program. Department of Public Works R $ S3.9.2 Educate Palo Alto residents and developers about available incentives to use environmentally friendly deconstruction activities to minimize our carbon footprint, and to save natural resources, as well as space in our landfills. Development Services Department R $ S3.10.1 Support efforts to enforce extended producer responsibility for solid waste to reduce waste produced from manufacturing, shipping, packaging and the entire life-cycle of the product. Office of Sustainability Services R $ S3.12.1 Complete an inventory of the City’s digital infrastructure to locate vulnerabilities and gaps in system redundancies and develop recommendations for improved cybersecurity. City of Palo Alto Utilities S $$ S3.12.2 Establish criteria for the installation of high security telecommunications technology in new local government projects. City of Palo Alto Utilities M $ S3.12.3 Establish a wi-fi network that will be available to public safety responders and Emergency Service Volunteers in the event of power interruption during an emergency or disaster. City of Palo Alto Utilities S $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 44 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 7. Community Services & Facilities Element Goal C-1: Deliver community services effectively and efficiently. C1.1.1 Based on identified needs, continue to provide and expand the provision of multilingual literature, program information and educational displays at public community facilities and parks. Community Services Department R $ C1.1.2 Establish a cross-cultural outreach program to engage residents of all ages, cultural, social and linguistic backgrounds in educational, recreational and cultural activities offered throughout the City of Palo Alto. Community Services Department M $ C1.2.1 Periodically review public information, outreach and community relations activities to evaluate effectiveness. Community Services Department R $ C.1.2.2 Explore a City solution to help residents and others to resolve questions and concerns and navigate the City’s community services and facilities. Community Services Department M $ C1.2.3 Identify barriers to participation in City programming and facilities across gender, age, socioeconomic and ethnic groups and sexual identity and orientation, as well as mental and physical abilities, and adopt strategies to remove barriers to participation. Community Services Department S $ C1.2.4 Based on identified needs, expand program offerings to underserved groups. Community Services Department R $$$ C1.3.1 Develop and implement a plan to collect and analyze data on demographics, use of community service facilities and needs of the community as related to parks, open spaces, recreation, arts and culture. Community Services Department M $ C1.6.1 Establish a program to facilitate continuing corporate support for community services through contributions of funds, time, materials and expertise. Community Services Department M $ C1.12.1 In cooperation with public and private businesses, non-profit organizations, and PAUSD, develop a service program that will coordinate the efforts of agencies providing services to families and youth in Palo Alto. Community Services Department R $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 45 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 7. Community Services & Facilities Element C1.13.1 Determine the potential for City shared use of PAUSD facilities for weekend, summer and evening use for community uses such as child care, libraries, recreational facilities, community meeting space, education, language education, health care, culture and computer resources. Community Services Department M $ C1.15.1 Support and promote the provision of comprehensive child care services in Palo Alto by public and private providers, including employers. Community Services Department S $ C1.15.2 Utilize the Early Care and Education Committee to develop and update the Child Care Master Plan, and to connect providers and professionals working with families with young children, explore challenges and opportunities to programs and services for young children, and support early education programs in the community in their efforts to enhance quality. Community Services Department S $ C.1.15.3 Collaborate with Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC) to identify, develop, and promote high quality early learning environments to serve all families in our community. Community Services Department M $ C1.15.4 Explore opportunities to provide access to childcare for families of City employees. Community Services Department L $ C1.16.1 Identify funding sources for expanded outreach and increased involvement to support youth and teen leadership programs and events. Community Services Department M $ C1.16.2 Leverage available funding to pursue support of teen mental, physical, social and emotional health programs. Community Services Department R $ C1.17.1 Optimize participation in such programs by increasing the number of locations where the programs are provided and by supporting transportation options to these locations. Community Services Department S $ C.1.17.2 Develop programs and activities for teens that strengthen leadership skills, encourage a culture of community service, inclusiveness, tolerance and acceptance of others. Community Services Department R $ C1.17.3 Promote a diverse range of interests and vocations among programs offered to children, youth and teens. Community Services Department M $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 46 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 7. Community Services & Facilities Element C1.18.1 Develop a program to engage the talents and skills that seniors possess that would provide volunteer opportunities throughout the City. Community Services Department R $ C.1.18.2 Support, promote, and publicize the provision of comprehensive senior services in coordination with senior service providers. Comprehensive services include addressing senior nutrition, mental health and transportation. Community Services Department R $ C.1.18.3 Establish a support program for caregivers of seniors and people with disabilities by partnering with private, nonprofit, faith-based and public community service organizations. Community Services Department M $ C1.20.1 Partner with agencies for support and improved access so that all can participate as appropriate in Palo Alto recreational programs. Community Services Department R $ C1.22.1 Increase awareness about caring and compassion for the unhoused and those who suffer from mental and/or physical conditions through educational programming in partnership with community and business organizations throughout the region. Community Services Department R $ C1.22.2 Work with Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, the State of California, the federal government, non-profit agencies, business and other organizations to define roles and responsibilities in the comprehensive provision of permanent supportive housing and temporary shelter, food, clothing and transportation for those in need. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ Goal C-2: Demonstrate a commitment to excellence and high quality service to the public among City of Palo Alto officials and employees. C2.2.1 Establish performance review criteria for City employees that consider the quality of service provided. Human Resources Department M $ C2.2.2 Periodically perform evaluations of City service delivery and develop strategies for continuous improvement. Use metrics and make information publicly available. Community Services Department R $$ C3.2.1 Develop a proactive Asset Management Program for infrastructure requirements and costs. Administrative Services Department M $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 47 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 7. Community Services & Facilities Element Goal C-3: Recognize the intrinsic value and everyday importance of our parks and community centers, libraries, civic buildings and cultural assets by investing in their maintenance and improvement. C3.3.1 Periodically evaluate how parks and recreational facilities are being used and develop strategies for improving their use overall. Community Services Department IP $ C3.3.2 Study and recommend methods of private and public financing for improved park maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction of facilities, including those used for arts and culture. Community Services Department S $ C3.3.3 Estimate the costs of retrofitting all park facilities with water efficient appliances, fixtures and irrigation systems and develop an implementation schedule to phase-in use of non-potable water conservations measures where and when feasible. City of Palo Alto Utilities & Community Services Department M $$ C3.3.4 Periodically assess the need to adjust parkland dedication or fees in lieu thereof to ensure they remain proportional to real estate values in Palo Alto. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ Goal C-4: Plan for a future in which our parks, open spaces, libraries, public art, and community facilities thrive and adapt to the growth and change of Palo Alto. C4.1.1 Explore opportunities to dedicate City‐owned land as parkland to protect and preserve its community-serving purpose into the future. Community Services Department S $$$ C4.1.2 Encourage dedication of new land for parks through regulations and incentives for new development and programs to solicit bequests of land within the city. Community Services Department M $$ C4.1.3 Pursue opportunities to create linear parks over the Caltrain tracks in the event the tracks are moved below grade. Community Services Department L $$$ C4.1.4 Explore ways to dedicate a portion of in-lieu fees towards acquisition of parkland, not just improvements. Community Services Department M $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 48 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 7. Community Services & Facilities Element C4.5.1 Use Cubberley Community Center as a critical and vital part of the City’s service delivery system while also planning for its future. Community Services Department IP $$ Goal C-5: Sustain the health, well-being, recreation, and safety of residents and visitors, and improve the quality, quantity, and affordability of social services for all community members, including children, youth, teens, seniors, the unhoused , and people with disabilities. C5.1.1 Allocate resources to create and support initiatives to increase the health and well-being of the public. Community Services Department R $ C5.1.2 Establish a community-sourced online clearinghouse of information and activities related to health promotion in the community. Community Services Department M $ C5.6.1 Incorporate health and well-being topics, including arts and culture, into existing events and programs at City-owned park and recreation facilities. Community Services Department R $ C5.6.2 Work with schools and community organizations to provide programs that educate residents, workers and visitors on health and well-being topics. Community Services Department R $$ C5.9.1 Identify existing and potential indoor and outdoor locations for community gardens and farmers markets at City-owned or leased facilities and spaces. Community Services Department M $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 49 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 8. Business & Economics Element Goal B-1: Businesses in Palo Alto that contribute to economic vitality, enhance the city’s physical environment, promote municipal revenues and provide needed local services. B.1.1 Direct the Palo Alto Office of Economic Development to implement the an Economic Development Policy, as periodically amended, to guide business development in the City. Office of Economic Development R $ Goal B-3: Careful management of City revenues and expenditures so that the fiscal health of the City is ensured and services are delivered efficiently and equitably. B3.2.1 Continue to refine tools, such as the Business Registry, as data sources on existing businesses, including the type of business, number of employees, size, location, and other metrics to track the diversity of Palo Alto businesses. Development Services Department/O ffice of Economic Development IP $$ Goal B-4: The stimulation of diverse commercial, retail and professional service business opportunities through supportive business policies and a culture of innovation. B4.2.1 Revise zoning and other regulations as needed to encourage the preservation of space to accommodate small businesses, start-ups and other services. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ B4.2.2 Consider planning, regulatory, or other incentives to encourage property owners to include smaller office spaces in their buildings to serve small businesses, non- profit organizations, and independent professionals. Planning & Community Environment Department M $ B4.6.1 Work with local merchants to encourage Palo Alto residents, workers, and visitors to buy in Palo Alto. Office of Economic Development R $$ B4.6.2 Study the overall viability of ground-floor retail requirements in preserving retail space and creating an active street environment, including the types of locations where such requirements are most effective. Office of Economic Development M $$ B4.6.3 Maintain distinct neighborhood shopping areas that are attractive, accessible, and convenient to nearby residents Planning & Community Environment Department R $ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 50 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 8. Business & Economics Element Goal B-5: City regulations and operating procedures that provide certainty, predictability and flexibility and help businesses adapt to changing market conditions. B5.1.1 Regularly evaluate ways to improve coordination of the City’s environmental review, permitting, and inspection processes. Planning & Community Environment Department R $ B5.1.2 Improve design guidelines to reduce ambiguity and more clearly articulate compatibility principles to the business community and to the public. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ B5.1.3 Simplify the design review process for small-scale changes to previously approved site plans and buildings. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ B5.1.4 Revise zoning and other regulations as needed to encourage the revitalization of aging retail structures and areas. Encourage the preservation of space to accommodate small, independent retail businesses and professional services. Planning & Community Environment Department R $$ Goal B-6: Attractive, vibrant retail centers, each with a mix of uses and a distinctive character. B6.1.1 Actively work with Downtown businesses, professional associations and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce to retain successful retail businesses that contribute to the City’s goals for Downtown. Office of Economic Development R $$ Goal B-7: Thriving business employment districts at Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, East Bayshore/San Antonio Road Area and Bayshore Corridor that complement the City’s business and neighborhood centers. B7.2.1 Review policies and regulations guiding development at Stanford Research Park and revise them as needed to allow improved responsiveness to changing market conditions. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ B7.2.2 Study the feasibility of a “transfer of development rights” (TDR) program and other measures that would provide greater development flexibility within Stanford Research Park without creating significant adverse traffic impacts or increasing the allowable floor area. Planning & Community Environment Department M $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 51 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 9. Governance Element Goal G-1: Effective opportunities for public participation in local government. G1.2.1 Continue to hold regular, Town Hall-style meetings in neighborhoods. City Council R $$ G1.2.2 Periodically review the suite of engagement options used to solicit citizen input and expertise on policy issues and explore creative new engagement strategies. City Manager R $ - $$$ G1.2.3 Continue to rely on neighborhood organizations, the City website, local media, online technologies and other communication platforms to keep residents informed of current issues and to encourage citizen engagement. City Manager R $ G1.2.4 Provide access to communications technologies at City facilities, including public libraries and City Hall, and explore innovative locations for communication. City Manager R $$ G1.2.5 Continue to release City Council staff reports to the public up to 10 days prior to Council hearings to increase public awareness of City decision-making. City Clerk R $ Goal G-2: Informed and involved civic, cultural, environmental, social service and neighborhood organizations and residents. G2.2.1 Continue to offer the use of City facilities to non-profit civic, environmental, cultural, neighborhood and social service organizations for meetings and events at discounted or complimentary rates and via sponsorship programs. City Manager R $ Goal G-4: Active involvement of local citizens as volunteers. G4.1.1 Continue and expand volunteer opportunities and the community’s awareness of public and nonprofit organizations serving the City. All Departments R $ G4.1.2 Publicly recognize the efforts of individuals, groups, and businesses that provide volunteer services within the City. City Manager R $ G4.1.3 Coordinate with the Palo Alto Unified School District to develop classroom-based leadership, governance and civic participation programs. City Manager M $$ G4.1.4 Support the transition from school-based volunteering to civic participation via outreach to parent volunteers and student leaders. City Manager M $ G4.1.5 Coordinate with the real estate community to develop a welcome package for new residents by providing information on City resources and ways new residents can contribute to the community. City Manager M $$ PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE a. S = Short, M = Medium, L = Long, IP = In Progress; R = Routine June 12, 2017 Page 52 of 52 Program # Program Text Lead Department or Agency Priority – 4/18/17 (S/M/L/IP/R)a Anticipated Level of Effort ($/$$/$$$) 9. Governance Element Goal G-6: More clearly defined procedures, standards, and expectations for development review. G6.2.1 Provide clear information across multiple communications platforms to guide citizens and businesses through the City review and approval process. Planning and Community Environment R $ G6.2.2 Continue and expand customer-oriented process improvement efforts. All Departments R $$ G6.2.3 Use the pre-screening process to obtain early feedback from the City Council and the community regarding ordinance changes intended to facilitate specific development proposals. Planning and Community Environment R $ GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 1 A Accessory Dwelling Unit A separate self-contained smaller living unit with bathroom and kitchen facilities located on the same lot as a single -family residence. Can be either detached or attached from the primary residence with a separate entrance. Also known as granny units, in-law units, second units, or backyard cottages. Accessory Structure A structure that is incidental to and associated with a specific principle facility or use. Examples include detached garages and workshops, playground structures, trellis structures and gazebos. Active Transportation Human-powered transportation, such as walking or bicycling. Adaptation The process by which strategies and actions are undertaken to respond to the actual or expected effects of climate change. Alternative Energy Technology Technology that facilitates the use of renewable (non-fossil fuel) energy resources. Alternative Energy Source Any of a number of energy sources that do not rely on fossil fuels, including sunlight, wind, cogeneration, and biomass. Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 2 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Amendment A formal City Council change or revision to the Comprehensive Plan, including either the Plan’s text or its maps. Applicant An individual who has formally submitted project or development plans to a City or agency, and seeks approval of those plans. Appropriate An act, condition, or state that is considered suitable. Aquifer An underground water-bearing layer of permeable rock, sand, or gravel through which water can seep or be held in natural storage. Architectural Review Board (ARB) City Council appointed five-member board, responsible for reviewing the design of all exterior building and site changes requiring a building permit, except singly developed single family dwellings and duplexes. Arterial Major roadway mainly serving through-traffic; takes traffic to and from expressways and freeways; provides access to adjacent properties. Assessment District A procedure to pay for capital improvements wherein bonds are sold and obligation for payment is shared by property owners within the district. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) A consortium of cities and counties in nine Bay Area Counties formed to cooperate on common planning issues and solve common development problems. At-Grade Crossing The junction of two or more transportation facilities, such as a bicycle path and a roadway, or a roadway and a railway, at the ground level. See also “Grade Separation.” PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 3 At Risk Units Housing units that may lose their federal subsidies due to expiring contracts under curtailed federal housing programs. Such units are “at risk” of being converted to market rate housing. Autonomous Vehicle A self-driving vehicle that is capable of sensing its environment and navigating without human input. Auto-oriented A form of development that depends on exposure to auto traffic and presumes people will use cars to travel to and from the site. Average Household Size The number of persons in the cCity living in households divided by the total number of households in the cCity. Excludes persons living in group quarters. A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise. B Baseline Emissions The emissions that would occur without policy intervention (in a business-as-usual scenario). Baseline estimates are needed to determine the effectiveness of emissions reduction programs (often called mitigation strategies). Baseline Rate A utility rate structure that provides all customers with enough energy (or water, etc.) to meet basic needs at an affordable cost; higher rates are charged for amounts used beyond the base consumption level. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 4 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regional agency responsible for air quality planning in the Bay Area, monitoring air pollution levels, and setting and enforcing limits for stationary air pollution sources. Bay Trail 400-mile trail system, with spur trails to parks and nearby urban areas, being constructed in segments that will eventually encircle San Francisco Bay close to the waterfront; about 45 percent complete in 1997. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Rail rapid transit system serving Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. Baylands General term for the low-lying areas east of Highway 101, including developed land, open space, wetlands, marsh and flood basins. Baylands Master Plan (1987 ) 1987 City Council adopted Palo Alto planning policy document for areas east of Highway 101. Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Unit Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented to very low-, low-, or moderate-income households for an amount less than the fair market value of the unit. Below Market Rate (BMR) Program The City of Palo Alto’s Inclusionary Housing policy and procedures that seek to increase the amount of housing affordable to individuals and families with less than median income. Best Management Practice (BMP) Programs, technologies, operating methods, or other measures that control, prevent, or reduce pollution. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 5 Bicycle Boulevard A low volume through-street where bicycles have priority over cars, conflicts between cars and bicycles are minimized, and bicycle travel time is reduced by removal of stop signs and other impediments to bicycle travel. Bicycle Lane (Class II Facility) A separate lane on a roadway that is reserved for bicyclists and demarcated by lane striping. Bicycle Path (Class I Facility) A paved route not on a street or roadway and expressly reserved for bicycles traversing an otherwise unpaved area. Bicycle paths may parallel roads but typically are separated from them by landscaping. Bicycle Route (Class III Facility) A facility shared with motorists and identified only by signs, a bicycle route has no pavement markings or lane stripes. Bike Share/Sharing A transportation service in which a fleet of bicycles is made available for users to borrow on a short-term basis. Typically, the service is designed so that a user may borrow a bicycle from a self-serve station and return the bicycle to another station in the bike share system. Bikeway A corridor designated and/or reserved for bicyclists. A Class I facility is a bike path that is not part of a vehicle roadway. A Class II facility consists of on-street bike lanes. A Class III facility is a roadway that has been designated as a bike route by signage only. Biotechnology The industry associated with the application of biological and engineering data to technology. Bird-Friendly Design The use of building strategies and materials intended to reduce harm for birds, such as glass treatments that reduce bird collisions with buildings. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 6 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Bollard A relatively short post used on or along a street or path for decorative, lighting, or traffic control purposes. Boulevard A roadway characterized by a landscaped median and planting strips on each side. Buffer An area of land separating two distinct land uses that acts to soften or mitigate the effects of one land use on the other. Building Envelope Restriction A method of limiting the size of a building by specifying the maximum building size in three dimensions. Buildout The point at which all land eligible for development under the Comprehensive Plan has been developed to its maximum allowed level. Bulbout A usually rounded extension of the sidewalk or parkway into the adjacent street that facilitates pedestrian activity or added landscaping. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) A bus-based transit system designed to increase speed, reliability, and capacity in comparison to conventional bus service by applying features typical of rail transit. Bus rapid transit can include features such as dedicated lanes, easy-to-board vehicles, boarding platforms, off-board ticketing, real-time schedule information, signal priority, and increased frequency. Business Outreach City programs that convey information to local businesses, receive input from local businesses regarding their needs, and assist businesses in meeting these needs. Business Retention City programs aimed at supporting, retaining, and sustaining local businesses. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 7 Bypass Culvert An overflow device used along creeks to divert excess stormwater as a means of reducing flooding and avoiding the need for creek channelization. C CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; State department that provides fire protection and land stewardship for California’s privately-owned wildlands as well as emergency services through contracts with local governments. Cal-Ventura Mixed use neighborhood located southeast of the California Avenue business district generally bordered by Cambridge Avenue, Fernando Avenue, the Caltrain railroad tracks, and El Camino Real. California Air Resources Board (CARB) State board responsible for approving air quality attainment plans, establishing air quality standards and vehicle emissions requirements, and implementing the Federal Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) State agency responsible for the regulation of contaminated sites. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) State law requiring State and local agencies to regulate activities with consideration for environmental protection, and requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact exists. California Integrated Waste Management Act (1989 ) State legislation enacted in response to the need for diverting materials from landfills generally by reductions in consumption or by recycling, in order to preserve decreasing landfill capacity and natural resources; required cities and counties to divert 25 percent of solid waste from disposal by 1995 and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 8 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 California Register of Historic Resources Register created in 1992 as an authoritative guide for identifying the State’s historic resources and indicating properties that are to be protected; includes properties on the National Register and State Historic Landmarks No. 770 and higher. Caltrain Passenger rail service serving the corridor between San Francisco and Gilroy, via cities along the west side of San Francisco Bay (including Palo Alto). Caltrans California Department of Transportation; State agency responsible for the construction, maintenance, planning, and management of major transportation facilities in California. Canopy The layer of tree leaves, branches, and stems that cover the ground when viewed from above. Canopy: Trees for Palo Alto A non-profit organization established in 1996, partially funded by the City of Palo Alto for the purpose of providing community leadership, channeling volunteer efforts, and the planting of street trees. Successor to the "Tree Task Force." Canopy Cover The amount of ground area covered by tree canopy. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The City’s spending plan for infrastructure projects. The CIP is a rolling five-year program that is contained in the City’s annual capital budget; it allocates capital improvement funds based on City Council priorities. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas that is a normal part of the ambient air. Carbon dioxide is a product of fossil fuel combustion. Although carbon dioxide does not directly impair human health, it is a greenhouse gas that traps terrestrial (i.e., infrared) radiation and contributes to the potential for global warming. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 9 Carbon Neutrality A state in which the carbon emissions of an action are balanced with an equivalent amount of carbon sequestration or offsets. Also known as zero net carbon. Carpooling Incentive Program Program designed to encourage employees to travel to work via car pool rather than via single passenger automobile; may include such incentives as preferential parking, high-occupancy vehicle lanes or financial remuneration. Center Commercial and mixed- use areas of the City that serve as the focus for community life; may serve the region, the City, general neighborhoods, or a single neighborhood. Center-based Child Care Child care services that are provided from a designated facility, rather than in a private residence. Central Business District (CBD) Major commercial downtown center of a community. In Palo Alto, the University Avenue/Downtown area. General guidelines for delineating a CBD are defined by the US Census of Retail Trade; specific boundaries are set by municipalities. Channelization The straightening and/or enlarging of a watercourse for the purposes of storm runoff control or ease of navigation; may include lining of streambanks with a retaining material such as concrete. Charette An intensive effort, usually over one or two days, by a variety of interested stakeholders to develop a design solution to a given problem. Charter Document approved by the voters of Palo Alto that functions as a “constitution” for the City. Citizen A person who lives, works, shops or visits in Palo Alto. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 10 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) 25-member ad hoc committee appointed in 2015 by the Palo Alto City Council to review, comment on and recommend the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs to City Council. City Council Nine-memberThe elected body of Palo Alto residents responsible for governing the City and making decisions regarding the provision of City services and resolution of civic issues. City/School Liaison Committee A committee consisting of two school board members and two City Council members that meets periodically to identify and address issues of mutual interest and concern. Civic Use Any building or property that serves a public function, including schools, libraries, City Hall, post offices, police and fire stations, and recreational and cultural facilities. Clean Air Act (CAA) The principal national legislation passed by Congress for air quality management. Originally passed in 1963, it was greatly changed and strengthened in 1970 and 1977. In 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments introduced significant changes in the federal approach to air quality management. Climate Change The change in climate patterns associated with the alteration of the chemical composition of the atmosphere due to the buildup of greenhouse gases. Co-housing Housing designed to include private, individual sleeping and living areas with shared or communal cooking, dining, work, and/or recreational facilities. Collector Street Roadway that collects and distributes local traffic to and from arterial streets, and provides access to adjacent properties. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 11 Commercial Center Commercial and mixed-use areas that serve as focal points of commercial activity; commercial centers in Palo Alto include regional centers, multi-neighborhood centers, and neighborhood centers. Commercial Strip A land use pattern characterized by continuous automobile-dependent commercial frontage, usually dominated by front parking lots and long, low buildings oriented towards a highway or arterial street. Community Facility Facility in which public services for Palo Alto residents are provided, including recreational and cultural services, and services for youth and seniors. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Grant program administered by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Grants must primarily be used to benefit very low- and low-income households with emphasis on housing and public improvement projects. The City of Palo Alto is an entitlement city that receives an annual funding grant from HUD. Compact Development A development philosophy that emphasizes infilling of vacant and underutilized lots before expanding the boundaries of the urban area, and encourages higher residential densities and non-residential development intensity as a means of conserving open space and supporting public transit. Compatible Capable of existing together without significant conflict or ill effects. Complete Streets Streets that provide safe travel for all users, including motorists, transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Composting The process of mixing decaying organic material, such as yard waste and food waste, to create fertilizer and reduce the amount of waste that must be disposed in landfills. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 12 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Legislation passed by Congress in 1980 to address the problem of cleaning up hazardous waste sites; created a national priority list of sites to be cleaned up. Comprehensive Plan A compendium of city (or county) policies regarding long- term development, in the form of maps and accompanying text. The Plan is a legal document required of each local agency by the State of California Government Code Section 65301 and adopted by the City Council. Referred to in State Law and most many California cities as the General Plan. Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) 37-member ad hoc committee appointed in 1992 by the Palo Alto City Council to prepare the draft Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs. Computerized Traffic Management System A system in which traffic signals are timed with the aid of a computer to provide coordination, thus minimizing delays and ensuring that traffic flows as smoothly as possible. Concept Plan An area-specific yet high-level land use plan that includes key issues, a preferred land use diagram, policies and implementation measures to chart future development in the target area. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) A discretionary permit that allows the use of land or occupancy of a structure for a particular purpose subject to limitations or conditions of approval. Condominium Conversion Ordinance Palo Alto ordinance enacted in 1974 that restricts the conversion of apartments to condominiums as a way of preserving the City’s rental housing stock. Congestion Management Program (CMP) A State-mandated program required of urban counties; employs growth management techniques, level of service requirements, standards for public transit, trip reduction programs, jobs/housing balance strategies, and capital improvement PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 13 programming to control and/or reduce the cumulative regional traffic impacts of development. Consolidated Plan Action Plan Locally prepared document required for the receipt of federal housing funds; outlines actions to be taken to provide housing opportunities for low and moderate income households. Convenience-oriented Business A business that sells retail items generally necessary or desirable for everyday living, usually purchased at a convenient nearby location. Often purchased without comparison shopping because these goods cost relatively little compared to income. Coordinated Area Plan A plan that provides more specific guidance than the Comprehensive Plan, including zoning regulations, for development of a sub-area identified as having the potential for change; a means to achieve citizen participation in the planning of such an area. See also “Precise Plan and Specific Plan.” Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) Coalition of local government staff, resource agency staff, and representatives from various community, business, and interest groups, administered by the Peninsula Conservation Center; formed to address a range of natural resource issues in creek watersheds, with 1996-8 emphasis on San Francisquito Creek. Corporate Citizenship Refers to the active participation of local business in community affairs. Corridor Any major transportation route, including freeways, expressways, arterials, or transit lines; may also be used to describe land uses along these routes. Cost-effective Intended to provide good value or productive results for the amount of money paid. Cottage A small, simple, usually single-story detached dwelling unit. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 14 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Cottage Cluster A grouping of cottages on a single property, often arranged around a common lawn or green area and sharing parking. Council/Manager Government A type of municipal government in which the chief executive official is a manager selected by the City Council. Palo Alto has a Council/Manager Government. Creek Any of a number of natural watercourses flowing from the hill areas to San Francisco Bay; usually characterized by a distinct channel and a band of dense vegetation along the banks. See also “Urban Creek.” Creek Setback A minimum distance regulatory requirement between the top of a creekbank and the nearest structure or other improvement; used to reduce erosion, minimize flooding, and conserve wildlife habitat. Criteria Air Pollutants A group of very common air pollutants regulated by EPA on the basis of criteria (information on health and/or environmental effects of pollution). Criteria air pollutants are widely distributed all over the country. Critical Facilities Facilities that either (1) provide emergency services or (2) house or serve many people who would be injured or killed in case of disaster damage to the facility. Examples include hospitals, fire stations, police and emergency services facilities, utility facilities, and communications facilities. Cumulative Impact Two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Curb Lane Portion of a street next to the curb that can be used for on-street parking or auto or bicycle travel. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 15 Customer Service In the context of the Comprehensive Plan, refers to courteous treatment of the public, and efficient, responsive delivery of services by City employees. Customer-oriented Process Improvement An approach to restructuring City service delivery that places first priority on making things easier for the public. Cybersecurity Protection of computers, networks, and technology users against criminal or unauthorized uses of or access to electronic data. D Day/Night Noise Level (Ldn) The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels in the night between 10:00 pmp.m. and 7:00 ama.m. dBA The "A weighted" scale for measuring sound in decibels; weighs or reduces the effects of low and high frequencies in order to simulate human hearing. Every increase of 10 dBA doubles the perceived loudness though the noise is actually ten times more intense. Decibel (dB) A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter). Demand-responsive Paratransit Form of transit serving persons with disabilities in which vehicles are dispatched on an as-needed basis instead of following a fixed route and schedule; includes taxis and dial-a-ride services. Density For residential uses, the number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land. For non-residential uses, density is often referred to as development intensity PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 16 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 and is expressed through a ratio of floor area to lot size. See also “Gross Density” and “Net Density.” Density Bonus The allocation of development rights that allow a development to include additional residential units or square footage beyond the maximum otherwise allowed by zoning, usually in exchange for the provision or preservation of an amenity at the same site or another location. Design Guidelines Provisions guiding the design of buildings that are not mandatory but may be used by Staff, the City’s advisory boards and commissions, and the City Council in evaluating projects. Design Review A process used to administer regulations for the design of structures to ensure that such structures are suitable, harmonious, and in keeping with the general appearance, historic character, and/or style of the structure and/or surrounding area. Detention The temporary storage of stormwater overflow; typically in a pond or underground pipes. Development The physical extension and/or construction of urban land uses. Development activities include subdivision of land; construction or alteration of structures, roads, utilities, and other facilities; installation of septic systems; grading; deposit of refuse, debris, or fill; and clearing of natural vegetative cover for non-agricultural purposes. Dewatering The removal of water. Construction dewatering refers to the process of pumping groundwater from a construction site. District Park Parks that serve large areas of the City and contain a broad variety of facilities. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 17 Downtown The business center of a City or town; in Palo Alto, used to describe the University Avenue business district. Downtown Urban Design Guide 1994 City Council approved document intended to provide a framework for the design of buildings and public spaces in Downtown Palo Alto; provisions are advisory, not mandatory. Drainage (1) Surface water runoff; and (2) the removal of surface water or groundwater from land by drains, grading, or other means that include runoff controls to minimize erosion and sedimentation during and after construction or development, the means for preserving the water supply, and the prevention or alleviation of flooding. Drought-tolerant Landscaping Landscaping that minimizes water requirements and consumption through plant selection, design, installation, and management. Also known as low water use landscaping or xeriscape. Dwelling Unit A room or group of rooms, including living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation facilities, constituting a separate and independent housekeeping unit, occupied or in- tended for occupancy by one household on a non-transient basis and having not more than one kitchen. E E-bike Bicycles with an electric motor that can be used to assist with propulsion. Earthquake Fault Zone The State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act identifies sites within 1,000 foot wide zone with the fault at the center as Earthquake Fault Zones. The Alquist-Priolo Act requires that these sites undergo specialized geologic investigations prior to approval of certain new development. State law re-quires that these zones be incorporated into local general plans. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 18 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Easement The right to use property owned by another for specific purposes, such as access to another piece of property, conveyance of stormwater, or transmission of gas or electricity. Economic Resources Plan 1993 City Council adopted five point strategy for working with the local business community. Eichler A style of housing popularized in Palo Alto during the 1950s by homebuilder Joseph Eichler and characterized by single story, slab on grade construction, spartan facades, interior courtyards, flat or slightly sloping roofs and expansive glass walls. Electric Vehicle An automobile propelled by one or more electric motors using electrical energy stored in rechargeable batteries. Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) Devices of varying power levels that supply electrical energy for recharging an electric vehicle. Electronic Information Information that is stored, transmitted, or received via an electronic medium, such as a computer and modem. Element A component chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. State law requires each Plan to incorporate seven elements (Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, Safety and Noise), although the elements may be organized in any of a number of ways. Emergency Shelter A facility that provides immediate and short-term housing and supplemental services for homeless persons. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 19 Emergency Preparedness The act of planning and preparing for a natural or man- made disaster, such as an earthquake or fire. Emergency Management Plan City of Palo Alto document that includes provisions for pre-disaster planning, evacuation, communication, shelter, welfare, public health and safety, and post- disaster recovery. Emission Discharges into the atmosphere from such sources as smokestacks, residential chimneys, motor vehicles, locomotives, and aircraft. Employment District Relatively large areas of the City dominated by low-rise office, high technology, light industrial, and other job-generating land uses but containing relatively few retail and service uses. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) An informational document that provides decision makers and the public with information about the effects a proposed project is likely to have on the environment, ways these effects may be minimized and alternatives to the proposed project. The document is prepared consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal agency charged with protecting the environment. Environmentally Sensitive Area Areas that have limited suitability for development due to their natural resource values, such as wetlands, steep hillsides and distinctive wildlife habitat areas. Environmental Review Process through which the City of Palo Alto, following the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), evaluates a project for its potential impacts on the environment. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 20 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Erosion (1) The loosening and transportation of rock and soil debris by wind, rain, or running water. (2) The gradual wearing away of the upper layers of earth. Expansive Soils Soils that swell when they absorb water and shrink as they dry. Expressway Major roadway with limited access to adjacent properties; devoted almost exclusively to traffic movement, mainly serving through-traffic. F Fair Share The equitable assignment of a regional need, such as affordable housing, to the individual local governments within that region. Typically used by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to assign affordable housing responsibilities to Bay Area cities and counties, but also used with regard to hazardous materials and special needs housing. Fault A fracture in the earth's crust forming a boundary between rock masses that have shifted. Fault Rupture Fracturing or displacement of the ground surface due to seismic activity along an earthquake fault or fault trace. Also called “surface rupture.” Feasible Capable of being done, executed, or managed successfully considering physical, financial, scheduling and other constraints. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal agency responsible for air safety and regulation of air traffic. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal agency responsible for disaster response and assistance in post-disaster recovery. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 21 Fiber Optic Ring A network of Fiber Optic cables installed by the City of Palo Alto to serve a portion of the electronic data needs of the business and residential community. Flexible Zoning Land use regulations that provide more leeway to property owners by using performance standards rather than rigid lists of permitted and prohibited uses and dimensional requirements. Flood Control Any of a number of structural or non-structural measures designed to divert or contain floodwater and prevent flooding. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) The official map on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The gross floor area permitted on a site divided by the total net area of the site, expressed in decimals of one to two places. Foothills The hilly and sloping areas lying at the base of a mountain range. In Palo Alto, the area between the alluvial flatland and Skyline Boulevard are called the Foothills, including Stanford lands southwest of Junipero Serra Avenue. Form Code A set of regulations that address the location and physical attributes of building(s) or site(s) by precisely establishing the location and form of structures including setbacks, building heights and other physical features, rather than control development by applying maximum development limits. Freeway Major roadway with controlled access; devoted exclusively to traffic movement, mainly of a through or regional nature. Local examples include Highways 101 and 280. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 22 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Frontage The part of a lot that touches a road, street, or watercourse; it is often described as a specific amount such as “60 feet of frontage”. G Gateway A point along a roadway at which a motorist or pedestrian gains a sense of having entered the City or a particular part of the City. This impression can be imparted through such things as signs, monuments, landscaping, a change in development character, or a natural feature such as a creek. General Fund Component of City budget generated by sales tax, property tax, utility tax, and other miscellaneous sources, and used to fund general City Services and debt service. General Plan See Comprehensive Plan. A city's basic planning document, which provides the blueprint for development throughout the community and is the vehicle through which competing interests and needs of the citizenry are balanced and meshed. In Palo Alto, this Comprehensive Plan is the general plan. See also “Comprehensive Plan.” Geographic Information Systems (GIS) A method of storing geographic information on computers. Geographic information can be obtained from a variety of sources, including topographic maps, soil maps, aerial and satellite photos, and remote sensing technology. Geologic Hazard Any public safety hazard associated with geologic forces, including landsliding, mudsliding, surface rupture, groundshaking, liquefaction, and erosion and sedimentation. Goal A general end towards which the City will direct effort. Grade The average level of the finished surface of the ground adjacent to the exterior walls of the building. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 23 Grade Crossing The point at which a railroad line and a road, or two railroad lines, cross at the same level. Grade, Existing The vertical elevation of the ground surface prior to excavating or filling. Grade Separation The intersection of two or more surface transportation facilities at different heights (grades) so that traffic flow is not disrupted. Examples include an overpass, underpass, or tunnel. Grading Ordinance Locally adopted ordinance that regulates grading activities and ensures that erosion, aesthetic, and drainage considerations are taken into account. Green Infrastructure The network of natural or constructed features and systems that help to address urban issues, such as by reducing heat islands, increasing biodiversity and wildlife connectivity, producing food, improving air quality, generating sustainable energy, cleaning soils, and managing stormwater. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Gases that are released into the atmosphere largely as a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, including oil, natural gas, and coal, and can be emitted as methane during the production and transport of fossil fuels. Gross Density The number of housing units per acre of land, including roads, utility easements, and other dedicated rights-of-way. Groundshaking Earthquake-induced shaking of the ground; may cause widespread damage and structural failure. Varies depending on the firmness of the ground and the magnitude of the earthquake. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 24 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Groundwater Water under the earth’s surface, often confined to aquifers, capable of supplying wells and springs. Groundwater Recharge The process of infiltration and percolation of rainwater from land areas or streams through permeable soils into water holding aquifers that provide underground storage. Guard and Go Method of discouraging through-traffic on local streets through frequent use of stop signs. H Habitat The physical location or type of environment in which an organism or biological population lives or occurs. Hazardous Material An injurious substance, including pesticides, herbicides, poisons, toxic metals and chemicals, liquefied natural gas, explosives, volatile chemicals, and nuclear fuels. Hazardous Waste Any refuse or discarded material or combinations of refuse or discarded materials in solid, semisolid, liquid, or gaseous form which cannot be handled by routine waste management techniques because they pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or other living organisms because of their chemical, biological, or physical properties. Hazardous Waste (HW) Facility Combining District A special zoning district that allows hazardous waste facilities subject to specified standards; used in combination with a “base” zoning district that allows a broader range of uses such as industrial or manufacturing. Heritage Tree A designated tree that is unique and important to the community because of its species, age, size, location, and/or historical significance. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 25 High Density A relative term, used to describe development dominated by multi-family housing and buildings of two stories or more. In Palo Alto, high density areas generally exceed 30 housing units per acre. High Speed Rail (HSR) A rail system designed to significantly increase speed in comparison to conventional rail service. The California High-Speed Rail Authority is responsible for planning, designing, building, and operating California High Speed Rail, which is anticipated to travel from Southern California to the Bay Area, including through Palo Alto.. High Technology An economic sector composed of a broad range of activities, including development and production of computers and office machines, communications equipment, semiconductors and electronic components, aerospace and military vehicles, computer services, research and development laboratories, and scientific instruments. High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane A traffic lane reserved for vehicles that contain two or more (and in some cases three or more) persons. Historic Buildings Inventory City-maintained roster of buildings and/or sites with national, state, or local historic significance. Historic Preservation The preservation of historically significant structures and neighborhoods, often with the intent of restoring or rehabilitating the structures to their former condition. Historic Preservation Ordinance City of Palo Alto legislation guiding the maintenance and preservation of historic buildings and sites. Historic Resource A historic building or site that is noteworthy for its significance in local, state or national history or culture, its architecture or design, or its works of art, memorabilia, or artifacts. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 26 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Historic Resources Board (HRB) City Council appointed seven-member board, responsible for designating, preserving, protecting, enhancing and perpetuating those historic structures, districts and neighborhoods that contribute to the cultural and aesthetic heritage of Palo Alto. Historic Structure A structure deemed to be historically significant based on its visual quality, design, history, association, context, and/ or integrity. Home Improvement Exception A process in the City’s Zoning Ordinance that allows minor exceptions to the site development regulations in order to preserve an existing architectural style or neighborhood character. HOME Program Federal program enacted in 1990 that distributes funds on a formula basis to qualifying local jurisdictions and to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for distribution to other local jurisdictions; funds may be used for rehabilitation, new construction, acquisition, and tenant-based rental assistance; the City of Palo Alto is a non-entitlement City for HOME funds and must make application to the State. Horizon Year The end of the period covered by the Comprehensive Plan; in this case, 20302010. Household Hazardous Waste Waste that is generated in the home that are toxic or hazardous to humans and the environment when discarded, including paint, motor oil, batteries, and household cleaning products. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) A cabinet level department of the federal government that administers housing and community development programs. Housing Development Fund City maintained fund that can be used for acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of housing. The funds are primarily available to non-profit groups who agree to maintain the long-term affordability of the housing units. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 27 Housing Discrimination Ordinance Chapter 9.74 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code that prohibits discrimination in renting or leasing housing based on age, parenthood, pregnancy, or the potential or actual presence of a minor child. Housing Technical Document A supplement to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan that includes technical, socioeconomic and housing data as well as more detail on the City’s housing programs; meets State requirements for Housing Elements. Housing Unit The place of permanent or customary abode for a person or household. May be a single family dwelling, a condominium, a co-operative, a mobile home, an apartment, or any other residential unit considered real property under State law. Must have cooking facilities, a bathroom, and a place to sleep. Human Relations Commission (HRC) City Council appointed board consisting of seven Palo Alto residents; responsible for addressing a broad range of human relations and equity issues in the Ccity. I Impervious Surface Surface through which water cannot easily penetrate, such as roof, road, sidewalk, and paved parking lot. Impact The effect of any direct, man-made actions or indirect repercussions of man-made actions on existing physical, environmental, social, or economic conditions. Implementation An action, procedure, program or technique that involves the carrying out of policies. In-lieu Fee Cash payments that may be required of an owner or developer as a substitute for dedication of land or physical improvements; usually calculated in dollars per lot or square foot of land or building area. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 28 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Incentive A reward or bonus offered by the City to encourage the private sector to take an action that would be less likely otherwise. Inclusionary Housing Housing that is built as a result of local regulations that require a minimum percentage of all units in developments exceeding a certain size to be affordable to low and moderate income households. Infill Development of individual vacant lots or leftover vacant properties within areas that are already developed. Infiltration The process through which water travels from the ground surface through soil to the aquifer. Infrastructure Public services and facilities, such as sewage disposal systems, water supply systems, other utility systems, and roads. Initial Study A preliminary evaluation of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act to determine the necessity for and scope of an Environmental Impact Report, or to enable modifications that would qualify for a Negative Declaration, or to provide a factual basis for a Negative Declaration. Injection Well A well-used to dispose of liquids or replenish groundwater through injection into the ground. Intercity/Intercounty Involving more than one City or County. J, K Jitney A small bus or van that transports passengers on a fixed route according to a flexible schedule for free or a small fare. See also Shuttle Bus. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 29 Jobs/Housing Balance The availability of affordable housing for local workers. Jobs/HousingJobs/Employed Residents Ratio The jobs/housing divides the number of jobs in an area by the number of. The jobs/employed residents ratio divides the number of jobs by the number of employed residents. A ratio of 1.0 indicates a numerical balance. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates a net in-commute; less than 1.0 indicates a net out-commute. L L01, L10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of the time during the measurement period. LAFCo (Local Agency Formation Commission) A five-member commission within Santa Clara County comprised of two county supervisors, two City Council members, and one member of the public, that reviews, evaluates and is empowered to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve all proposals for formation of special districts, incorporation of cities, annexation to special districts or cities, consolidation of districts and merger of districts within the county. Land Banking Acquisition of land by a local government or other nonprofit entity for eventual resale or improvement at a later date, usually for affordable housing, open space or parkland. Landsliding The rapid downslope movement of rock, soil, and debris; usually induced by heavy rain or seismic activity. Land Use and Circulation Map The poster-sized fold-out diagram in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan illustrating the general distribution and intensity of allowable development, and the location of existing and planned roads, public facilities and open space. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 30 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Land Use Definitions Definitions of Land Use correspond to the categories on the land use and Circulation Map. Complete definition of each category is contained in the Land Use and Circulation Element. Ldn See also “Day/Night Level.” Legislative Decision Making Decisions that involve making or recommending new policies or laws. Level of Service (LOS) Standard, Traffic A scale that measures the amount of traffic that a roadway or intersection can accommodate, based on such factors as maneuverability, driver dissatisfaction, and delay. LOS A Indicates a relatively free flow of traffic, with little or no limitation on vehicle movement or speed. LOS B A steady flow of traffic, with only slight delays in vehicle movement and speed LOS C A reasonably steady, high-volume flow of traffic, with some limitations on vehicle movement and speed, and occasional backups on critical approaches. LOS D Designates where the level of traffic nears an unstable flow. Intersections still function but short queues develop and cars may have to wait through one cycle during short peaks. LOS E Traffic characterized by slow movement and frequent (although momentary) stoppages. This type of congestion is considered severe, but is not uncommon at peak hours, with frequent stopping, longstanding queues, and blocked intersections. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 31 LOS F Represents unsatisfactory stop-and-go traffic characterized by "traffic jams" and stoppages of long duration. Vehicles at signalized intersections usually have to wait through one or more signal changes, and "upstream" intersections may be blocked by the long queues. Lifts (parking) See also “Mechanical Parking.” Liquefaction The transformation of loose, water-saturated granular materials (such as sand or silt) from a solid into a liquid state; may occur during major earthquakes. Livability Refers to the environmental and social quality of an area. A livable community has a high degree of safety, health, housing and transportation options, functional ecosystems, aesthetic value, public participation in civic life, recreation, entertainment, and a unique identity. Live/Work A development type designed so that persons may live and work in the same space, often in former commercial or industrial buildings renovated for habitation. Local Street Minor roadway that provides access to adjacent properties only. Local Action List List developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to reduce automobile trips and traffic congestion. Local-serving Economic activities with a primarily local market, such as retail stores and personal services; contrasted to “basic” economic activities such as manufacturing and wholesale trade. Long-term Parking Facility A lot or structure dedicated to all day automobile parking. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 32 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Low-Emission Vehicle A motor vehicle that emits relatively low levels of motor vehicle emissions in comparison to a conventional motor vehicle. California’s LEV standards apply to certain passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. Low Impact Development (LID) An approach to land development that utilizes natural processes and incorporates systems and practices designed to manage stormwater in a way that protects water quality. Low-Income Households with incomes between 51 and 80 percent of the areawide (in this case, Santa Clara County) median family income. Thresholds vary depending on the number of persons in the household. M Marguerite Shuttle Bus or van service available to the general public provided by Stanford University at no fee to riders, serving the campus and portions of Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Market Pricing An approach to transportation management for the purpose of discouraging vehicle trips that varies the cost of travel to the user through road and bridge tolls, parking fees, and other methods depending on the level of demand. Market-rate Housing Housing that is offered for rent or sale at fair market value without any consideration of standards for determining affordability. Mechanical Parking A mechanical system designed to transport cars to and from parking spaces, typically by stacking cars vertically, in order to minimize the area and/or volume required for parking cars. Also known as lifts. Median 1) The paved or landscaped area on a major roadway that separates traffic moving in opposing directions. 2) The point at which one-half of a set is greater and one-half is lessfewer, such as median income or median rent. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 33 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) The regional transportation agency for the Bay Area; responsible for long-range transportation and mass transit planning, road funding, traffic and transportation models, and traffic projections. Microunits Compact, one-room dwelling units, typically with 150 to 300 square feet of space. Mid-Peninsula Pertaining to the central part of the San Francisco Peninsula, extending from San Francisco Airport south to and including Palo Alto. Mineral Deposits of Regional Significance A designation applied by the State Division of Mines and Geology to land on which known deposits of commercially viable mineral or aggregate deposits exist; intended to protect quarrying operations from encroachment by incompatible uses. Mini-park Small neighborhood park of approximately one-half to two acres. Minimize To reduce or lessen, but not necessarily to eliminate. Minimum Density Requirements Land use regulations that allow development only if the proposed density will be greater than a specific number of units per acre. Mission-driven Budget (MDB) Palo Alto’s unique budgetary process that integrates principals of Management by Objectives, program budgeting and performance reporting; emphasizes ensuring that resources are allocated based on agreed upon missions; focuses on planning and evaluation, accountability, resource allocation, and financial management. Mitigate To ameliorate, alleviate, or avoid to the extent reasonably feasible. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 34 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Mitigated Negative Declaration A Negative Declaration that concludes a project will not have a significant effect on the environment because the project has been modified and/or mitigation measures have been included. Mitigation Measures taken to eliminate or minimize damages from development activities by replacement of the resource or other means of compensation. Mixed Use A development type in which various uses, such as office, retail, and residential, are combined in the same building or within separate buildings on the same site or on nearby sites. Mobility The ability to move from one place to another, or to transport goods from one place to another. Moderate-Income Households with incomes between 81 and 120 percent of the areawide (Santa Clara County) median family income. Thresholds vary depending on the number of persons in the household. Mortgage Credit Certificates Federally created, locally run program that assists first-time home buyers in qualifying for mortgages. Certificates are issued by a local agency to qualified low- or moderate-income first time home buyers; the IRS allows eligible home buyers to take 20 percent of their annual mortgage interest as a dollar for dollar tax credit against their personal income tax. Mortgage Revenue Bonds Government bonds that provide low cost tax-exempt financing to developers who make a portion of the units in their projects available to low and moderate income households. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 35 Multi-modal Transit Station A location that provides connections between bus and rail transit modes and includes pick-up, drop-off and parking areas for cars, as well as bicycle related facilities. Multi-Neighborhood Center Retail shopping centers or districts that serve more than one neighborhood with a diverse mix of uses, including retail, service, office, and residential. Mutual Aid Agreement An agreement between two or more jurisdictions for the joint provision of services that cross jurisdictional boundaries, such as fire protection. N National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Federal law requiring agencies to document and consider the environmental implications of their actions. National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) The Nation’s largest independent, non-profit public service organization advocating quality recreation and parks for the American people; its objectives revolve around public advocacy, public visibility, research, and professional development. National Register of Historic Places The federal government’s list of properties that have been identified as worthy of preservation; properties may be listed on the Register or may be identified as being “eligible” or “potentially eligible;” properties are usually listed in the National Register through nominations by the State Office of Historic Preservation. Native Plants Plants indigenous to an area or from a similar climate and requiring little or no supplemental irrigation once established. Negative Declaration A finding under the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act that a proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and does not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 36 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Neighborhood A part of the City defined by distinct characteristics and boundaries and considered as familiar territory by its residents. Neighborhood Beautification Refers to any of a number of efforts or programs aimed at improving the visual quality of a neighborhood, including improved landscaping, signage, streets, painting and building facades, as well as community clean-ups. Neighborhood Center A small retail center with a primary trade area limited to the immediately surrounding area; often anchored by a grocery or drug store and may include a variety of smaller retail shops and offices oriented to the everyday needs of surrounding residents. Also called “Neighborhood Shopping Center.” Neighborhood Park Park of roughly two to 10 acres in size, intended to meet the recreation needs of people living or working within a one-half mile radius. Net Density The number of housing units per acre of land, excluding public roads, natural watercourse and drainage easements, and other dedicated rights of way. Net Zero A sustainability concept wherein resource usage is balanced by resource generation or offsets. 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study 1989 City Council approved Palo Alto planning document that established non- residential development limits (in square feet) for different geographic areas in the City. Noise A sound of any kind, especially one that is loud, unwanted, or disagreeable. Noise Compatibility The relationship between land uses and ambient noise levels; residential uses are considered to be less compatible with high noise environments than industrial uses. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 37 Noise Contour A line connecting points of equal noise level as measured on the same scale. Noise levels greater than the 60 Ldn contour (measured in dBA) require noise attenuation in residential development. Noise Ordinance Locally adopted legislation that regulates noise-producing activities. Non-automobile Mode Any mode of transportation that does not use private automobiles; includes bicycling, walking, buses and trains. Non-conforming Use A use that was valid when brought into existence but by subsequent regulation becomes no longer conforming. Typically, non-conforming uses are permitted to continue for a designated period of time, subject to certain restrictions. Non-indigenous Landscaping Landscaping that is not native to an area and typically requires more water than naturally occurring vegetation. Also called “exotic” or “non-native” landscaping. Non-point Source Sources of air or water pollution that enter the environment from dispersed sources, such as pollution tainted stormwater runoff from streets and parking areas, rather than at a single point, such as an industrial facility discharge pipe. Non-profit Not conducted or maintained for the purpose of making a profit. Non-residential Any of a broad category of land uses that do not contain housing; includes commercial, industrial, public, and institutional uses, among others. Non-renewable Resource Natural resources, such as fossil fuels and natural gas, which once used cannot be replaced and used again. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 38 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 No Net Loss of Housing Potential Development philosophy that allows non-residential development on a residentially zoned site only when an equal or greater amount of housing potential is created elsewhere in the Ccity. Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) A public agency that delivers electric power to several jurisdictions in Northern California, including Palo Alto. O Off-grid Self-sufficient design that allows for independence from one or more public utilities. In Palo Alto, this refers specifically to the electrical grid. Off-peak Not being in the period of maximum use. For traffic, generally refers to the weekday periods before and after the morning and evening commute hours, typically 9 AM to 3 PM and 7 PM to 6 AM. For electric utilities, generally refers to non-business hours, typically 7 PM to 6 AM. Other examples apply. Off-street Parking Parking that is provided outside of the right-of-way of a public street, typically in a surface parking lot or parking structure. On-street Parking Parking that is provided within the right-of-way of a public street, typically in designated parallel or diagonally striped spaces adjacent to moving traffic lanes. Open Space Any parcel or area of water or land that is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open space use for the purpose of (1) the preservation of natural resources; (2) the managed production of resources; (3) outdoor recreation; or (4) public health and safety. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 39 P Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC) Non-profit agency that organizes community resources for the development and improvement of child care services. Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Planning document that presents strategies to reduce fuel build-up and the risk of catastrophic wildfire in the Palo Alto foothills. Palo Alto Municipal Code Compendium of municipal ordinances and codes, including zoning regulations. Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) Provider of trash collection services to Palo Alto residents and businesses. Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Special district that provides public education to residents of most areas of Palo Alto, areas of Los Altos Hills, Portola Valley, and the Stanford University campus and a limited number of outlying areas1. Owns and operates elementary and secondary schools throughout the City. Parkway A low-speed road laid through a garden or park-like landscape, usually with median and roadside plantings. More narrowly, a planted strip between a curb and a sidewalk. Paratransit A “door to door” transportation service offered to individuals who cannot use conventional public transit service due to physical, visual, or cognitive disabilities. Parking, Unbundled A strategy in which the cost of parking spaces for housing or commercial units are separated from rental or sales prices. 1 The PAUSD boundary is not fully contiguous with the City limit. The Monroe Park neighborhood is outside of the PAUSD boundary. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 40 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Particulate(s) Particulates, or particulate matter, includes a wide range of solid and liquid inhalable particles, including smoke, dust, metallic oxides, aerosols and other tiny bits of solid materials that are released into and move around in the air. Particulates are produced by many sources, including burning of diesel fuels by trucks and buses, incineration of garbage, mixing and application of fertilizers and pesticides, road construction, industrial processes such as steel making, mining operations, agricultural burning (field and slash burning), and operation of fireplaces and woodstoves. Particulate pollution can cause eye, nose and throat irritation and other health problems. Particulates are categorized by diameter; PM10 and PM2.5 are particulate matter with diameters of 10 microns and 2.5 microns, respectively. Passive Open Space Open space that is set aside for the purpose of resource conservation, protection of public safety, or visual enjoyment rather than active recreation. Pavement Management Program City of Palo Alto Public Works program that analyzes and prioritizes the maintenance and repair of road surfaces. Peak Hour For any given traffic facility, the daily 60-minute morning or evening period during which traffic volumes are the highest. Pedestrian-oriented Form of development that makes the street environment inviting for pedestrians; for commercial areas may be characterized by special sidewalk pavement, zero front and side yard setbacks, buildings of varied architectural styles, street-facing window displays, an absence of front yard parking, benches and other amenities; for residential areas may be characterized by sidewalks, parkways, front porches, low fences, lighting and other amenities. Pedestrian Transit-oriented Development Overlay (PTOD) A land use policy intended to encourage a compact mix of residential, office, retail, service and public uses in areas that have a high potential for pedestrian activity, generally within one-half mile of existing and planned transit stations. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 41 Performance Standards Zoning regulations that allow uses based on a particular set of standards of operation rather than on the particular type of use; may be established to limit noise, air pollution, emissions, odor, glare, vibration, dust, dirt, heat, fire hazards, waste, traffic generation, and visual impact. Permeable Paving Paving through which water easily passes. Also called “porous paving.” Persons with Disabilities Persons with developmental, physical, or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more life activities. Planned Community (PC) Ordinance A local zoning provision that allows flexibility in land uses and development standards for a particular project, subject to controlled conditions and a finding that the project has a public benefit. Planning Area The geographic area covered by the Comprehensive Plan; corresponds to all land within the Ccity limits plus land in the unincorporated area that relates directly to the City’s planning needs as designated by Santa Clara County LAFCo. Planning and Transportation Commission City Council appointed board of seven Palo Alto residents; responsible for reviewing and making recommendations to the City Council on proposals for development, the subdivision of land, amendments to zoning, land use studies, the annual Capital Improvement Program, the Comprehensive Plan and other development regulations. Planting Pocket A small landscaped area within the normally-paved parking lane, used to separate on-street parking spaces from one another and create the impression of narrower streets. PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; includes a wide range of solid and liquid inhalable particles, including smoke, dust, metallic oxides, and aerosols. See also “Particulate Matter.” PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 42 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Pocket Park Very small landscaped area or plaza in an urban area, providing visual relief, passive recreation (sunbathing, reading, public dining, etc.), nature enjoyment, or a public gathering space. Point Source Sources of air or water pollution that enter the environment at a single point such as a smokestack or drain pipe rather than in a dispersed manner. Policy A specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental agency sets to follow, in order to meet its goals and objectives before undertaking an action program. Pollutant Any introduced gas, liquid, or solid that makes a resource unfit for its normal or usual purpose. Precise Plan A plan for a sub-area of the City that implements the Comprehensive Plan through specific provisions and standards for how individual properties may be developed. See also “Coordinated Area Plan” and “Specific Plan.”. Preliminary Development Review Ordinance City Council adopted ordinance that allows applicants to submit conceptual development plans for City Council comment prior to formal submittal for City approval. Preserve A land area or property that is formally protected and managed so as to safeguard its ecosystem, flora, fauna, and physical features. Prime Farmland State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program classification; indicates farmland that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 43 Program An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to an adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective. Policies and programs establish the “who,” “how” and “where” of goals and objectives. Property Owner An individual who holds the deed or title to a tract of land. Public Art Sculpture, painting, murals, and other forms of artwork that are placed in public spaces or in public view to enrich and add visual interest to the built environment. Public Art Commission (PAC) City Council appointed seven-member board, responsible for advising the City in matters pertaining to the quality, quantity, scope and style of art in public places, and for acquiring and siting permanent works of art, specifically outdoor sculpture. Public Facility See also “Community Facility.” Public/Private Partnership A merging of public and private resources to achieve an end result or product that would be difficult to achieve through public or private activity alone. May refer to the delivery of services, such as child care, or to the construction of buildings, such as cultural facilities. Public Way A public path, walkway, street, alley, trail, or other publicly owned space through which people have the right to pass. Purple Pipe Infrastructure used to convey recycled water. Q Quasi-judicial Decision Making Decisions that involve application of existing laws and policies to a specific situation. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 44 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 R Receiver Site A site to which development rights are transferred or upon which higher densities are allowed in exchange for foregoing development on another site. Recycled Water Converted wastewater that has been treated so that it may be used again for new purposes. Redevelop To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property, or both, irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use. Regional Shopping Center In Palo Alto, a shopping center with a primary trade area covering at least the Peninsula and South Bay areas, usually anchored by several department stores and offering a broad array of goods and services. Regional Center A commercial activity center of citywide and regional significance, with a mix of shopping, offices, and some housing. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Regional agency responsible for implementing State and federal Clean Water Acts. Defines beneficial use of Bay waters, sets and enforces water quality and discharge standards, and formulates plans and strategies to improve water quality. Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Wastewater treatment facility operated by the City of Palo Alto and serving the City and nearby environs including East Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View and Stanford. Regressive Fee A fee in which the per unit amount lessens as the amount subject to the fee increases PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 45 Remote Parking A parking lot on a site other than the property that it serves, usually at a substantial distance and often connected by shuttle bus. Renewable Energy Energy generated from a natural source that is not depleted when it is used, such as energy from sunlight, wind, tides, or geothermal heat. Renewable Resource Natural resources, such as water and air, that can be replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices. Research and Development (R&D) Economic sector oriented around the development and application of new technologies. Residential Arterial Major roadway mainly serving through-traffic; takes traffic to and from expressways and freeways; provides access to adjacent properties, most of which are residential properties located on both sides of the roadway with direct frontages and driveways on that roadway. Residential Neighborhood Areas of the City characterized by housing, parks, and public facilities; boundaries are based on patterns of land subdivision and public perceptions about where one neighborhood stops and another begins. Resilient/Resiliency The ability to come through a bad event(s) and restore the community and its critical infrastructure and key resources, including the environment. A resilient community adheres to best practices of emergency management by being aware of possible risks and threats; taking steps to prepare for, prevent or mitigate those risks and threats; and building capabilities to respond to and recover from them. The ability of a system to absorb the effects of climate change, maintain function, and adapt, reorganize, or evolve into a way that improves the sustainability of the system and anticipates future effects. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 46 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Revitalization Restoring new life or vigor to an economically depressed area, sometimes through public improvements that spark private investment. Ridesharing Two or more persons traveling by any mode, including but not limited to carpooling, vanpooling, buspooling, taxipooling, jitney, and public transit. Ridge Trail A regional trail comprised of a series of interconnected trails traversing the hills around San Francisco Bay, forming a ridge line ring around the Bay several hundred miles in length; about 50 percent complete in 1997. The trail is promoted and managed by the non-profit Bay Area Ridge Trail Council. Right-of-way The strip of land over which certain transportation and/or other public facilities are built, including roads, railroads, and utility lines. Riparian Corridor or Riparian Lands The strip of land of native vegetation along the banks of a perennial or intermittent stream or creek established by and dependent on the water supply provided by the stream or creek. Runoff That portion of rain or snow that does not percolate into the ground and is discharged into streams instead. See also “Stormwater/Stormwater Runoff.” S Safe Routes to School Pedestrian and bicycling routes that provide safe access to and from schools. San Francisco Water Department Municipal utility that provides Palo Alto with water, sourced mainly from the 117 billion-gallon Hetch Hetchy reservoir. San Mateo Transit (SamTrans) Primarily bus transit system serving San Mateo County, with connections to San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 47 Santa Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan Mandatory planning document prepared pursuant to the AB 2948 (Tanner bill); focuses on the management of hazardous wastes generated within the County and the facilities needed to serve these wastes. Santa Clara County Urban Runoff Management Plan County Plan that presents recommendations to local governments to improve the quality of stormwater runoff, identifies actions to be taken by private industry to reduce discharges, and assigns a priority rating system for stormwater control measures. Santa Clara Valley Congestion Management Program (CMP) See also ”Congestion Management Program.” Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Locally implemented program to achieve compliance with the federal Clean Water Act; includes an array of measures designed to reduce water pollution from urban runoff. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Agency that provides transit services, conducts transportation planning, and implements the State-mandated Congestion Management Program for Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Regional agency responsible for the management of water resources in the Santa Clara Valley, including groundwater, reservoirs, creeks, and potable water. See also “San Francisco Water Department.” Scale The relative proportion of the size of different elements of the built environment to one another; the measurement of the relationship of one object to another. Scenic Route A highway, road, or drive that, in addition to its transportation function, provides opportunities for the enjoyment of scenic resources, views, and access to areas of exceptional beauty or historical interest. Scenic Roads in Palo Alto are University Avenue, Embarcadero Road, Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road, Sand Hill Road, PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 48 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Foothill Expressway, Interstate 280, Junipero Serra Boulevard, and portions of Arastradero Road. Sea Level Rise The increase in mean sea level resulting from the increased volume of water in the world’s oceans; sea level rise is primarily caused by the climate change effects of land ice that is melting and sea water that is expanding as it warms. Second Unit A self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in addition to, the primary residential unit on a single lot. Also calledSee also “aAccessory dDwelling uUnit.” “in-law” unit or “granny flat.” Sedimentation Process by which eroding soil is carried by stormwater run- off and deposited, usually along the course of a stream or creek. Seismic Caused by or subject to earthquakes or earth vibrations. Seismic Hazard Zone The State of California, Seismic Hazards Mapping Act identifies areas within the state where landslides and liquefaction are most likely to occur. The Act requires special investigation of these sites before some types of buildings may be constructed. Property owners must disclose that property lies within such a zone at the time of sale. Seismic Retrofit Structural upgrading of buildings to minimize or abate potential hazards in the event of an earthquake. Seismically-induced Flooding Includes flooding from earthquake-induced dam failure, tsunamis, and seiches (earthquake-induced waves on lakes and other water bodies). Senior Care Facility Housing licensed by the State Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Social Services, typically for elderly residents who are frail and need assistance. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 49 Senior Coordinating Council (SCC) Non-profit Palo Alto organization providing a broad range of services to seniors including transportation, health care, housing, counseling, social work, support, and home repair. Sensitive Receptor Used in noise analyses to describe any land use that is susceptible to the effects of loud noise, including hospitals, nursing homes, schools, child care facilities, and residential areas. Service Organization A voluntary non-profit organization where members meet regularly to perform charitable works either by direct hands-on efforts or by raising money for other organizations. May also be referred to as a civic organization, Setback The horizontal distance between two points such as a property line and a structure. Shall Signifies a directive That whichthat is obligatory or necessary. Shared Housing A single dwelling unit that is occupied by persons of more than one family in order to reduce living expenses and provide social contact, mutual support, and assistance. Shopping Center In Palo Alto, a group of commercial establishments, planned, developed, owned or managed as a unit, with off- street parking provided on the site. Short-term Parking Facility A parking area designed for rapid turnover, where the duration of stay is usually short (e.g., less than two hours). Should Signifies a directive to be honored in the absence of significant countervailing considerations. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 50 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Shuttle Bus A bus or van service that transports passengers between or among fixed stops for free or fare. See also jitney. Sign Ordinance Local legislation regulating the location and design of signs. Signage General term referring to public and private signs and their design attributes. Significant Adverse Impact A substantial detrimental effect on the environment as determined by application of the California Environmental Quality Act; may include impacts on air, water, or land resources, among others. Single Family A dwelling unit intended for occupancy by one family that may be independent from any other structure or that may share common walls with an adjoining structure. Single- Family Detached Home A dwelling unit intended for occupancy by one family that is structurally independent from any other dwelling unit. Single Occupant Vehicle A private automobile containing a driver and no passengers. Single Room Occupancy (SRO) A dwelling unit, typically consisting of a single room of 80 to 250 square feet, with a sink and closet, that may include private bathroom, bathing and kitchen facilities or may utilize communal facilities. Slope Land gradient described as the vertical rise divided by the horizontal run, and expressed in percent. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 51 Small Lot Single-Family Single-family homes on lots smaller than “standard” City lots; typically less than 5,000 square feet. Usually characterized by narrow (or zero) setbacks, smaller homes, and greater lot coverage than conventional development. Small Scale Change A proposed alteration to a previously approved building design or site plan that will not significantly change the character or impact of the project as approved. Solid Waste General category that includes organic wastes, paper products, metals, glass, plastics, cloth, brick, rock, soil, leather, rubber, yard wastes, and wood. Sunnyvale Material and Recovery Transfer (SMaRT) Station© Public facility in Sunnyvale at which solid waste from Palo Alto and other jurisdictions is sorted to remove recyclable materials for resale. Source Reduction Minimizing the quantity of total waste generated by reducing the use of non- recyclable material; replacing disposables and products with reusable materials, reducing packaging, reducing the amount of organic wastes generated, purchasing repairable items, and by using products and materials more efficiently. Source Reduction and Recycling Element Locally adopted plan required by the State that describes how the jurisdiction will reduce its solid waste disposal by 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000; prepared in accordance with regulations established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Source Separation Separation of waste materials in a manner that enables the City to gain more control over recycling and quantify the material disposed in its jurisdiction. South-of-Forest Area (SOFA) Area of mixed residential, institutional, and commercial uses generally located south of Forest Avenue and south of the University Avenue/Downtown business district. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 52 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Southern Connection A potential new roadway extending from the west end of the Dumbarton Bridge along the edge of the Bay to Highway 101 near the Embarcadero Road/Oregon Expressway interchange. Special Status Species Any plant or animal species identified by the State or federal governments as rare, endangered, or threatened; such species require protection and conservation due to their rarity, scarcity, or danger of extinction. Specific Plan A legal tool for detailed design and implementation of a defined portion of the area covered by a General Plan. See also “Coordinated Area Plan” and “Precise Plan..” Sphere of Influence (SOI) A boundary established by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) that encompasses all land in the cCity limits plus land in the unincorporated area that could ultimately become part of the City through annexation. Stakeholder An individual with a high level of interest or concern in something, such as a public resource, development project, political action or property. State Implementation Plan State Plan required by the Federal Clean Air Act to attain and maintain national ambient air quality standards; adopted by local air quality districts and the State Air Resources Board. State Historic Buildings Code Regulations prepared by the State Historic Building Safety Board and adopted by the State of California Building Standards Commission that require enforcing agencies to accept reasonably equivalent alternatives to the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) and other applicable regulations when dealing with qualified historical buildings. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 53 Storm Drain A device used to capture stormwater runoff, usually from streets or other non- permeable surfaces, and transport it via pipes to ditches, creeks, channels, and other drainage courses. Stormwater Collection Storm Drain System Network of pipes, drains, and channels designed to convey rainwater that does not seep into the earth to creeks and the Bay. Storm Drainage Master Plan City of Palo Alto document setting priorities and identifying long-range improvements to the City’s storm drainage system. Stormwater/Stormwater Runoff Surface water resulting from precipitation events or snow/ice melt. Stormwater runoff is generated when stormwater flows over land or impervious surfaces, rather than infiltrating into the ground. Street Furniture Those features associated with a street that are intended to enhance the street’s physical character and be used by pedestrians, such as benches, trash receptacles, kiosks, lights, and newspaper racks. Street Tree(s) Trees planted in medians or along sidewalks in the public right-of-way that are intended to enhance the visual quality of a street, provide shade, absorb pollutants and noise, and provide habitat for urban wildlife. Street Tree System Term used to collectively describe all of Palo Alto’s street trees. Subsidence Localized sinking of the ground, usually caused by groundwater withdrawal. Superfund Federal funding source for the clean-up of a priority list of contaminated sites in the United States. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 54 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Support Services Any of a wide array of social services that provide information, assistance and referrals, such as child care, job training and placement, health care, and counseling, to citizens. Surplus Property Land or structure owned by a public agency, such as the City of Palo Alto or the School District, that is no longer needed for the delivery of public services or protection of public health, safety, and welfare. Sustainable/Sustainability The balance of environmental health, economic prosperity, and social equality and the simultaneous consideration of current and future needs. Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) A plan that each of California’s metropolitan planning organizations must prepare as part of its regional transportation plan to show how the region will meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Sustainability/Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) A City of Palo Alto plan is currently preparing to provide a pathway to achieving sustainability goals and exceeding State requirements for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. T Telecommuting Using computers, telephones, modems, fax machines, and other telecommuni- cations devices to connect to a workplace from a remote location (such as home) rather than physically being in that workplace. Through-traffic Traffic with both origins and destinations outside a particular area of reference, such as a City or neighborhood. Title 24 Regulations adopted in 1977 by the California Energy Commission; contains prescriptive standards for wall, ceiling, and floor insulation, vapor barriers, glazing, infiltration, climate control systems, and water heating equipment. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 55 Traffic Calming Refers to measures that make permanent, physical changes to streets to slow traffic and/or reduce volumes; also can include education and enforcement measures to promote changes in driver behavior. Traffic Circle A raised island in the center of an intersection that helps reduce speeding by forcing drivers to slow. Transbay Pertaining to travel between the east and west sides of San Francisco Bay. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program in which a landowner’s development rights are relocated from a site where development is considered undesirable (due to environmental impacts) to another site chosen based on its ability to accommodate more development. Transit Corridor A major bus or rail route; may also be used to describe land uses along the route. Transit Mall Street or portion thereof that has been closed to general auto traffic and redesigned to accommodate bus or light rail vehicles and pedestrians. Transit-oriented Development Form of development that maximizes investment in transit infrastructure by concentrating the most intense types of development around transit stations and along transit lines; development in such areas is designed to make transit use as convenient as possible. See also “Pedestrian Transit-oriented Development Overlay.” Transitional Housing Shelter provided to the homeless for an extended period, often as long as 18 months, and generally integrated with other social services and counseling programs to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through the acquisition of a stable income and permanent housing. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 56 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Tree Task Force Ad hoc committee created by the City Council in 1993 to study tree planting, maintenance, and funding issues. This entity evolved into "Canopy" which incorporated in 1996. See “Canopy” Transportation Demand Management (TDM) A coordinated set of strategies that are designed to reduce the use of single occupancy vehicles, and thereby reduce both traffic and parking demand. Transportation Management Authority (TMA) In Palo Alto, an independent non-profit organization that works collaboratively with the City and the business community, is responsible for coordinating TDM programs. Tree Technical Manual A companion document to the Heritage Tree Ordinance; provides guidelines for required care of Protected Trees and regulates the removal and replacement of both public and private trees. Trip Generation The dynamics that account for people making trips in automobiles or by means of public transportation. Trip generation is the basis for estimating the level of use for a transportation system and the impact of additional development or transportation facilities on an existing, local transportation system. Trip Reduction An approach to reducing traffic congestion that minimizes the necessity of driving alone or at all. U Understory The layer of vegetation, such as shrubs, plants, and small trees, that grows between the ground and the canopy of larger trees. Underutilized Parcel Land that is not being used to its full potential and could be redeveloped with a more economically productive use. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 57 Uniform Building Code A national, standard building code that sets forth minimum standards for construction. Urban Creek A creek segment that runs through a developed area and has typically lost some or all natural features, and may be partially or fully channelized. Urban Design The art and science of giving form, in terms of both beauty and function, to selected urban areas or to whole cities; addresses the location, mass, and design of various components of the environment and combines elements of urban planning, architecture, and landscape architecture. Urban Forest Term used to describe trees, plants, soil and associated organisms along streets, in parks, and in yards throughout the City; collectively, these trees form a canopy that supports wildlife and provides environmental benefits. Urban Service Area Area where City services and facilities provided by the City and other public agencies are generally available, and where urban development requiring such services should be located. User-friendly Transit Transit that is designed to be safe, convenient, and easy to use; may also include use of small, environmentally friendly transit vehicles. Utilities Fund Component of Palo Alto’s revenue stream generated through rates for various City services including water, sewer, gas, electric, refuse, and storm drainage. Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) City Council appointed five-member board, responsible for advising the City on long- range planning and policy matters relating to the electric, water and gas utilities. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 58 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 V Vacancy Rate The ratio of unoccupied housing units to total housing units; or the ratio of unoccupied leasable non-residential floor area to total leasable non-residential floor area. Vehicle Miles Traveled Miles traveled by vehicles within a given geographical area during a specified period of time; calculated by multiplying the number of vehicle trips by trip distances. Vertical Curb A curb with well-defined right-angled edges to discourage drivers from parking on the sidewalks. Vertical Integration The mixing of one land use over another in a building of two stories or more, for example residential units over a retail store. Very Low-Income Households with incomes between 0 and 50 percent of the areawide (Santa Clara County) median family income. Thresholds vary depending on the number of persons in the household. Village Residential Land use category that allows specific traditional types of housing that contribute to the pedestrian orientation of a street or neighborhood, at low to medium densities. Vision A shared dream of the future characterized by long-term idealistic thinking. Provides the foundation for the development of the goals, policies and programs. A vision is not a binding goal and may not be achievable in the lifetime of those participating in the drafting of the Comprehensive Plan. Vision Zero A project to improve traffic safety, based on the concept that every traffic collision and death is preventable, either through engineering, education, or enforcement. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 59 Volunteer Transfer Program (Sschools) Program that enables students in one School District to attend school in another as authorized by the Allen bill. Voucher A certificate worth a particular dollar amount but transferable only for a specific commodity (such as rent or transit) rather than for cash. VTA See also “Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority.” W Walkable Neighborhood An area designed and constructed in such a way to provide and encourage pleasant, easy and efficient pedestrian movement. Wastewater The spent or used water from individual homes, a community, a farm, or an industry that often contains dissolved or suspended matter. Wastewater Recycling The practice of using highly treated effluent from a wastewater treatment plant for landscape irrigation and other non-potable purposes. Water Resources Term used to collectively describe groundwater (aquifers), surface water (bays, rivers, creeks, oceans, etc.), precipitation, and water supply. Watershed The total area above a given point on a watercourse that contributes water to the flow of the watercourse; the entire region drained by a watercourse. Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Federal agency that oversees the allocation of federal energy resources in the Western United States. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 60 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 Wetland(s) A lowland area, such as a marsh, that is saturated with moisture all or part of the year. Standards for defining wetland boundaries consider hydrology, vegetation, and soil conditions. Wildlife Corridor A landscape element that serves as a link between historically connected habitats or landscapes that are otherwise separated. Wildlife corridors provide avenues along which wildlife can travel, migrate, and meet mates; plants can propagate; genetic interchange can occur; populations can move in response to environmental changes and natural disasters; and individuals can re-colonize habitats from which populations have been locally extirpated. Williamson Act Known formally as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, the Williamson Act is a state law designed as an incentive to retain prime agricultural land and slow its conversion to urban uses. Each year landowners are offered reduced property tax assessments if they agree to not develop their land for the following ten years. The lowered assessments are based on the agricultural use of the land rather than its “market value.” X,Y,Z Zone “A” Term used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to indicate those areas subject to inundation by a 100-year flood. Zone “AE” Term used by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to indicate areas subject to inundation by a 100-year flood, where the flood level is referenced to a fixed elevation relative to sea level. Zone “AO” Term used by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to indicate areas subject to inundation by a 100-year flood, but only at depths of 1 to 3 feet and with flooding typically caused by sheet flow on sloping terrain. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 61 Zoning The division of a city or county by legislative regulations into areas, or zones, which specify allowable uses for real property and size restrictions for buildings within these areas; a program that implements policies of the General Plan. Zoning Map Map that depicts the division of the City into districts or “zones” in which different uses are allowed and different building and lot size restrictions apply. Zoning Ordinance A set of land use regulations enacted by the City to create districts that permit certain land uses and prohibit others. Land uses in each district are regulated according to type, density, height, and the coverage of buildings. # 100-year Flood Plain The area subject to flooding during a storm that is expected to occur on the average of once every 100 years, based on historical data. 13-Point Parking Program Program adopted in 1995 by the Palo Alto City Council to manage parking supply and demand in the University Avenue/Downtown area. 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement Sets forth policies regarding land use, planning and development. The agreement governs unincorporated Stanford University Lands located in Santa Clara County among the County of Santa Clara, the City of Palo Alto, and Stanford University. 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study 1989 City Council approved Palo Alto planning document that established non- residential development limits (in square feet) for different geographic areas in the cCity. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY 62 COUNCIL DRAFT – JUNE 12, 2017 ATTACHMENT F: COUNCIL MOTIONS ON DRAFT ELEMENTS TABLE F-1 MAY 1, 2017 COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Link to tracked changes version of element: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/3_transpoelement- june12cc_tracked.pdf Adopted City Council Motions* Resulting Revisions to the Draft Element MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: 1. Transportation Infrastructure Investments: A. Improvements within existing rights-of-way that provide for traffic calming or relatively small increases in roadway capacity by adding turn lanes or making other intersection adjustments; and List of improvements from May 1 draft Element carried forward unchanged, consistent with motion. No changes necessary. B. Full grade separations for automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at Caltrain crossings; and C. Retrofit/improvements to existing grade separated Caltrain crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists at California Avenue and University Avenue; and D. Construction of new pedestrian and bicycle grade separated crossings of Caltrain in South Palo Alto and in North Palo Alto; and E. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements derived from the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan as amended over time; and F. The United States Route 101/Adobe Creek bicycle and pedestrian bridge; and G. El Camino Real intersection and pedestrian safety/ streetscape improvements including existing and potential underpasses; and H. Downtown mobility and safety improvements; and I. Geng Road extension to Laura Lane; and J. Middlefield Road corridor improvements. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: 2. Transportation Infrastructure Assumptions: Adopted City Council Motions* Resulting Revisions to the Draft Element A. Elements of the County’s Expressway Plan 2040 in or near Palo Alto, including widening Oregon Expressway- Page Mill Road with High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and a separated bicycle/pedestrian trail between Interstate 280 and Foothill Expressway intersection improvements along Oregon-Page Mill between Porter Drive and Hansen Way and at El Camino Real, reconfiguration of the interchange at Interstate 280/Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road, and an ITS/signal system Countywide; and No change B. United States Route 101 southbound improvements from San Antonio Road and Rengstorff Ave.; and No change C. Caltrain modernization including electrification; and Added to list in Roadway and Intersection Improvements section D. Bus rapid transit in mixed flow lanes on El Camino Real using curbside boarding platforms and queue jumping; and Added to list in Roadway and Intersection Improvements section E. Improved circulation in the Palo Alto Transit Center, including direct access to El Camino Real for transit vehicles; and Added to list in Roadway and Intersection Improvements section F. Add to the Roadway and Intersection Improvements Sub-section, “the City will review these proposals as provided for in the regional collaboration policies contained in this Element” after “under the jurisdiction of the City.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 Added wording to Roadway and Intersection Improvements narrative. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: 3. Other Transportation Element Revisions: A. Reducing reliance on single occupant vehicles through Transportation Demand Management (TDM), expansion of the shuttle program, bicycle & pedestrian improvements, and other means; and No change. B. Effective first mile/last mile solutions; and No change. C. Continuing to work to address traffic congestion; and No change. D. Enhancing connectivity; and No change. E. Addressing neighborhood impacts; and No change. Adopted City Council Motions* Resulting Revisions to the Draft Element F. Managing parking demand and evaluating changing parking needs over time; and Policy T-5.1 revised: “All new development projects should meetmanage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease.” G. Prioritizing pedestrian and cyclist safety; and No change. H. Meeting the needs of transit dependent communities; and No change. I. Preparing for technological and societal changes that will affect transportation and parking demand; and No change. J. Prioritizing Caltrain grade separations and regional cooperation; and No change. K. Remove from Program T1.24.1, “that new development projects must pay to the City;” and Removed wording. L. Replace in Program T2.3.1, “adopt” with “explore;” and Replaced wording. Also added phrase “adopt standards for vehicular LOS, and” based on staff direction. M. Add a new program T5.1.5, “consider reducing parking requirements for multi-family uses as a way to encourage new multi-family housing and the use of alternative modes where reduction in parking would not impact the neighborhood;” and Added new program T5.1.5. N. Add to Policy T-5.11, “and uses” after “of nearby businesses;” and Added wording. O. Add to Program T5.11.1, “and local businesses and other stakeholders” after “and neighborhood groups;” and Added wording. P. Add to Policy T-5.6, “and explore mechanized parking” after “structured parking;” and Added wording. Adopted City Council Motions* Resulting Revisions to the Draft Element Q. Add a Policy in support of autonomous vehicle development and deployment; and Added new Policy T-1.5: “Support the introduction of fleets of autonomous, shared, electric motor vehicles with the goals of improving roadway safety (especially for vulnerable road users), improving traffic operations, supporting core mass transit routes, reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing transportation opportunities for the disadvantaged, and reclaiming valuable land dedicated to motor vehicle transportation and parking.” R. Add to Policy T-2.4, “while maintaining the ability to customize to the Palo Alto context” after “roads in Palo Alto;” and Added wording. S. Replace in Policy T-1.24 , “evaluate transportation funding measures” with “pursue transportation funding opportunities;” and Replaced wording. Note that Policy is now T-1.25. T. Add to Policy T-5.6, “on” after “including;” and Added word. U. Add to Policy T-5.11, “recognizing that fully addressing some existing intrusions may take time” after “and uses.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 Added wording. TABLE F-2 MAY 1, 2017 COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT Link to tracked changes version of element: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/05/2_LandUseElement_June12CC_Tracked.pdf Adopted City Council Motions* Resulting Revisions to the Draft Element MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: 4. Land Use & Community Design Revisions: A. Remove Program L1.9.2; and Program L1.9.2 [L23] removed. B. Add a new Program L2.4.7, “explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing density near multimodal transit centers;” and New Program L2.4.7 added. C. Add to Policy L2.9, “and explore opportunities to expand retail opportunities;” and Added wording to Policy L2.9 [L124]; did not include second “opportunities” to avoid repetition. D. Remove from Program L3.5.1, “Land use issues. Evaluate the City’s policy of excluding basements from the gross floor area and maximum floor area ratio limits in the zoning ordinance. Consider zoning revisions, including greater setbacks, to limit basement size and increase basement setbacks from adjacent properties;” and Deleted first bullet, “Land Use Issues” from Program 3.5.1 [L64] E. Remove from Program 4.1.1, “and consider whether these limits should be applied in other Centers;” and Removed wording from Program 4.1.1 [L66] F. Add a new Program 4.7.2, “explore adding additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for retail at Stanford Shopping Center;” and Added new Program L4.7.2. G. To clarify that software development is allowed Downtown; and Added “software development” as an allowed non-retail use in the Regional/Community Commercial land use designation. H. Replace in Policy L-1.3, “promote infill development in the urban service are that is” with “infill development in the urban service area should be;” and Revised First sentence of Policy L- 1.3 [L3]. I. Add to Program L-1.3.1, “as appropriate” after “remove these barriers;” and Added wording to Program L-1.3.1 [L4] J. Replace in Program L9.6.1, “citywide average” with “citywide standard;” and Replaced word in Program L-9.6.1 [L171] K. Return to Council with additional information pertaining to moving the Policy regarding assessment of school impacts associated with legislative actions from the Community Services Element to the Land Use and Community Design Element; and Formulated revised policy on assessment of school impacts with input from the City Attorney’s office. See new Policy L-2.11: “Ensure regular coordination between the City and PAUSD on land development activities and trends in Palo Alto, as well as planning for school facilities and programs. Under State law, impacts on school facilities cannot be the basis for requiring mitigation beyond the payment of school fees or for denying development projects or legislative changes that could result in additional housing units. The City will, however, assess the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of development projects that result in new school construction or enrollment.” L. Add to Program L2.4.2, “and no reduction of retail square footage results” after “retail is maintained;” and Added wording to Program L2.4.2: “Allow housing on the El Camino Real frontage of the Stanford Research Park and at Stanford Shopping Center, provided that adequate parking and vibrant retail is maintained and no reduction of retail square footage results from the new housing.” M. Explore and potentially support new, creative and innovative retail in Palo Alto; and Added new Program L4.1.2: “Explore and potentially support new, creative and innovative retail in Palo Alto.” N. Replace in Policy L-6.3, “require” with “encourage.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-1 Kou no Replaced wording in Policy L-6.3 [L105] TABLE F-3 MAY 15, 2017 COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE SAFETY ELEMENT Link to tracked changes version of element: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/6_SafetyElement_June12CC_Tracked.pdf Adopted City Council Motions* Resulting Revisions to the Draft Element 1. Safety Element Revisions MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to prepare a revised draft of the Safety Element for referral to the Planning and Transportation Commission incorporating the following changes: A. Consolidate programs in the Safety Element where feasible to establish a balance between policies and programs similar to other elements; and Staff reviewed and made minor revisions to reduce unnecessary text. No Programs were deleted or moved. B. Add to Policy S-3.2 or S-3.3, “vapor intrusion prevention;” and Added wording to Policy S-3.3. C. Remove from Program S1.7.2, “this includes remaining fully operational after a catastrophic (7.9 magnitude) earthquake, other natural disasters, moderate terrorist attack or crisis;” and Removed wording. D. Update Program S2.6.2 to include “explore” in the second sentence; and Added wording. E. Add to Policy S-1.3, “as needed” after “development proposals;” and Added wording. F. Add to Policy S-1.9, “including in the context of climate change and sea level rise;” and Added wording. G. Replace Program S2.14.3 with, “periodically update the Fire Department Standards of Cover document;” and Replaced wording. H. Replace Program S2.6.2 with “continue to use a seismic bonus and Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Ordinance for seismic retrofits for eligible structures in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone;” and Replaced wording. I. Add a program, “evaluate the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Ordinance so that transferred development rights may be used for residential development on the receiver sites;” and Added program. J. Replace in Policy S-3.9, “increased” with “requiring;” and Replaced wording. K. Remove from Program S2.6.3, “to include sunset dates by which transfer obligations must be fulfilled;” and Removed wording. Note that this is now Program S2.6.4. L. Add to Program S1.7.2, “as an essential service building” after “Public Safety building.” Added wording: “Design the new Public Safety building to essential service standards and to meet the needs of the public safety departments…” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 TABLE F-4 MAY 15, 2017 COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT Link to tracked changes version of element: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/05/5_NaturalEnviromtElement_June12CC_Tracked.pdf Adopted City Council Motions* Resulting Revisions to the Draft Element 2. Natural Environment Element Revisions MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to direct Staff to prepare a revised draft of the Natural Environment Element for referral to the Planning and Transportation Commission incorporating the following changes: A. Consolidate park funding and acquisition policies from the Natural Environment Element to the Community Services Element and seek other opportunities to align the elements and reduce redundancies; and Deleted Programs N1.10.2 [N25], N1.10.4 [N27], N1.10.5 [NL152], and N1.10.6 [L151], which duplicated programs located in Community Services and Facilities Element under Policy C-4.1 B. Explore 150 feet as the desired stream setback metric for Program N3.3.1 in the Natural Environment Element about updating the code to require larger stream setbacks along natural creeks west of Foothill Expressway; and Revised Program N3.3.1: “Update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to explore Adopt 150 feet as the desired stream a setback along natural creeks in open space and rural areas west of Foothill Expressway. This 150-foot setback would that prohibits the siting of buildings and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and ornamental landscaped areas within 150 100 feet of the top of a creek bank…” C. Replace in Program N6.12.2, “forums to ensure that future activities” with “forums and engage with other governmental agencies and representatives to ensure that activities;” and Replaced wording. D. Replace in Program N1.7.2, “and domestic” with “feral and stray;” and Replaced wording. E. Remove from Program N1.4.1, “sources may include the California Natural Diversity Database, as updated in accordance with federally- and State recognized organizations, including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as well as the California Native Plant Society and the Audubon Society;” and Removed wording. F. Replace in Policy N-4.8., “by reducing” with “by exploring ways to reduce;” and Replaced wording. G. Add to Natural Environment Vision Statement, “urban forest” after “creeks, parks;” and Added wording. H. Add to the Natural Environment Vision Statement, “and health” after “provide ecological;” and Added wording. I. Replace in Program N3.3.1, “at least 25 feet” with “at least 30;” and Replaced wording. J. Direct Staff to provide clarity for the last two bullet points in Program N3.3.1; and Revised Program N3.3.1: The uUpdate to the Stream Protection Ordinance s should establish: Exceptions to the 100-foot setback are as follows: • Design recommendations for development or redevelopment of sites within the setback, consistent with basic creek habitat objectives and significant net improvements in the condition of the creek. • Conditions under which Ssingle- family property is and existing development are exempt from the 1500-foot setback. • Appropriate setbacks and creek conservation measures for undeveloped parcels. K. Replace in Program N6.3.3, “appropriateness” with “effectiveness;” and Replaced wording. L. Add to Program N6.7.1, “in the Noise Ordinance” after “review procedures;” and Added wording. M. Add to Program N7.2.2, “including the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions of construction materials and demolition” after “greenhouse gases;” and Added wording. N. Replace in Program N1.10.2, “pursue” with “explore” and remove “such as Renzel Wetlands and the Gamble House and Gardens as public parks to preserve the community serving purpose of these areas into the future;” and Replaced wording, moved to CSF Element under Policy C-4.1 O. Direct Staff to ensure the Comprehensive Plan language is consistent with prior Council direction regarding Urban Forest as infrastructure; and This references a Council motion regarding EIR Scenarios 5 and 6 from August 22, 2016. Staff reviewed motion and confirmed direction. Moved Policy N-1.2 to be the first Policy under Goal N-2; added words “natural and” before “green infrastructure” in the Policy. P. Replace in Program N2.1.1, “remain relevant” with “set leading standards for tree health practices.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent Replaced wording. TABLE F-5 MAY 22, 2017 COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT Link to tracked changes version of element: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/8_BusnEcon_June12CC_Tracked.pdf Adopted City Council Motion Resulting Revisions to the Draft Element Business & Economics Element Revisions MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to direct Staff to prepare a revised draft of the Business and Economics Element for referral to the Planning and Transportation Commission including the following changes: A. Replace in Policy B-6.1, “containing” with “prioritizing” and add “start-ups” after “small office.” Policy B-6.1 revised: “…area containing prioritizing retail, personal service, small office, start- ups, restaurant…” B. Add to Policy B-4.2, “start-ups” after “small businesses.” Policy B-4.2 revised: “…small businesses, start-ups, non-profit organizations…” C. Add to Program B-4.2.1, “start-ups” after “small businesses.” Program B-4.2.1 revised: “…to accommodate small businesses, start-ups and other services.” D. Add to Policy B-4.3, “and start-ups” after “small businesses.” Policy B-4.3 revised: “…of small businesses and start-ups.” E. Add to Policy B-3.1, “add real accounting of unfunded pension liability and unfunded benefit costs.” Policy B-3.1 revised: “Promote a comprehensive approach to fiscal sustainability that includes careful monitoring of revenues and expenditures;, efficient City operations;, and land use, business and employment strategies;, and real accounting of unfunded pension liability and unfunded benefit costs.” F. Replace in Program B1.1.1, “direct the Palo Alto Office of Economic Development to implement the” with “implement an…” Revised Program B1.1.1 to: “Direct the Palo Alto Office of Economic Development to , Implement and periodically amend the an Economic Development Policy to guide business development in the City.” G. Add to Policy B-2.3, “with a priority on neighborhood quality of life.” Policy B-2.3 revised: “…work together with a priority on neighborhood quality of life.” H. Remove Program B4.6.2. Program B4.6.2 removed. I. Remove Program B4.6.3. Program B4.6.3 removed. Adopted City Council Motion Resulting Revisions to the Draft Element J. Replace in Policy B-5.1, “flexibility” with “efficiency.” Policy B-5.1 revised: “…predictability and flexibility efficiency for those…” K. Replace in Policy B-5.3, “strengthen the role of the Office of” with ”Focus on.” Policy B-5.3 revised: “Strengthen the role of the Office ofFocus on eEconomic dDevelopment to…” L. Clean up and potentially merge Policies B-6.5 and B-6.6 for consistency and confirm if these policies belong in the Business and Economics Element. Program B-6.5 has been reworded to focus on business viability rather than land use: “Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along the El Camino Real corridor by, for example, encouraging the development of well-designed retail, professional services and housing.” Program B-6.6 has been slightly reworded and will be moved to the Land Use Element. “Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing. ( New Policy ) M. Replace Goal B-2 with, “A thriving business environment that complements and is compatible with Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods and natural environment.” Goal B-2 revised to add “…complements and is compatible with Palo Alto’s…” N. Replace Policy B-2.4 with, “Consider a variety of planning and regulatory tools including growth limits, to ensure change is compatible with the needs of Palo Alto neighborhoods.” Policy B-2.4 revised: “Use Consider a variety of planning and regulatory tools, including growth limits, to ensure change is compatibleilit with the needs of y between Palo Alto’s thriving business districts and its healthy, stable neighborhoods.” O. Replace in Goal B-5, “flexibility” with “efficiency” and in Subsection Flexibility and Predictability, replace “flexibility” with “efficiency.” Goal B-5 reworded: “City regulations and operating procedures that provide certainty, predictability and flexibility efficiency and help businesses adapt to changing market conditions.” Background text was also revised to be consistent: “…while maintaining flexibility efficiency and adaptability as market conditions change.” Adopted City Council Motion Resulting Revisions to the Draft Element P. Replace in Retail, “retail sales tax provides approximately five percent of total revenues" with “retail sales tax provides approximately XX percent of general fund revenues.” Checked City’s budget report for FY 2017/18 as well as most recent available quarterly sales tax digest. Updated statement to “five 5.3 percent of general fund total revenues.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 ATTACHMENT F CAC Comments and Meeting Minutes April 18, 2017 Meeting - Implementation Section, Governance, Introduction, Cover and Glossary Sections May 16, 2017 Meeting - Cover, Introduction, Governance, Online Comp Plan/ User's Guide/Future Improvements 1.CAC comments 2.Draft Meeting Minutes April 18, 2017 Comp Plan Update Citizen Advisory Committee Comments and Minutes Implementation/Cover/Introduction/ Governance/Glossary Don McDougall 1 CAC Member Don McDougall’s Notes on Implementation of the LIVING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN April 18, 2017 I agree with the sentiment captured here that the Comprehensive Plan is a Living Document. This is an important concept in its development, adoption and future use. In order to facilitate and ensure its future Life, I suggest the Review and Update definition should be more robust and complete. Observations: •Frequently CAC have been told that very few (15% or 5% or 20%) of the previous plan Programs were completed. •Any previous annual report by the PRC does not seem or have received much publicity if even visibility or transparency. •Frequently CAC have been told there were too many Programs to review. Questions or Issues: •The section (copied below) does not indicate or suggest at what level PRC should review and report or if the report should be qualitative or quantitative. •The section does not suggest what kind of updates are encouraged or allowed – priorities changes, deletions, additions, editing of Policies or Programs? It simple says priorities will evolve. •The section does not say who (Council) approves updates. Suggestions: •The PTC should provide an Annual Qualitative report of the progress towards all of the Goals defined in the Plan. I believe this would meet State Law or Municipal Code or would like to hear otherwise. •The PTC should provide suggestions to Council for changes in Policies. •The PTC should not have to report on Programs that were defined as Regular or Ongoing. •The PTC should review all other (non-regular) Programs at a frequency determined by Priority. High priority Programs should be reviewed Annually, medium biannually and low on a 5 year basis. •The PTC should provide a Quantitate report on the Programs reviewed (what % have been complete, or in regular status or not doing well). It should not be a surprise. I’m sure there are other details to such an approach but if we want this to be a truly LIVING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN with confidence that it will be vigorously followed and its progress transparent to the Palo Alto citizens some version of these Suggestions must be adopted! Bonnie Packer’s Comments on the Draft Introduction and Governance Element April 18 In the 1990’s the comp plan focused on neighborhood associations and volunteerism, which is very, very good. However, in the current era, we have become more aware of the need to create more effective avenues for civic engagement of residents eager to do so. Shift the references from neighborhood associations to non-profit or private civic, environmental, cultural, neighborhood and social services organizations throughout this element. Introduction under Major Themes: add before “small businesses” “ private, non-profit civic, environmental, cultural and social services organizations ” Governance: In the narrative, greatly expand the language about Civic and Service Organizations – do not limit the discussion to neighborhood organizations. There are dozens of these organizations providing services in child care, youth and senior activities, volunteerism, environment, civic engagement: e.g., Avenidas, PACCC, YMCA, YCS, ACS, Kiwanis, Rotary, Canopy, Acterra, Red Cross, PTAs, Neighbors Abroad, youth sports organizations, Woman’s Club, League of Women Voters, Palo Alto Forward, Palo Alto Community Foundation, Friends of the Palo Alto Library, PA Chamber of Commerce, Environmental Volunteers – to name just a few. These organizations are a natural way for the City to connect with its residents and encourage a more active civic life. Make the following changes – underlined. Change the title: CIVIC AND NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS to CIVIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL, NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOCIAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS GOAL G-2 Informed and involved civic, environmental, cultural, neighborhood and social services organizations and residents. Policy G-2.1 Continue to provide information on the City’s website about non-profit or private civic, environmental, cultural, neighborhood and social services organizations addressing subjects like planning and environmental issues, earthquake preparedness, neighborhood beautification, event planning, how to communicate with City Hall, and guidelines for establishing and managing non-profit or private civic, environmental, cultural, neighborhood and social services organizations .[Previous Program G-7] Policy G-2.2 Establish and enhance two-way communication between City staff and non-profit or private civic, environmental, cultural, neighborhood and social services organizations . [Previous Policy G-5] Delete Program G2.2.1. It doesn’t belong in this Element. Where feasible, assist residents Bonnie Packer’s Comments on the Draft Implementation Plan April 18 Please include the links to each Element in the Implementation Plan Table – clean copy. These links are in the Implementation Table with CAC Priority – provided as link only, but not in the Table you are asking us to send to CC. The ranking of programs in the staff report based on our very unscientific dot exercise is inappropriate. While some noted that we learned something from the dot exercise, this should not be the prime driver of how the programs are ranked. To be able to determine the status of the implementation of the programs, please consider adding a procedure to the Implementation Plan where one can track whether these programs are included in the work plan of the various departments. Perhaps you could include links to the department’s annual work plans so one (i.e., the Planning & Transportation Commission) can ascertain whether these items are actually being considered. Note: the City Council is expected to review the Shuttle Vision Plan on April 17. This Plan should be explicitly referred to in the Transportation Element and in the top priority item T1.14.1 Where did the following four priorities come from? They did not come from the CAC. Are these the City Council’s current priorities? At the adoption of this Plan in 2017, the City sees the following four broad priorities: Increase the Proportion of Affordable Housing Reduce Single-Occupant Vehicle Trips Protect and Sustain the Natural Environment Maintain a Safe Community with neighborhood improvement, beautification, and planting projects. [Existing Program G-9] Policy G-2.3 Encourage civic participation by civic, environmental, cultural, neighborhood and social services organizations in the governing process by providing easy access to data media channels and other creative means. [Existing Policy G-6 Add a program under this Policy: Facilitate the easy availability of City facilities to non-profit or private civic, environmental, cultural, neighborhood and social services organizations for their meetings and events for a greatly discounted fee. Policy G3.2 add “civic organizations” after “residents” In the Glossary: consider including definitions of neighborhood associations, social service organizations, civic organizations, arts and cultural organizations, clubs, etc. Annette Glanckopf’s Comments on the Implementation Section, Introduction and Governance Section April 18 IMPLEMENTATION SECTION I do not/did not support using the dot system as a priority setting tool. Not everyone was prepared, so in some cases dots were just applied to items that already had support…or people were lobbied in front of the charts to put a dot on their favorite program. While some of the items rightly surfaced as high priority, I do not feel this method adequately addresses ongoing programs. Each Element should stand on its own. The dot method is unbalanced, since the majority of the programs are for Community services and Planning & Transportation. In the matrix on staff comments under lumping together Land Use, Transportation, Natural Environment and Safety. No Police, Fire, and OEs items were prioritized in the dot method. I found it interesting in the full implementation matrix that •Police had 8 programs. •OES & Fire both had 14 programs. •Utilities had 31 •Public works had 71 Moreover, why are Community Services and Businesses lumped together? I do not agree with the High Priority items: such as Shop Palo Alto (tried many times before and was a failure. This is tied to my comments on the “help” the city provides small businesses), impacts of online shopping (to me is a low priority with everything else going on). Also although not politically correct, I feel there are too many high priority items prioritized for children and not enough for seniors (Largest segment of population) and those with special needs. INTRODUCTION – marked up version Meeting Housing Supply Challenges: It is not clear to me that Palo Alto safeguards single family neighborhoods. I would remove that phrase Meeting Residential and Commercial needs: Under city is committed to retaining businesses Although this sounds very nice, I have not seen any actions to support this lofty goal….especially since so many small businesses are leaving and it is so difficult for new businesses to get through the permitting process. Remove the wording “is committed to retaining businesses” or have council develop a concrete policy to help businesses esp small ones. Page I-5: Remove sentence under use and organization of plan “ The hundreds of citizens & officials who have prepared…..” It is self-serving and not needed. GOVERNANCE SECTION: Page G3: Include the Citizen Corps Council on the list of Boards and Commissions per the request of the Director of Emergency Services and the Chair of that Committee. GOAL G-1 Effective opportunities for public participation in local government. Program G1.2.1 Continue use of neighborhood organizations, City website, local media, online technologies and other communication platforms to keep residents informed of current issues and to encourage citizen engagement. [Previous Program G-4] MY COMMENT: Continue use of neighborhood organizations” should be “Continue communication with neighborhood organizations” GOAL G-2 Informed and involved civic and neighborhood organizations and residents. Policy G2.1 Continue to provide information on the City’s website about neighborhood and civic organizations addressing subjects like earthquake preparedness, neighborhood beautification, event planning, how to communicate with City Hall, and guidelines for establishing and managing neighborhood and civic organizations. [Previous Program G-7] MY COMMENT: •There is no place currently on the city website that refers to neighborhoods, although the website redesign committee asked the city to link to the PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) site. •The topics selected to highlight this point are very random….Where did neighborhood beautification come in – this has never been a priority, nor can I ever remember any action by the city in Midtown. Public Art, bathrooms, dog parks? •Event Planning? The city is going to provide information on how to plan events? If the intent of this term was to schedule rooms, then use that terminlogy •Omit the entire last part about guidelines for establishing & managing neighborhood organizations. There are no “city guidelines for establishing and managing neighborhood and civic organizations.” NOR SHOULD THERE BE, •Nor do I know where to find out "how to communicate with City Hall" apart from the info on each commission/department's page. ADD PROGRAM: Continue to hold regular town hall meeting with neighborhoods ADD PROGRAM: Support neighborhood associations by allowing them period use of public meeting rooms. PolicyGg2 2 .Establish and enhance two-way communication between City staff and neighborhood groups . [Previous Policy G-5] Where feasible, What does this mean? It works quite nicely now as is. Program G2.2.1 assist residents with neighborhood improvement, beautification, and planting projects. [Existing Program G-9]3 The only effort that I am aware of to assist neighborhoods is Canopy. Working with them is usually an individual project not a neighborhood one. I suggest removing this policy. What about public art, or dog parks, or noise, urban blight, leaf blowers or code enforcement? DEFINITIONS: I understand that many terms have been removed, since they aren’t mentioned in comp plan document. However, I would lobby to retain the following ones. The comp plan will be used for reference, and this is a great place for a dictionary. The ones I think should be retained are •Bollard •Building envelope •Charette •Inclusionary housing •Land banking •Mitigated negative declaration •Negative declaration •Non-conforming •Regressive fee •Transitional housing •Uniform building code •Vacancy rate •Vertical integration COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 1 of 46 TUESDAY, April 18, 2017 Rinconada Library – Embarcadero Room 1213 Newell Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 5:30 PM TO 8:34 PM Implementation Plan/Governance Chapter/Introduction/Cover and GlossaryCall to Order: 5:30 P.M.1 Co-Chair Keller: Comprehensive Plan update, Citizens Advisory Committee of Tuesdays, April 18th, 2017. 2 The time is 5:35 and will the secretary please call role? 3 Present: Filppu, Garber, Glanckopf, Keller, Kleinhaus, Levy, McNair, Packer, Peschcke-4 Koedt, van Riesen 5 6 Absent: Hetterly, Hitchings, McDougall, Moran, Summa, Sung, Titus, Uang, 7 8 Oral Communication: 9 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is oral communications. I don’t see anybody 10 here who is from the public that wishes to speak so that’s completed. 11 Staff Comments: 12 Co-Chair Keller: Then we have comments from Staff and I guess part of what we can talk about is last 13 night. 14 15 Elaine Costello: I’m going to let – I’m actually going to talk a little bit about what we’re going to do 16 tonight and the schedule going forward. Then Elena can talk about little bit about last night, is that ok? 17 Tonight, we are – oh, thank you. Tonight, we are going to go over the – it’s on the consent agenda to do 18 the Implementation Chapter and recommend that to the City Council. That will be out the first item and 19 then we’re actually going to do governance as the second item and then the other three cover, 20 introduction and glossary as the third item. That’s how we’re going to organize this and just to give you 21 – this is our – as Arthur calls it, our (inaudible) ultimate meeting, our second to the last meeting. The 22 final meeting will be May 16th and that section is called wrapping it up. There are a couple of items and 23 one is to talk about the user’s guide and what you think would be useful. We don’t have anything 24 budgeted for that yet but what would be useful as a user guide, what’s necessary, what would be nice, 25 and what’s important to do in that. Then another thing that Arthur had suggested was to talk about 26 lessons learned from this kind of Citizen’s Advisory Committee. To think about what went well and what 27 might be improved for this kind of group in the future. Then we’re going to have a celebration. That’s 28 the plan for the next and final CAC meeting. Then the Council is going to pick up the pace. On May 1st, 29 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 2 of 46 they’re going to be considering – this is all on the last page of your Staff report, page 11. They’ll be 1 looking at the Land Use and Transportation Elements, which will reflect the changes that they had 2 requested since they reviewed your recommendations. Then on May 15th, they’ll be doing Natural 3 Environment, Safety and Business and Economics Elements. On June 5th, they’ll be doing an 4 acknowledgment of your very good work. On June 12th, they’ll finish up with the recommendations that 5 you’re working on tonight, the introduction and the governance and the glossary and the 6 implementation sections. Then it moves on to the PTC, with the idea that the PTC will work on this over 7 the summer and get it back to the Council so that it can all get approved this year, in 2017. That’s the 8 plan and the schedule for going forward. We will send you out – once we have a link for the Land Use 9 and Transportation Element review by the Council on May 1st, we’ll send you all a link to it. Then I’m 10 going to ask Elena to talk about a little about last night’s – she was there. Then we’ll move on to the 11 topics, does that work for you? 12 13 Elena Lee: Just really briefly, so we went to City Council last night for the revised draft ordinance on 14 accessory dwelling units and after – it was a great turn out. There were 65 public speakers and then it 15 was pulled off the consent calendar by Council; 65 public speakers. A lot of dialog between the Council 16 Members and a compromise that was made. As a result, they did pass an ordinance regarding accessory 17 dwelling units on a vote of 7-2 and basically, what they did in terms of amending the ordinance was to 18 add back in a minimum lot size of 5,000-square feet. Also, to clarify that the additional FAR would only 19 be applicable to a new ADU. It also requires directing Staff to return with basically an update to Council 20 on a quarterly basis as well as a study session for the PTC. It was a good discussion and in the end, we 21 have the revised draft ordinance that will be going back to City Council on a second reading in about 2-22 weeks and then it will be effective in June. Staff right now is also working a fact sheet because one of 23 the issues is that there’s a lot of confusion about what State regulations apply and what local regulations 24 apply so we’re going to be putting together a document that clarifies that. We’ll make that available to 25 the public as soon as possible and this is a big topic. If you have any further questions, feel free to let 26 myself or Chitra know. Thank you. 27 28 Co-Chair Keller: I think that there was also a – I’m not sure if this was part of the motion because I was 29 at home and I couldn’t see it but I believe there was a referral for Eichler home – neighborhoods. For 30 compatibility of ADUs with Eichler neighborhoods to be part of the Eichler Design Guidelines. Am I 31 correct in that? 32 33 Elena Lee: No, that is correct. The direction was to include it in the process to add basically, an objective 34 standard; for example, maximum height or orientation of windows. For example, the ordinance right 35 now includes a provision saying that there shall be no doors or openings that are within 6-feet of the 36 property line so it would be something comparable to that. Again, that would be part of the – an 37 ordinance perusable and it wouldn’t – and so it – ADUs would not be subject to a planning permit; 38 permits have to be ministerial. 39 40 41 Agenda Items: 42 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 3 of 46 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. So, the next agenda -- yes, go ahead. 1 Shani Kleinhaus: (Inaudible) 2 Elena Lee: Ministerial permits cannot be appealed. 3 Co-Chair Keller: They – my understanding is ADUs cannot be appealed nor if I am correct in the 4 statement there, that there is no notice to neighbors? 5 Elena Lee: That’s correct. State is precluding us from doing that. 6 Shani Kleinhaus: (Inaudible) 7 Co-Chair Keller: Could you be on the microphone? Is there – can you get a microphone near you? Thank 8 you. Shani? 9 Co-Chair Garber: Jeez, Len. 10 Shani Kleinhaus: When you said something about Eichler’s. Does that include the Mackay, which is 11 almost the same except doesn’t have the heated floors or whatever and it’s the (inaudible) glass? 12 Co-Chair Keller: I believe that Mackay’s where not specifically mentioned last night. At least I didn’t hear 13 them mentioned but there was a specific mention of Eichler’s. Maybe Elena can tell us whether 14 Mackay’s are part of the Eichler design process? 15 Elena Lee: Not that I am aware of but that’s – certainly I can mention that to Amy. That process has just 16 started so I don’t think anything has been decided at this point. 17 Shani Kleinhaus: It would be good to mention that because other than the heated floors, all the 18 windows – the building is all windows. It’s kind of the same at the Eichlers except – yeah. 19 Co-Chair Keller: Yes, Len. 20 Don McDougall: There we go. To – could you explain a little bit further on the Eichler Design Guideline 21 process and the ADU ordinance that is being developed. Which is coming first? Is the Eichler Design 22 Guideline going to inform the ordinance or vice versa? I’m very curious about that. 23 Elena Lee: Basically, we’re under some pressure because the State regulation is already effective and so 24 there are requirements that the City does have the ability to put additional discretions on but we need 25 to adopt an ordinance as soon as possible. Given that, we do have the ongoing Eichler Guidelines but 26 that process has just started so the intent is for this to be – the ordinance to be effective and then to the 27 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 4 of 46 wrap the Eicher specific requirements as part of the Eichler Design Guidelines. The ordinance will be 1 effective first and then the Eichler Design Guidelines will be ongoing. 2 Co-Chair Keller: In other words, once the ordinance becomes effective, then people can build ADUs in 3 Eichler neighborhoods without respect to the Eichler Design Guidelines because they will not yet exist. 4 There was an amendment proposed by Council Member Holman to limit ADUs to 12-feet in Eichler 5 neighborhoods but that was not accepted so that’s not in the ordinance. It’s – therefore, they can be 17-6 feet high and as can they can be in any neighborhood. Anyone else? 7 1. Consent: Implementation Plan Chapter 8 9 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Now we’ll talk about the Implementation Chapter. I don’t think we need to 10 go around on this but anybody wishes to speak and then we’ll entertain a motion. Anybody wish to 11 speak on the Implementation Chapter? Ellen. 12 13 Ellen Uhrbrock: I just wanted to introduce the idea that I wrote in a memo to the Committee. Basically, 14 I’m suggesting that we make the chapter of the implementation readable at a glance by Staff, by public 15 vendors and Council and each program scored on its progress from 0 to 100%. You update this annually 16 before the Council retreats in the – in January or so and sets priorities for the year. Publish it as a 17 separate appendix through the Comp. Plan and it’s a progress report to the City Council and the City 18 Manager who will want to have a good leadership and shared with all. 19 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Alex. 20 Alex Van Riesen: First, I’d like to say thanks for the food for dinner. That was very nice, it’s very 21 thoughtful every time but it was a great spread, thank you. First or second I guess, I wanted to say that I 22 agree with Ellen and I think I had very similar thoughts. I – especially along the lines of there being 23 something more than just the 5, 10, 15-year review process. My sense was that – my suggestion was 24 that we actually -- by the way that they’ve set the priorities up with departments owning them, that 25 actually, there is an annual review process for each department and that each department is required to 26 produce a report on their progress with each priority, with each proposal and policy that’s under their 27 purview. That those are then – I agree. I think either put in some kind of review from but I think the 28 most important would be online. Where people can go online and see annually what priorities are there 29 and how are they doing with them; in some form of a summary of that. We can talk more about that in 30 the introduction as well but I saw this on page 3, it was interesting -- I note that under review and 31 update, I read Don McDougall’s comments and I too was struck by that. That why isn’t there something 32 more consistent or more regular and I suggest the annual and posted. The other thing was that I thought 33 that the last time – well, one other thing about the writing. In the first paragraph of the Implementation 34 Plan where it says the City has identified a list of implementation programs intended to provide – this is 35 basically a restatement of the first green paragraph I think and I wondered if that was necessary? It 36 seemed like we could just edit that out unless there was a reason for restating it twice. The second thing 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 5 of 46 is, I guess I was interested just in hearing – it says that in the green paragraph, it says the Palo Alto’s 1 budget process and it will ultimately be – and it was ‘the’ and then it was changed to ‘a’. I’m curious, I 2 think ‘the’ has more power or more significant and I was wondering why it was changed. I – in light of 3 that, I would like to hear the argument but without a convincing argument, I think it should stay ‘the’ 4 (inaudible) to even give it some added heft. Next thing as just a question for me, last time we talked 5 about – I think we were going to get an email with links to all the most current versions of the parts of 6 the plan, weren’t me? I don’t remember – did you send that out? Then I missed that, ok. What’s that? 7 Female: It’s in the Staff report. 8 Alex Van Riesen: The one that we were emailed? 9 Joanna Jansen: Right. It’s – with that – the table the came with the links is Attachment C in the Staff 10 report. If you go to the link that’s here… 11 Alex Van Riesen: Oh ok. 12 Joanna Jansen: …that table that’s linked to it, will have the links to the elements in it. 13 Alex Van Riesen: Got it. Thank you. Ok, that’s it. 14 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Annette. 15 Annette Glanckopf: Well, I don’t disagree with anything that has been said so far and actually Bonnie, 16 you’ll be very happy to know that I agree with you on a number of points that you’ve written. I’m not 17 sure about what you’re going to do with this whole section and this dot matrix concept. I am not a 18 supporter of that, haven’t been, won’t be for the reasons I stated in the letter I wrote. I feel very 19 uncomfortable for any vote to be taken forward to the City Council. When I looked at what you’ve got 20 here, I mean I still think each element show stand alone. If you want to prioritize, prioritize with 21 elements. It’s not clear to me why and maybe there is a great reason but why community services and 22 businesses are lumped together, for example. Then everything else is lumped into another category. I 23 don’t agree with what came out like shop Palo Alto, which I was involved with a number of years ago 24 and I could talk chapters about that. I don’t think it should be a high priority nor really analyzing the 25 trends of online shopping with every other crisis that’s happening in the City. That’s my own personal 26 view on that. I also think it was really fascinating when you look at it, it’s just a matter of numbers. You 27 know, Don did a great job of figuring out how many numbers wherein each category and how many 28 were ongoing etc. but I looked at it -- since these things are all sort of lumped together, I’m not sure 29 where we are going with the priorities but in the document that we had -- police had eight programs, 30 OES, and fire both had fourteen, utilities had thirty-one and Public Works had seventy-one. I didn’t even 31 begin to count community services, transportation or planning. None of those were a priority. I mean 32 they are all critical departments and that’s why I think that I agree with what Alex said. That maybe we 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 6 of 46 should think more about departments and the interchange and again, I’m more for prioritizing each 1 element as opposed to just lumping everything together with this dot process, which maybe some of the 2 things came out which are great and we would all agree on. I think there’s a lot of darts that we can 3 actually throw in there and just reading Bonnie’s note, I agree with what she said in her letter. I don’t 4 know where those priorities came from in this section. Maybe you could talk to that? 5 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Bonnie. Oh, you want a – do you want a response to that? 6 Annette Glanckopf: It would be nice to know. (Inaudible) Excuse me. It would be nice to know where 7 the priorities came from but also, what you’re going to do with this dot matrix as far as taking it to 8 Council? 9 Elaine Costello: Well, we don’t plan to take the dot matrix to Council. We – what we did, was we took 10 the highest scoring ones, ones that got more than half the available points and made sure that they 11 were in the ‘S’ Category; short term. That’s all we did, so if you look at the chart that’s in the Staff 12 report. If something is highlighted as ‘M’ and it got – and it made this chart because it got a lot of dots 13 from the members, it went from ‘M’ to ‘S’. That’s all we’re going to do. We’re not going to do anything 14 else with it. 15 Annette Glanckopf: (Inaudible) 16 Elaine Costello: The Council is not going to get – we’re not going to go any further. We just used it as a 17 way to refine. To make sure that the things that were important to the most people and none of them 18 were important to everybody, show up in the Short-Term Category and that’s it. That’s all we used it for. 19 It just changed a couple of priorities from ‘M’ to ‘S’, that’s all. 20 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Bonnie. 21 Bonnie Packer: Again, thanks for the food and it’s nice to know that we agree on things. One of the 22 things that I mentioned in my comments was that I noticed is that in the line version of the – this table 23 with the implementation table, had a link to the elements but the one that you’re going to send forward 24 doesn’t have those – doesn’t have the link to the elements in it. That might have been an administrative 25 oversight of some sort. 26 Elaine Costello: We’ll link it to the element that it was used to prioritize. 27 Bonnie Packer: Yeah, but the – it didn’t have the links in the version that we have. 28 Elaine Costello: You mean the hard copy version that you have? 29 Bonnie Packer: Yeah, I didn’t… 30 Elaine Costello: Yeah, yeah. 31 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 7 of 46 Joanna Jansen: The hard copy version is really the intent… 1 Bonnie Packer: Yeah, but it doesn’t show up on the… 2 Joanna Jansen: …was to try to… 3 Bonnie Packer: … it doesn’t show up in the – on the online copy either; the links, in this version. 4 Anyway, you’ll figure it out. 5 Elaine Costello: Right. 6 Bonnie Packer: Ok. The other thing – talking about how many programs there wherein each element 7 and all in ranking and all that. One of the things that are really missing is that there are a number of 8 policies that don’t have very many programs or any and those policies, in this implementation plan, the 9 way – since you’re only – you only have programs. Those policies will get lost and a lot of those policies 10 are pretty important. In the Business Element, there is a number of policies without programs. The 11 Governance Element had policies that don’t have – this whole thing about not including the policies 12 somehow in this document, again, it just makes it an imperfect document. The other recommendation I 13 have, which is in line with what Ellen and Alex were saying. Is that maybe another way to monitor the 14 progress of these programs is to link to the department’s work plans and to see if these programs – to 15 what extent they are actually in the work plan. The work plan, I guess is driven by the budget and there’s 16 a lot of things that go into developing the work plans of each department. Based on what the City 17 manager decides to do with the City’s money. That would be something for people to see. Well, has the 18 City Council allocated funds for this particular program and is it in this department’s work plan and are 19 they working on it? If it’s to be determined, then that’s in there too but that would be one way to do it. 20 You know with modern technology, this linking is a great way to do with without creating a lot of paper. 21 That’s what I would suggest and the other point is that – oh, just a – things are always ongoing and last 22 night, though they never got to it, is the Transit Vision Plan or the Shuttle Vision Plan that is now out. I 23 thought it was a great report, I read it and it was great. That would be great to have that referenced in 24 that – it was one of those. Was it T-1.14.1, that talks about expanding the shuttle? I would recommend 25 putting that into the next version of the Transportation Element that goes to Council because they have 26 that study now to look at. They may be looking at it before or after they do the Transportation Element. 27 Elaine Costello: Can I just clarify that? Yeah, that’s a very – a really good point. One of the things that 28 you’re going to see when you see the programs and the policies that go to Council is that we did go – 29 this is kind of a constantly changing set of policies and programs. We’re working with the CAC, we’re 30 also working with the Council and we’re also getting updates from Staff, like hey, this is actually – don’t 31 write it as doing this later. It’s underway now so we’ve actually tried – we’ve working really hard with 32 transportation actually. They’ve been great about giving updates because you guys haven’t reviewed 33 these since last year – it’s been a year and a lot has happened in a year. You will see changes like that. 34 You’ll see – so the word – don’t get to (inaudible) to the wording of the any of these programs because 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 8 of 46 they have been updated and consolidated and reflect Council direction. What we tried to do was give 1 you – we tried to pick a still point in a turning world and say, prioritize these so yes, we’ve already – 2 we’ve caught that going forward. 3 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Shani. 4 Shani Kleinhaus: Some of the programs in here I’ve commented on before on mistakes and they 5 haven’t been fixed. I know with – those things would just move forward with mistakes in them. I just 6 (inaudible) one of them was from Phil (inaudible) that corrected the language to (inaudible) but there 7 are others. There are other things that I thought we’d reached consensus and it’s not reflected in here 8 so there are things that seem to have never been changed, even though there was a lot of discussions. 9 I’m not comfortable with this. I mentioned – I can’t always sit and write things so when we come here, I 10 mention them. L-3.2.1, the language is (inaudible) proposed in 1/03/17 Staff report said pursue did not 11 specify mechanism; that’s the program. Obviously, that’s a mistake. I commented on this before. I don’t 12 know what to do with this. I’m not comfortable moving forward something that has mistakes in it and 13 things that we’ve discussed and just didn’t make it in. 14 Elaine Costello: I think one of the issues here and there may be some things that people wanted that 15 other people didn’t want or whatever but in the language in these programs, in order to say here is – 16 this – we linked you to what version we used. There have been updates since then that picked up some 17 of the comments and some of the changes so there are later versions. Particularly, of land use – in 18 particular, there are later – several later versions of land use and there are later versions of 19 transportation. 20 Shani Kleinhaus: So, what we look at here is not the current version? 21 Elaine Costello: It’s not the current version. It’s a version – it’s because all you’re being asked to do here, 22 it’s not to review the wording or – it’s to prioritize among the programs conceptually. So, you’re not 23 being asked if this is exactly the program language you would use. You’re just being asked relative to all 24 of these different, how – what would you think is the most important to do right away? 25 Shani Kleinhaus: With language that is not current. 26 Elaine Costello: With language that has – may have changed since then, yes. 27 Shani Kleinhaus: I have a problem working like that. I need to know what I’m voting for and what I’m 28 looking at. There is L-1.12.3, so many times we asked not to look at residential in a community center. 29 It’s still in here and I don’t know if that moves forward or not? It’s just – I don’t know. Other things, I 30 think a lot of the people who came here to speak about the people with disabilities and were looking for 31 more support. There’s only one program that really addresses them directly that I can see but I may 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 9 of 46 have missed some. It’s not a high priority, it doesn’t have an ‘S’, it has a medium so I don’t know. I’m not 1 comfortable looking at something that’s not current. 2 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Stephen. 3 Stephen Levy: On the priorities statement in there, I share Annette’s concern. I would suggest kind of 4 the follow language, which I think is reflective of what goes on under priorities. Which is that each year 5 the City Council sets priorities at their annual retreat and in 2017, the priorities are. They aren’t these 6 but this is a living continuous document and as far as I know, there are no 15-year City priorities. The 7 priority process is an annual process that the Council does at the retreat so there will be different 8 priorities next year and this document in 2017, should reflect the actual language that the retreat 9 adopted for the 2017 priorities. This section says, as of 2017 the priorities are and that’s wrong. These 10 are not the priorities that were adopted at the retreat. The second is a question to Elaine. You sent an 11 email out saying, I received a bunch of suggestions for consolidating or reorganizing the programs. Do 12 you have anymore and I see nothing in here that suggests whether if any of that was done or what the 13 result was? 14 Elaine Costello: I realize that this is one of the problems of working with the CAC and the Council at the 15 same time. Trying to get – I mean it’s what happens when – we had to get – we got the implementation 16 out to the subcommittee a couple of months ago and so we tried to stay with the same version so that 17 you weren’t always looking at a completely – that the CAC wasn’t always looking at a totally different 18 version every time. The subcommittee would prioritize one version and then the CAC would prioritize 19 another version so we stayed with the same version to set priorities. These are not the language – this is 20 the not the policy language or the program language. We’ve actually made revisions to respond to those 21 comments, which will be in what goes to Council. 22 Stephen Levy: So, this is not the Implementation Plan. This is what we did the dot exercise… 23 Elaine Costello: This is how you set the priorities. This is not – this is just so we know what you wanted 24 as your short-term priories, your medium, and your long term. As we combined programs in 25 consolidation, if it had been – if it got votes to be short term, it stayed short term but the language has 26 changed and we did not try – we figure that we had two kinds of potential confusion. One was every 27 time we came to a meeting, we gave you a totally different set and you went, what happened to the last 28 set? We figured at least keep it consistent and we’ve done that with every element and every plan. We 29 kept it consistent all the way through, from the subcommittee through and so we did the same thing 30 here. 31 Stephen Levy: So, back again, how about the priory point? These are not the retreat priorities and there 32 are, as far as I know, no living 15-year priorities. It’s in an annual process that changes with the Council 33 so why shouldn’t we say, every year the Council picks them. They’re priorities and in 2017, the priorities 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 10 of 46 are and list the ones from the retreat. I still don’t see where these came from. They are not what was 1 adopted at the retreat. 2 Elaine Costello: Joanna is going to… 3 Joanna Jansen: The – I think part of the confusion arises because the word priorities are used in 4 different ways and certainly, I can see how that is confusing. This section agrees in the existing Comp. 5 Plan. In the Implementation Chapter, there is a section called priorities and so this is basically, our take 6 on kind of what we’ve heard throughout this process of what are the main things that have up over and 7 over again in drafting this version of the Comp. Plan. 8 Stephen Levy: Now, wait a minute. The City means the City Council. 9 Joanna Jansen: Yeah. 10 Stephen Levy: What you heard here is not the City’s priorities. It may be the CAC’s priorities but this 11 says the City’s priorities and there is an official document that is updated every year. 12 Joanna Jansen: Right. 13 Elaine Costello: Let me just try this one? 14 Joanna Jansen: Go ahead, yeah, please. 15 Elaine Costello: I think that’s a very good point Stephen and we should just go through and clarify that. 16 Stephen Levy: Ok. 17 Elaine Costello: That the Comp. Plan has had these kinds of priorities in it in the past. That we picked up 18 tradition but we should not confuse that with City priorities. So, we’ll just clean that up. Thank you. 19 Co-Chair Keller: I’m going to speak first and then I’m going to call on you because… 20 Female: (Inaudible) 21 Co-Chair Keller: Also, I’m going to respond that as well and then I’ll call on you. One of the things about 22 priorities is that the City Council’s annual priority setting, which usually rolls over for more than one 23 year, are not the long-term priorities. They are immediate [phonetics][fowsi] of the City in terms of 24 short term – we’re going to put a particular effort into these things. That’s to be distinguished from 25 long-term priorities that are going – ongoing processes of the City. I would not consider the City’s 26 Council one or two-year priorities setting process to be setting the priorities for the Comp. Plan. I think 27 that those are longer term things and I just want to make that distinguishing. Another thing is that, in 28 terms of something that Bonnie said, I agree with your frustration of looking at these programs in 29 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 11 of 46 isolation. I think that -- the way I look at this is that the home for the programs is actually in the 1 elements and this is why I am personally, very pleased that the programs were put back into the 2 elements where they can see them in context with the goals and policies and programs together. I see 3 the Implementation Plan as an index into the policies – sorry, the programs. You can see them at a 4 glance together and indicate some sort of relative priority setting that goes on. One of the things that 5 happen on the Planning Commission is that there’s an annual Capital Improvement Program process in 6 which the PTC looks at the various Comp. Plan – I mean the various capital improvement projects that 7 are recommended by Staff but there isn’t a proactive – as much as a proactive process. The PTC has 8 perennial leave – worried about – be frustrated with proactive processes opposed to reactive processes. 9 I see if the PTC were to be the – the PTC is really the keeper of the Comp. Plan from my point of view. If 10 the PTC were to have the annual process for reviewing all of the programs and seeing where they were 11 and making recommendations to the Council. Then deciding which – whether – where we were and 12 bubbling some of those up to be – this should be a CIP item where appropriate or this should be 13 budgeted; have a process where the PTC recommends that. I think that in some sense the 14 recommending body – obviously, it’s up to the Council but I think that would be a good use of the PTC to 15 evaluate that – to evaluate these programs on an annual cycle basis. I think that that would be a good 16 thing for the PTC do. It would be hard for the Council to do because it’s quite long and detailed. Bonnie? 17 Bonnie Packer: Yeah, I agree with what you are saying Arthur but I have another suggestion. What if we 18 just delete that section in the introduction that says priorities because it’s a moving target, as we all 19 realize. The Comp. Plan is a 15-20-year document; maybe 30-year because we’ll take another 15-years 20 for the next update. That we – because you could have – all of a sudden you could have sea level rise 21 emergency and the priorities for the next couple of years are dealing with that in 10-years let’s say. We 22 can’t – putting priorities – (inaudible) adoption of the plan in 2017 that these are the priorities but that 23 doesn’t really help anybody using this document to know what the priorities were in 2017. Just because 24 it was in the earlier Comp. Plan, that doesn’t mean we have to keep it in and you might want to explain 25 that in your – in the Staff report to the City Council when this is delivered to them. Thank you. Oh, 26 another thing, about the PTC being the keeper of the Comp. Plan and the review of the capital 27 improvement document, that’s only for capital projects. So, who was looking at all the other programs 28 that do not require capital budgeting? I really think that’s a City Manager job and I would imagine that 29 the City Council would want somebody in the City Manger’s Department looking at this Implementation 30 Plan as well. 31 Co-Chair Keller: I’m suggesting that the PTC have that role and just as it has the role for the CIP. It 32 should have the role for the programs to review them and provided a report on that status. Getting 33 input from the appropriate departments just as it does for the CIP. Alex? 34 Alex Van Riesen: (Inaudible) 35 Elaine Costello: It’s the City Council. 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 12 of 46 Alex Van Riesen: (Inaudible) Oh, sorry, my bad. I would allow – I would say to push this to the City 1 Council to decide whether to create a much more broad priority section where we anticipate these 2 being issues for the next 15-years. If they choose to do that or eliminate the section so that was my 3 thought on that. I wanted to add one additional comment to this and I want to get into this more with 4 the introduction but it seemed that one of the desires in all this; in governance and in connecting this is 5 bringing ownership and getting people involved. One of the things I realized being on this Committee I 6 had no idea we had a Comprehensive Plan. I mean if I thought about it, I would have known but I’ve 7 been thinking about that more and more. How do we get people connected to this and it just strikes me 8 that we’re going to need to think about, even in the introduction or even in governance, how do we – 9 how are we going to get people connected and concerned about what we’re doing here? I guess that’s 10 why I was suggesting that in these department evaluations, it struck me that that may be a place to 11 invite people to participate or to have some community volunteers to be a part of evaluating in an 12 ongoing basis the Comprehensive Plan versus just once every 15-years. That there’s some kind of 13 regular – I’m not saying that would necessarily solve the problem but how to have more regular contact 14 with the document rather than in such large chunks. 15 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Shani. 16 Shani Kleinhaus: (Inaudible) C-19.3 supports programs for caregivers of seniors and people with 17 disabilities and so on. It has medium and I think that would be really helpful to a lot of the people that 18 came to speak to us so I would like to see that become a higher priority than medium. The bird-safe 19 design, which is something that I have been advocating for. It has medium and it has two dollar signs 20 next to it. There are so many Cities around here that are already doing guidelines and there’s so much 21 available. It shouldn’t be too much work and it shouldn’t be more than one dollar sign and I think Palo 22 Alto should push it a little up since the City is already doing a lot of that through the grain building 23 design so might as well formulate it in a way that’s easier. I think I would like to see that one pushed to 24 sooner and less expensive. The one on caregivers for seniors and people with disabilities, a lot of people 25 who came here were exactly that. Thank you. 26 Co-Chair Keller: I’m going to interject a comment which is that the term relative priority is a misnomer 27 and I think I mentioned this last time; it’s really relative timing. Short term is not a priority, medium term 28 is not a priority, long term is not a priority, it’s a timing. Routine is not a priority, it’s a timing. If you 29 changed this category and this heading to relative timing, you would eliminate a lot of the concerns that 30 we have because the saying – the issue is you can’t do everything all at once and people understanding 31 phasing of things and timing of things. Just because it’s long term doesn’t mean it’s low priority and I 32 think if we made that change. It would be good to clarify that and I think that would help. Annette. 33 Annette Glanckopf: Well, to just react to that, I don’t know how you can express what the priorities are 34 but maybe in another column but I won’t get into that. I have three comments. I agree I don’t think the 35 priorities really add anything to this document. Even though there are carry overs from the last plan, for 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 13 of 46 all the reasons that have been stated, I think I would just like to suggest that they are eliminated. I think 1 that a – on a second topic. I think when you go back to the Council -- I’d like to pick up what Bonnie said. 2 If every department, when they did their work plan, had some sort of link – where they were required to 3 do a link to the Comp. Plan program, policies, etc., that would make what Bonnie said very easy. Now 4 when we come to Council to push whatever point we want, we always quote from the Comp. Plan. I 5 think it’s very doable but you have to sort of set the standard at the beginning of the year when people 6 are putting their work plans together so I would put that in as a suggestion to the Council and let them 7 decide what they would like to take forward. Finally, I’m going to mention this one last time but one of 8 my things that I’ve been very interested in is the Office of Business Development or whatever it’s called. 9 None of my changes have been reflected in the document and I think personally, it’s very much of a 10 policy decision as far as what the City wants this office to do. We have some very lofty statements, 11 which I don’t agree with the state – I don’t disagree with the statements because it’s all great to retain 12 small businesses. I don’t know how they’ve ever done that or help small businesses; especially the mom 13 and pop shops. If it’s – it’s great as a goal but it concerns me because that is not the direction of our City 14 in that office and so to me, the Comp. Plan is not in sync with the current policies of the City. So, that to 15 me, should be another question to the City Council and if they really want to do these lofty things, which 16 are great. I’m not at all disputing that or the wording but I think that they need to make a decision and 17 then really beef up that department and actually try to go out there and do the things that are in the 18 document. Especially, I don’t think – other than the Chamber, no City employee that I’ve seen is really 19 out there trying to help the small businesses and mom and pop stores. That’s the last time I’m going to 20 mention that but I feel really strongly about that. 21 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Dan. 22 Co-Chair Garber: I think priorities is better located actually in governance and I’ll speak more about that 23 when we get to governance. 24 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Ellen. Microphone. 25 Ellen Uhrbrock: This brings me back to the need for a smaller and readable summary there. I learned 26 early in my work here that not very many people even knew how to write any kind of an executive 27 summary. A few of us knew how to (inaudible) and we just can’t summarize things so what I would like 28 is a combination of the implementation and the Governance Chapter, is to have a start with thinking 29 about who’s going to read this and what do they need? What does the customer need? The first thing I 30 think they need – we need is who to call at City Hall? Whose department is this and I love the app that 31 the City has created called Palo Alto 311? I don’t think it’s used as much as it could be and something 32 similar that is about who to call. They ought to be the departments that you have in the governance 33 gala, plus the non-profits that are supported by the City. I’m thinking of Avenidas for example, which is 34 had a half a million-dollar support and the Palo Alto Players and so forth. Who to call and what is the 35 context, that’s section one. Then I’d like to take those twos tables, one and two, which I can’t find at the 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 14 of 46 moment but one and two and make it into one. The criteria of what would be in that one table in the 1 summary would be the routine things, the IP things, and the short-term things. In effect, what you’ve 2 got is a short-term executive summary of the plan; the Comprehensive Plan. Which will have changed 3 every year as the years go by and has to be updated on an annual. The annual progress report, I just 4 tossed the 0 from 100% of those that are on the table, would give you an idea that we are working on 5 that or we aren’t or -- it will help you. At a glance, you want to summarize where are we, what needs to 6 be done and who do I talk to and work on it. Then last of all, this follows a request I made at the very 7 first meeting of this organization is that you need a glossary. All of your phrases need to be translated to 8 the public so that they can read it. This has to be a readable publication wherever it is. I remember one 9 night here I asked who reads and who uses the Comp. Plan? Only one of you responded and that was 10 Dan and so you’ve got to have people to be interested and read it and give them information that the 11 public wants. 12 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Lisa. 13 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: Just an overall comment. Actually, along with the lines that you said, Arthur. I 14 think if we were – whatever goes to the Council, I think that one column that we’ve been calling priority 15 really should be the relative timing because that’s what we’re talking about. We’ve all said everything in 16 there we still think is a priority to do. A question though, going to the other comments is -- I know we’re 17 near the end of our CAC but would it be helpful whether it’s partly from the dot exercise, even though 18 it’s not perfect or something else that we’ve done to say, of all these things we think we really should do 19 these first and I think is where you are going with the timing but they’re not quite the same thing so it’s 20 like what’s the highest priority? We talked about that last time about how do we determine out of all 21 the things we think we should? To your point, in each element there’s something that we think is most 22 important and how do we do those first? Not to take the others off the list but just to do them first but I 23 don’t think that’s captured in the relative timing and we haven’t really done that. It goes back to that 24 kind of high, medium, low understanding that even low is still stuff we think we should do because it’s 25 something we put in the plan. I am curious – the first point is that I agree with you on the column of 26 what we have now but then the open question is, is there something more that we should do to help 27 the Council? Just to say that we think in each element these are the more important to do first. 28 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Amy. 29 Amy Sung: I actually this the programs being each on their own very much. I remember from early on 30 that my understanding is that policies are a guideline and that what gets implemented is the programs 31 themselves. I have a list of programs – instead of going through the whole book, finding out – teasing 32 out every program, I think this is very, very useful menu to have. As far as those policies that do not 33 have a program associated with it, my understanding is that those are the policies that are important 34 and programs will be developed over time. So, with the policies there, somebody will look at them and 35 say huh, we need to have a program to carry out this policy. This is really a very live document and so 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 15 of 46 maybe you will also have to separate the policies so that you can use this like a manual in many ways. 1 You can go from programs to see how they – any programs that you can use that are currently being 2 carried out or that you can look up policies and say I have such and such ideas. Which policy is applicable 3 and from there, what programs can be developed? This is how I looked at it. This Comp. Plan will be 4 used and it’s not leisure reading that everybody will read from like a whole book and chapter after 5 chapter. This is how I imagined that we would excel and then we will sort the data according to what is 6 the needs. With this one, I think that it could be carried out. The – I was wondering about the priorities. 7 When I first wrote – I wanted to thank you very much that at the end of every page it says if it’s short or 8 medium. Often times when I read the document I’m thinking my god, last time I read it, it was a week 9 ago and what does IP stand for? I think this is fantastic. We need to have a glossary at the end but this 10 kind of a quick reminder is super, super helpful so thank you so much for that. The other thing is a 11 priority. I think maybe we do not mean that it is a priority in terms of what Council terms as a priority. 12 For example, we spent a huge amount of energy and time devoting in transportation and that – what 13 that TMA? That management program? That was deemed very important so it is not -- maybe the 14 priority is not the right way to say that this is what we have deemed very, very important and has a 15 really, really high priority stake that needs to be paid special attention from there on and that it’s 16 ongoing and so that is that. One last thing is that I wanted to respond to Annette’s comment about 17 business. In the business subcommittee, the Chamber was there and we also had different 18 representatives from the Chamber of Commerce that attended our meeting. It was very, very important 19 that they started out by saying that no business will start – open their shop and start the business by 20 thinking that I have planned to stay small and that my goal for the business is just so that serves the 21 neighborhood as the goal. That was really important for us to understand that every business seeks to 22 excel and expand and that is how they major the success so for a business to be thriving, I think it’s very 23 important that businesses pay for a lot of the services that the City provides. We want to support all 24 levels of business that is operating here in Palo Alto and I must say that serving on the business 25 subcommittee was one of my most enjoyable moments. Thank you. 26 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Bonnie, do you want to say anything else? 27 Bonnie Packer: Yeah, this has been a great discussion and I just was rereading the introduction to the 28 Implementation Plan and looking at it and I think we’ve got it. You might want to call it – instead of 29 relative priority in the introduction, call it timing priority but everything that is an ‘S’ is a high priority 30 because it’s going to start within 5-years. Maybe that could be clarified more explicitly in the 31 introduction and then because – I don’t know if this is an excel spreadsheet or not but then you sort all 32 the S’s and say hey, did we start this yet? Next year, the City Manager or the Planning and 33 Transportation Commission could say hey, we have all these items. Did they get started because they 34 were all ‘S’s and I would think that every couple of years or however you want to do it, this column – 35 this priority column in the table could be the ongoing organic thing that keeps moving forward. Well, 36 this -- the S’s maybe by next year will turn into IPs and the M’s may in a couple years be in the ‘S’ thing 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 16 of 46 because it’s within 5-years of that date. That would be a nice – it will be a rolling document and maybe 1 that could be spelled out more in the implementation. I just thank everybody for their ideas because 2 that’s how this discussion generated this idea. Thank you. 3 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you, Bonnie. Do you want… 4 Elaine Costello: Can I just…. 5 Co-Chair Keller: Go ahead. 6 Elaine Costello: …. make one comment? I just wanted to say that as I listen to people, I think the relative 7 timing is clearer than the relative priority because I see the difference now and I see where the 8 confusion comes around when you call it a priority. You think well, what about the Council’s priorities 9 and then you realize well, really what we’re talking about is in the Comp. Plan, these are the relative. We 10 are going to make that change so thanks. I just want to... 11 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Alex. 12 Alex Van Riesen: This is just a very quick thing. I noticed – I don’t know what the – how the tables will be 13 used that wherein the Staff notes but in table one, I noticed that L-4.8.1 was labeled as a two but it 14 actually only had eleven dots so it’s actually technically a three. I didn’t know if that’s going to be 15 reproduced. It doesn’t sound like this is a public table; it’s just for us. So, for what it’s worth. 16 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I’d like to – anybody else want to talk? I’m going to say a few things 17 afterward. Ok. A couple things. First of all, I’m glad Bonnie talked about excel download because that 18 was of the things on my list here to talk about and I think that your suggestions on how to do it are great 19 and I totally support that. The second thing is that there are comments that we’ve been struggling with 20 the idea of important and I want to make a distinction that a lot of us who’ve done project management 21 understand. That is the distinction between the urgent and the important. Sometimes you do the urgent 22 first even though it’s not important because it’s time critical and that’s why I think that the idea of 23 incorporating priority into timing is kind of muddy. That’s why I think it’s best to think of it as relative 24 timing as Staff as agreed – as Elaine agreed to do but I think that the priorities are really – in terms of 25 what Stephen had talked about, as an annual priority setting where things might bubble up and even 26 within short or medium term, those things are prioritized and chosen to – on an annual basis, which 27 ones you decide to commence for various reasons. For example, I would say -- just to make a distinction 28 here, I would say that California Avenue concept as a coordinated area plan is important. I would say the 29 Fry’s Electronics concept area plan is urgent. Just to make a distinction between that to illustrate that as 30 an example because I think that when – if the lease is up in 2019 if we don’t do a coordinated area plan 31 for Fry’s, it’s lost is shelf life, you know? It’s not going to be useful for effecting what happens to that site 32 if we don’t do it right away and I sure hope that as the Comp. Plan is put to bed. That the City Council 33 immediately does not pass go, does not collect $200 but immediately does the – start—commences the 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 17 of 46 Comp. – the (inaudible) area plan for Fry’s. The last thing is that I think it would be helpful -- I think 1 we’ve sort of dances around this and Staff should correct me if I’m wrong but this is my interpretation of 2 what the approval process for this is. I think this is illustrative and I’m sure that Staff will correct me 3 because I’m going to make mistakes but in some sense, what we have here is that we have been 4 generating – our job has been to generate the Comp. Plan changes, ok? It’s been a moving target 5 because this has been reviewed by Staff, reviewed by the City Council and so there are all kinds of things 6 in the process, in flight and thing are changing. When you look at something, the question is what’s the 7 image of what you’re looking at? You’re looking at one version of one document and one version of 8 another document so there certainly is a consistency issue that we’ve been dealing with. Staff is going to 9 have to make everything consistent in order to be able to give it to the PTC. PTC is going to see a 10 consistent view of the world and so it’s been cleaned up from that because, in some sense, the PTC is 11 generally the keeper of the Comp. Plan. They are the ones who adopt – who recommend adoption of 12 Comp. Plans, recommend the adoption of Comp. Plan changes and things like that. We’re in some sense 13 being the author of it and the PTC is recommending it. They are going to do a review process and then 14 it’s going to go to Council and by the time that happens it will be in rest in that sense. It will all be 15 completely consistent and published. Now, the interesting thing is that the consistency is a – it will be 16 consistent only when it’s published. It won’t be consistent after that. 17 Co-Chair Garber: It will be more consistent than it is today. 18 Co-Chair Keller: Yes, but the issue is that the consistency will occur at the time it’s published and the day 19 that it’s published because once changes happen to it, it will diverge. The excel spreadsheet will – 20 programs will diverge as things change; as the land use things change. There’s are a bunch of changes 21 that happen as amendments that happen to the Comp. Plan and that will evolve and therefore, it will 22 again, diverge again. One of the things that I want to talk about next time is the understanding of what 23 we learned from this process as to what we should recommend for the 2030 Comp. Plan; it starts in 24 2030. That start -- that goes into effect there because after all, the last Comp. Plan started in 1992. It 25 started in 1992 and the process from 1992-1998 with the citizen group starting from the beginning 26 doing revision and then what happened is it went to the PTC and then Council. In this case, it went to 27 the PTC first. The PTC did its work, the Council was not reviewing that in a timely manner and then the 28 process was kicked over to the public and then back to the PTC for a very brief review so that’s sort of a 29 different process. I think we need to understand better so we can recommend saying, here’s the time 30 capsule of what you should do in 2025 in order to start the Comp. Plan process again. If Staff would like 31 to comment upon what I said and correct it if I’m wrong? 32 Elaine Costello: (Inaudible) 33 Co-Chair Keller: Ok, great. Yes, Alex? 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 18 of 46 Alex Van Riesen: Can I just follow up on that? Is it possible – I think I really want to echo that I think the 1 conversation about what did we learn in this process is essential; it’s great. The summary you just gave 2 about comparing how the first round went with this, is there any way that could be written up? 3 Co-Chair Keller: I think that’s what – part of we’ll do at the next meeting is… 4 Alex Van Riesen: That was very helpful to hear. I would like to have to think about. 5 Co-Chair Keller: Yes, part – I’m not sure – well, we’ll have the minutes of the meeting but the issue is 6 that part of what we’ll do at the last meeting is lessons learned, which is it what should be read – I think 7 that should be opened up in 2024-2025 and figure out what to do when the Comp. Plan cycle starts 8 again. 9 Alex Van Riesen: Right. I just want to read the historical process again. 10 Co-Chair Garber: (Inaudible) In the introduction there is a very brief… 11 Alex Van Riesen: Oh, ok. 12 Co-Chair Garber: … outline without the details that Arthur’s included. 13 Alex Van Riesen: That we’re going to talk – oh ok. 14 Co-Chair Garber: But I – you know, it can be done. 15 Alex Van Riesen: Ok, it caught my eye. 16 Co-Chair Keller: Ok. So, thank you. I will entertain a motion on what to do about the Implementation 17 Chapter? 18 MOTION 19 Co-Chair Garber: I will move that we move the Implementation Chapter forward as Staff has drafted it 20 with the – in the end to be amended by the comments that we have given Staff this evening. 21 Female: Second. 22 Co-Chair Keller: Any discussion? I think we’ve had enough. 23 Co-Chair Garber: I have nothing more to add. 24 Co-Chair Keller: Ok. All in favor, please raise your hand. 25 Co-Chair Garber: That’s unanimous. 26 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 19 of 46 Co-Chair Keller: All opposed? All abstentions? We have one abstention. 1 MOTION PASSINGS 10-0-1 2 Co-Chair Keller: Ok, great. Why don’t we take a 5-minute stretch break and then we’ll come back and do 3 the Governance Chapter? 4 2. Action: Governance Chapter/Introduction/Cover and Glossary 5 Co-Chair Keller: Ok, so, what we’re dealing with now is the Governance Chapter and I think what we’ll 6 do is – we will go around the room and Dan wishes to start us off. 7 Co-Chair Garber: So, a couple of comments, very generally and this is not a criticism as much as an 8 observation. Perhaps I will start it off by mentioning that in the 1960’s, for about 8 or 9-years, my 9 mother was involved with the League of Women Voters in the State of Illinois and she was one of the 10 editors of the State of Illinois voter’s handbook. This chapter of governance reminds me of a lot of that 11 work. Where it’s describing the elements of the (inaudible) and how they interact and work with each 12 other. I actually had a slightly different expectation about how this chapter might be formed, which was 13 less about the governance of the City and more about the governance of the Comp. Plan in the City. To 14 that end, there is a subtle difference about what it is the chapter and what it’s attempting to do. I would 15 – it occurs to me that one of the most important things that this chapter could do would be to create a 16 schedule of activities that are designed – that outlines what is required by the City Council, by the PTC 17 and the other departments to govern and implement the Comprehensive Plan annually, every 2-years, 18 every 5-years, every 10-years. That schedule lays out the deliverables that the Comp. – that – for 19 instance, the City Council needs to do, which would include they do they're prior – their off-site every 20 year that includes the priority settings. They would also then look at the Comp. Plan and the programs 21 and say, uh ha. Here’s the new set of programs that we should be focusing on. Have we done this, have 22 we not, etc. Then that schedule would then also show that presumably, the PTC would have worked on 23 these things or really to tease these things out of the Comp. plan for the Council to then act on their 24 recommendations or alternatives that they would bring to the Council to work through. Then, 25 presumably, the other responsibilities of the departments would be that you would be able to see how 26 they also interact. Again, potentially annually, every 5-years, every 10-years or however we want to slice 27 and dice that up. Those are two very general comments about the entire chapter. The other thing is that 28 in terms of what are the overall levers, mechanisms, tools, that the City needs to make sure that the 29 Comp. Plan is implemented and works. I was really searching for in the policies and programs what the 30 specific resources where that were – that had responsibilities to be assigned to this. So, I’m echoing 31 Annette’s comments about the Office of Business Development and how critical that is to actually cause 32 the Comprehensive Plan to have traction in our community. Presumably, a large part of the mission of a 33 business developer is going to be called out in the Comp. Plan. Now they are going to have other 34 responsibilities that have nothing to do with the Comp. Plan but presumably, they’re going to have a 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 20 of 46 large responsibility there. If you recall when we first started these conversations a year and a half ago 1 and I cannot remember if it was the first meeting or the second or the third but there was also a 2 conversation around a function in the City that doesn’t exist, which was somebody that takes 3 responsibility for all the data that needs to be collected and published. We are looking in a way that we 4 have never done before as a City and that is to base a lot of the decisions – a lot of decisions around 5 data and that data is distributed in any number of different parts of the City and it exists – we’re looking 6 for it in places where it doesn’t exist today and it needs to exist. In order for it to really have function 7 context and meaning and import to moving the concept of the Comp. Plan forward, I believe that it’s 8 important that there is somebody that is actually assigned to that. In much the same way that the 9 auditor is assigned to track that sort of information but the auditor’s looking at that information from 10 the rear and we’re looking for somebody that is – whose responsibility or maybe I’m talking about a 11 person here but it may be an office or it may be something but it needs to be a dedicated resource that 12 recognizes that it’s their responsibility to go out and pull all that information so that it's (inaudible) and 13 guiding the effort of the Comp. Plan in general. Again, three very general sort of comments that I will 14 offer in terms of starting the conversation off. 15 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I would hope that the topic of making information available, if it’s not 16 already, the part of the job of our Chief Information Officer Jonathan Reichental, then may it should be. 17 Also, I’m wondering whether the issues of the things you don’t get (inaudible) how the Comp. Plan gets 18 implemented, maybe that belongs in the Implementation Plan. That’s what the title is. Anyway, why 19 don’t we start with Bonnie? 20 Bonnie Packer: Ok, I submitted some comments which probably none of you had the chance to read but 21 my main point that I wanted – that I think – the introduction to this, the narrative and the section on 22 civic and neighborhood organization could be expanded to be a lot broader. To include all kinds of non-23 profit, private organizations, in the City that do a lot of good stuff and that was what my comments are 24 about. The phrase that I’m suggesting is that we add in a number of places is private, non-profit, civic, 25 environmental, cultural and social service organization but also other places to say civic, environmental, 26 cultural, neighborhood and social service organizations. In different places and that’s all spelled out or 27 suggested changes to goals and policies and under goal G-2. The reason is because these organizations 28 exist and work a lot with the City and I listed some that I just thought up yesterday but there’s probably 29 a lot more. Avenidas, Palo Alto Community Child Care, the YMCA, YCS, ACS, Kiwanis, Rotatory, Canopy, 30 Altera, Red Cross, the PTAs, Neighbors Abroad, the different youth sports organizations, the Women’s 31 Club, The League of Women Voters, Palo Alto Forward, Palo Alto Community Foundation, Friends of the 32 Palo Alto Library, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, The Environmental Volunteers and of course, the 33 Neighborhood Associations; to name just a few. You know, there are others but I think these are the 34 organizations that if the City wants to work with and inform citizens, these clubs where people meet and 35 come together for various purposes is a great avenue for the City to reach. I want to give just a short 36 historical perspective. Back in the early 90’s, remember that the City wanted to hold some event and – 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 21 of 46 for the citizens and they only notified the Neighborhood Associations. Well, where I live, there was no 1 Neighborhood Associations so that whole neighborhood in south Palo Alto didn’t know about this event 2 so, me and a couple friends formed a Neighborhood Associations so we could get the notices. Those 3 were the days before the internet before there was a better way to communicate with the populous so 4 to speak. That’s why I think we have to think beyond just Neighborhood Associations because 5 Neighborhood Associations do great things but they’re not necessarily representative of the whole 6 neighborhood because everybody has different opinions about things but these different interest’s 7 groups, service groups, volunteer groups, have a lot to offer and it’s a two-way street. That’s why I 8 would add that –add the language – I was just adding the language that’s in the memo I submitted. The 9 other thing is to – under policy – add a program under, I think Policy G-2.3, to facilitate the easy 10 availability of City facilities to these organizations. Make it easier for them to rent and perhaps offer – 11 there is a discounted fee for non-profits but maybe it could be more discounted because space – 12 meeting places are always hard to get. So, those are my thoughts on that and in response to Dan’s 13 comments, I think those are some good ideas. I don’t disagree but maybe they belong in the 14 implementation – the first part in the Implementation Chapter. Thank you, bye. 15 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Amy. 16 Amy Sung: Can I come back later. I’m still reading my – forming my thoughts. 17 Co-Chair Keller: Sure. Lisa. 18 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I didn’t have anything to add to the whole governance. I do agree with Bonnie’s 19 point on adding the other associations because I think that’s a key part of the community so I agree with 20 it. I actually had my card up earlier just for one question for next meeting, which was more of a curiosity 21 but I think it might take a little advance notice on it. Remember at the very beginning we had a – I think 22 she was an Associate Professor at Stanford from Finland or something like that. They were doing – they 23 were involved in the very beginning of doing this Citizens Advisory Group. I’d be very curious kind of 24 what if anything we’ve learned from that and is this something that can be used elsewhere, which goes 25 to the lessons learned and that discussion so I just want to raise it before we are done. Thank you. 26 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Annette. 27 Annette Glanckopf: I have quite a few comments. First of all, I agree with Bonnie on some of the points 28 that she made and I do think that we are missing a lot of these other organizations. One area that I think 29 we’re missing them is that when the Website Design Committee came together, one of the 30 recommendations for this Committee was that the City reference all of these organizations and make 31 links from the City’s site to these external places; that’s never happened. Some of the text in here talks 32 about connections to the City. Continue to provide information to the City’s website about the 33 neighborhood and civic organizations, that has really never been done so I think it’s a good idea. I think 34 that all of these organizations should be part of the process. They should be communicated with and 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 22 of 46 they should be connected to on the City’s website so I agree with that. Starting at the top – but I don’t 1 think that the City needs and can treat all of these organizations in the same way. I’ll just give you one 2 example and then I’ll go back through some of my prepared comments. Neighborhood organizations or 3 other non-profits, let’s say the Boy Scouts of America or – ok, how do we turn that on? Maybe a better 4 example might be neighborhoods and rotary or Kwanis. Some of these organizations are informal, some 5 of them are 501C3s, some of them are pacts and so I think they’re – while I think it’s critical that the 6 word get out and we connect to everyone and inform them as Bonnie said. I don’t think the City can and 7 should treat them the same way. Going back to what I started with, in program 1 – G-1.2.1, continue use 8 of neighborhood organizations. That does not make any sense. Continue the use of neighborhood 9 organizations so this could be continued communication with neighborhood organizations and then we 10 could list all of the organizations that Bonnie suggested and I think that would be good but the wording 11 there is very, very awkward. In the next goal, G-2 policy G-2.1, again, that really does concern me as 12 well. I mentioned that there are no places currently on the City’s website that refers to any of these 13 outside agencies. The topics that you have highlighted here and maybe it’s a carry-over from the last 14 Comp. Plan, I think are limiting. Neighborhood beautification, we haven’t done anything with that for 15 years. This has never been a priority. I can never remember any action by the City in mid-town. We’ve 16 left off lots of things that could be included like public arts, public bathrooms, dog parks, signage, urban 17 blight, so there’s a lot of things that the City can do but the ones that are listed, I think it’s really a short 18 list. Event planning, the City is going to provide information on how to plan events. Where did I find 19 that? I thought that was really very strange. They’ve never done that either. If the intent of this term 20 was to schedule rooms to help neighborhoods or other organizations schedule rooms, then that should 21 be stated as such. Then there’s this whole thing about – I can’t just find it right immediately. Maybe I – 22 about guidelines for establishing and managing neighborhood organizations. You know again, I had it 23 and I’ve lost it. I guess it’s policy G-2.1. We had a huge discussion – the neighborhoods had a huge 24 discussion with Council about this. The resolution was that neighborhoods were responsible for dividing 25 – defining what a neighborhood was, what their boundaries were, etc. This has already been discussed 26 by City Council. The City – matter of fact, I – this really upsets me to think that the City is going to be 27 establishing guidelines for neighborhoods. Again, that was a big point of contention and there should 28 not be any guidelines. The two things that were worked out with the City on this whole topic because it 29 was a Council item, is number one and I would like to see this as a program, continue to hold regular 30 town hall meetings with neighborhoods. Again, it can be done with – that’s not – that’s very partisan. 31 That has nothing to do with one side or the other but I don’t think communication to all stakeholders in 32 the City should be communicated for these town halls. I think to continue to hold regular town hall 33 meetings with neighborhoods should be a program. The second one that I have here was support 34 Neighborhood Associations by allowing them period – periodic, it should be – use of public meeting 35 rooms. That was the other thing that the Council had worked on. Again, I put the point of distinction 36 that I think the Council should be helping, for example, rotary, find meeting rooms or some of these 37 other 501C3s or the Boy Scouts etc. This was already discussed by Council and I think we should codify 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 23 of 46 those; It’s two simple programs. Policy G-2.2, I think we can beef this one up. Establish and enhance 1 two-way communication between City Staff and neighborhood groups and again, I would be very happy 2 to add all the ones that Bonnie said that where feasible. Actually, right now with technology, this is very, 3 very easy to do. You can sign up – any group can sign up for almost any department’s information links 4 so I would like to see either removing this or enhancing it in a way because right now, I can’t imagine 5 anyone that wants to be connected is not getting multiple emails from every department. Again, I think 6 that needs to be reworking – reworded. The last one on this one is program G-2.2.1, assist neighbors – 7 residences with neighborhood improvements. Again, I’m not really – again, that’s a very small list. 8 Beautification and planting projects, again, I’m not sure what the City has done to help residents with 9 neighborhood improvements. Maybe if we were a blighted City, that would make a lot of sense. Canopy 10 has been phenomenal. They are really the ones that come out and help plant trees etc. and it’s usually 11 an individual effort though; it’s not a neighborhood. I would like to see that policy removed because 12 again, there’s public arts, dog parks, noise, urban blight, leaf blowers, code enforcement. There’s a 13 whole bunch of things that you could add that the City should be working with neighborhoods on, not 14 just beautification and planting. I know that’s a lot of time and effort but I’ve been very involved in this 15 topic and there is already been some precedence so thank you. 16 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you, Annette. Len. 17 Len Filppu: Yes, thanks. The first comment I have is on page G-2 and it’s about the copy. It’s not the 18 programs or the policies but it’s an important opportunity. In the very first paragraph, the second 19 sentence is reading, the City Council has two standing Committees, the Finance Committee and the 20 Policy and Services Committee. In addition to their legislative duties, Council Members represent the 21 City on a variety of local, county, region and statewide Boards. I think it’s a great opportunity and it is 22 important to the citizens of Palo Alto if you take the opportunity to mention that one of the Committees 23 that the City serves on is the joint School Board and City Committee. Those are the two elected bodies 24 we have. There are many citizens who feel they never speak to one another. That they’re like two 25 islands unto themselves and the only common ground is the citizens so I think it would be a good jester 26 in the City’s part to mention that as one of the important Committees. I don’t know whether it’s a 27 standing Committee or not but you get my point. Can I just do a jarring split infinitive, please? On G-5, 28 the second paragraph, Palo Alto will continue to seek out new technologies that will allow interested 29 residences to more effectively engage. Let’s just say to engage more effectively in the civic life of the 30 City. I don’t go around looking for those but that one just slapped me. Now, down on that same page 31 when we talk about civic and neighborhood organizations. The second sentence reads, many individuals 32 find it easier and more compelling to engage in neighborhood improvement rather than City-wide 33 activities. That’s kind of weak and it – and limp and I would offer that we delete that sentence and 34 improve it with this replacement, that “many individuals find that the best way to improve their City is 35 to work at the neighborhood level.” It’s the same thing but it doesn’t give the idea that people are 36 looking for the easy way out and that’s in their neighborhood and its less work and kind of a thing. I’d be 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 24 of 46 happy to send these to you as well. Ok, I agree with Annette wholeheartedly about a program to 1 continue to hold Town Hall meetings. These things really work when you identify a neighborhood or a 2 couple neighborhoods and bring representatives out. In our (inaudible) of the neighborhood, we got 3 immediate action on some traffic calming and dangerous intersections as a direct result of these Town 4 Hall meetings. These are excellent and I urge us to add them. Also, the City has provided our (inaudible) 5 group after a long fight in battle with rooms to meet at the library. Empty rooms that are shut down, 6 waiting to be used and they were – and I think the service – the Community Services has – was 7 developing a policy on this so I agree that if there’s an opportunity to mention free or reduced use costs 8 for neighborhood groups. There’s one other one on page G-10 and its Goal G-2. We’ve deleted 9 encourage the formations of neighborhood organizations to facilitate effective resident participation in 10 the community. That’s deleted because the organizations are now well established. Well, I’ll bet like 11 Bonnie’s situations when she wasn’t represented by a neighborhood organization, I bet there are places 12 in the City that are not represented by a neighborhood organization. Regardless of that, it says oh, it’s 13 also covered in G-2.4 and I don’t find a G-2.4 anywhere so the little note on the – the little box note that 14 you have to read like a Mad Lib if you know – for those of you who know what I mean. It says that it’s a 15 G-2.4, that’s not here. I would keep that in. I would make a one-word change and I think it would really 16 express the flavor or the spirit of what the City is trying to do. I’d say encourage the success of 17 neighborhood organizations to facilitate effective resident participation in the community. Kill the word 18 formation and include the words success because the City does this. They have things like the know your 19 neighbor outreach program that we’ve – our neighborhood association has been able to get a $1,000 to 20 have a neighborhood-wide party in the circles every summer. They’re really – I think the City ought to 21 take this advantage to – this opportunity to show that they really are doing some work in this area. 22 Thanks. 23 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Ellen. 24 Ellen Uhrbrock: This week I was in or last week, in complete awe when the newspaper gave the list of 25 employees at Palo Alto and the salaries and they were well over pages and pages and pages. That 26 brought to my mind the fact that this compliance thing is basically or governance – it’s the CEO and that 27 is the City Manager and you’re going to have a new one coming in. I would love – is there an available 28 big chart that shows you how all these things are connected and what has to be supervised and 29 controlled and financed? Does everybody know the hierarchy of managing it? I don’t know but that’s the 30 thing that the City Manager has to cope with. Well, that’s not adequate. I would like very much to 31 consider this as really a job description of here’s what you’ve got to deal with, this large group and this 32 budget and treat it as the business that it basically is. I think that the – in my little condensed version, 33 which is basically a separate Comp. Plan for the short-term projects and that also includes (inaudible) 34 that projects are routine and the projects that are in place so there is something that can be measured 35 on how much work that’s been done on it; annually done. The additions on the who’s call – who to call 36 would be all of the organizations which the City has a financial connection with. So, you know who to 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 25 of 46 call within the City. Policies are fine but outreach to other things that are not –organizations that are1 not financed by the City but especially, like the Town Hall suggestions. That you take it to all parts of the 2 City and I also would think – often have thought that during the many sessions, that all of us here on this 3 CAC can do things in our local neighborhood. They made a big deal out of representing the whole City 4 and having South Palo Alto have more members there and I think that we can do a lot of one on one 5 work in our own communities and work with those too. I think that’s a role that I look forward to playing 6 after this is all over. I will work as much as I can with the senior organizations to see that they are 7 involved in the City plans and the part – feel a part of the community. So, I think it’s a very important 8 chapter and I want it to be readable and I want it to be used and it is something that you start as a 9 reference and then go from there and see what interests me there and read more. It is an index and 10 everybody should know where it is and publicize it and really make it a best seller here in Palo Alto for 11 the citizens. 12 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Alex. 13 Alex Van Riesen: I agree with most of the comments that I heard before. I also just want to say that I 14 think that the Town Hall meetings is a great idea and I think it actually gets at what I think is one of the 15 bigger – when I read this section, I think this section feels very important to me because it feels like it’s 16 raising a big issue about what is the level of ownership of the people of Palo Alto for Palo Alto? I actually 17 think the City stands at a place of concern about this. I live in South Palo Alto and I’m noticing that a high 18 number of people are moving into the area and I think it’s no surprise. People have always moved in 19 because of the schools but I think they’re also moving in as investments to buy the houses and 20 properties. I saw some folks two doors down from me, they bought the house that was there. It was a 21 1,000-square foot Mackay; there was only two of them, they have no kids. They tore it down and built a 22 two-story big house that’s more than they need. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to know that they were 23 making an investment and building something that they could then later sell for a profit. I guess it struck 24 me that as I interact with them, as I’ve tried to say hello and get to know them. They do not strike me as 25 prime candidates as stakeholders in Palo Alto. I think with a lot of these changes and the economic 26 changes, I think the City needs to think about how do we develop stakeholders or even champions and 27 I’d like to even use that terminology, for Palo Alto? Who are people that are going to lead in the various 28 neighborhoods? I just want to say, by looking around the room, not just those of us that are present and 29 no offense intended but the vast majority of this group is on the second half of life. I think that – 30 Whitney excluded – but – not – very, very personal but – well… 31 Whitney McNair: (Inaudible) 32 Alex Van Riesen: …yeah, we’ve very, very close. I think that is a concern because as I thought about this 33 and being a parent who has kids in the elementary school. What I have noticed is that you don’t really 34 own Palo Alto until you probably buy a house. If you’re in your 20-somethings and you’re renting or 35 you’re living here -- I don’t think when I was renting or living, I didn’t own Palo Alto. I wasn’t that 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 26 of 46 invested in the well-being of Palo Alto. I’m not saying that renters are bad people. I think that ones who 1 want to live here maybe but once you buy, all of a sudden you feel differently about things. Then when 2 you have kids, you go into this thing called the elementary school and then they suck all the volunteer 3 life out of you. I think the thing that I would say is the City needs to think strategically about how to get 4 volunteers because of young folks in 30’s and 40’s, they are – we’re volunteering like crazy out our 5 school. I mean, you guys probably all relate to this. I have to turn down 50% of the things that I am 6 asked to do for my kid’s school, even though my kid’s school is ranked number one in the entire state 7 and you’re just wondering, what is going on here? 8 Co-Chair Garber: It’s all you, Alex. 9 Alex Van Riesen: It’s all me. Yes, they all want me. That’s what I dream about at night. I guess I wanted 10 to say on page G-2, as Palo Alto intends to uphold its reputation as one of the Countries most livable 11 Cities, the City and Council are committed to widening the circle. I actually think that that should be 12 changed to developing champions for the well-being of Palo Alto -- developing leaders. We need to not 13 – we need to be thinking about the next generation and the people who are actually going to lead this 14 City and developing them now. I think we also need to identify the target groups and this would be a 15 sub-project. Who are the groups that are newer to the City? That we’re really going to have to connect 16 with if we want to build a stakeholder element. One of the groups that I would argue is the immigrant 17 Chinese community to be specific. In my neighborhood, there are – most of my neighbors – that’s – that 18 are coming in are immigrant Chinese folks and I’m realizing some of the grandparents that are raising 19 the kids don’t know the language and they don’t know anyone. How do I connect with them? How do 20 we connect with them as a City and make them feel as participants and stakeholders and owners in the 21 City; as an example? Going onto page G-5, I just wanted to emphasize this again, that at the first 22 paragraph there are a number of City mobile applications that citizens can download and use to report 23 issues or problems that they would like to see the City to address. Palo Alto also maintains the 24 transparent development review process. Again, I think that transparent development review process 25 should be specifically online, with a link to it and how to see how the budget is even connected to that 26 and how the spending is being done. In relationship to Len’s comment on G-5. Down there at the 27 bottom with civic and neighborhood organizations. My comment when I read this was huh? Where it 28 said, many individuals find it easier and more compelling, I totally agree with Len’s comments, to engage 29 in neighborhood improvement. I find it almost impossible to engage in neighborhood improvement. Let 30 me tell you, my wife and I, we try to sponsor parties in our neighborhood. We tried to do it at Christmas 31 and Easter. Every time we do it, we get 40 people who come to our house and they say this is the 32 greatest thing. This is so fun. Everybody brings food and they all have a great time. They go, we should 33 do this more often. Never happens again unless we initiate it on that annual basis. I just want to suggest 34 that there’s a problem there and this is probably different than most of us remember growing up. 35 Where you knew your neighbors and you were connected and I’m just saying, we have tried to get to 36 know our neighbors and to build some sense and it has been difficult. Lastly, I think I’ve made – the 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 27 of 46 volunteerism, I just think that is a big issue. I guess one of the radical suggestions that I wanted to make 1 and I don’t know where this fits. It’s just an idea that I had but I actually wonder if we shouldn’t say one 2 class for this – this will go over well I’m sure in Palo Alto schools but one period for both semesters of 3 some year, maybe senior year, is dedicated towards each student being involved in the participation in 4 some element of the Comprehensive Plan and walking it out. That is a senior year requirement that in 5 the first half to read the Comp. Plan, to understand what it – hear strategies like what does it mean to 6 be involved in a City? How could be involved and then the second semester, you’re actually assigned an 7 element of the Comp. Plan, an actual program and you and a group of students are tasked with 8 executing and figuring out how to save on the money issue, right? Also, they can put it on their resume. 9 Amy Sung: You passed citizen’s test. 10 Alex Van Riesen: I also just wanted to highlight a couple of other things. One is that I think the most 11 effective gathering spot in my neighborhood is the Eichler Swim Club and I think we need to find out 12 what are the other places where people are already naturally meeting? The Eichler – another one is 13 Green Meadow. If you want to think – I think more information is transmitted through the Green 14 Meadow Swim Club and if you’re not in it, you just feel like you’re out of the loop. I’m not in either of 15 them but it’s just that you realize that this is where people really converse. Especially during the summer 16 but these would also be excellent places and other parts to have these town meetings. I think there’s 17 going to need to be some time to build up some momentum and they should be held; anyway. I already 18 said we need to take some cross-cultural issues into effect especially when language and diverse 19 cultures is an issue. I guess – I said my assumption and I got my idea – my high school project. Ok, done. 20 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Whitney. 21 Whitney McNair: Well, if it makes you feel any better I actually volunteer at Gun High school on a pretty 22 regular basis, in a high school senior civic class through the ULI, which… 23 Alex Van Riesen: What is that? 24 Whitney McNair: It’s Urban Land Institute and they give the seniors a fictitious project for 25 redevelopment of an area with a lot of issues associated with is and they use Lego blocks and a 26 complicated model to look at the finance piece of it. Each person is assigned a responsibility like a 27 neighborhood liaison, a representative to the City, marketer, a finance person and a site planner and 28 they get in groups of 5 and they have to create a plan and present it to a fictitious City Council. It’s a… 29 Male: (Inaudible) 30 Whitney McNair: …it’s a great program so I actually – we do it at Gun High School pretty regularly. 31 Alex Van Riesen: Encouraging. (Inaudible) 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 28 of 46 Whitney McNair: The students are phenomenal at it. Anyway, so some students are looking at this kind 1 of thing and getting at least a taste of it. I didn’t have much to say about the Governance Chapter, other 2 than -- I actually don’t know if the components that are in the Governance Chapter if those are best 3 suited to be in a Comprehensive Plan or in some other document in the City. I don’t think anyone is 4 looking to the Comp. Plan to find these sorts of goals and using it in a way that one might expect them 5 to. I kind of feel like the Governance Chapter could be incorporated into the introduction section and so 6 your kind of describe the framework that is the Comp. Plan. You talk about that there’s a vision, the 7 goals, the policies and the programs and how they nest together. How should one use the document? 8 What are the key issues within it? What was the update? What was the process that we followed and 9 what sort of input was received by the community and sort of give somebody a sense of how it was 10 created and how you could use it? Anything above and beyond that, I think is just sort of extra. 11 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I actually have comments on a bunch of different things, including the 12 Governance Element. The first thing is the cover page. I think it’s ironic that we have a picture on the 13 cover page of Boarder’s Books. 14 Female: (Inaudible) 15 Co-Chair Keller: Ok, great. (Crosstalk) That’s fine. 16 Co-Chair Garber: (Inaudible) 17 Co-Chair Keller: I just think it’s ironic that they have that there so anyway. I guess we’ll do the 18 introduction later as well? 19 Elaine Costello: Yes, we’re going to do the introduction (inaudible). Oh, I’m sorry. We want to – yeah, 20 we’re getting too casual here. We want to finish this so we can do the cover and the introduction and 21 the glossary. 22 Co-Chair Keller: Great. 23 Elaine Costello: Yeah, so… 24 Co-Chair Keller: So, I don’t know – on page G-5, there’s a deleted paragraph and I kind of like that 25 paragraph. I don’t know why it was deleted. It seems that the idea of it widening the circle of residents 26 to provide expertise. I think we should rely more on our citizens than on consultants, wherever 27 appropriate because after all, they’re free and they are committed. Secondly, there’s a comment on 28 page G-9, where it says third level decision making is ministerial and then at the bottom of that it says 29 and public input is not required. Is that the same thing saying that it’s not allowed? Please clarify, do you 30 mean it’s not allowed or not required because not required means that it isn’t allowed. If it’s not 31 allowed, say so. In terms of policy G-1.1, that’s the first thing you come to is policy G-1.1 and it’s talking 32 about delegating appropriate decision making for the Planning and Transportation Commission, which in 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 29 of 46 fact does not take place. That was a proposal talked about but in fact, the Delegation (inaudible) Review 1 Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission is an advisory board. It does not – the Planning 2 and Transportation Commission has no decision-making power with the exception of being able to 3 initiate (inaudible), which is not the same kind of decision I think you mean. That’s needs to be 4 reworded and then it says to simplify and shorten the project review process. Is that all we care about 5 with what the PTC and ARB are doing? To simplify and shorten the project review process. It seems to 6 me that that’s the wrong thing to think about. It’s actually as a process – the – from my point of view, 7 the purpose of the PTC is to analysis projects and recommend them rather – (inaudible) projects, 8 ordinances, Comp. Plan changes, things like that and to recommend – for recommendation to the 9 Council; that’s at the PTC. That’s what the policy should be of the PTC instead of what’s over here. For 10 the ARB, it is a decision-making process but again, the goal is not to simplify and shorten the project 11 review process. It is to analysis projects for whatever their guidelines are for the compatibility with the 12 City and the standards and all that kind of stuff; the design standards. That’s what it should be talking 13 about, not this. What I would like policy G-1.1 to really be about is the idea that we want citizen 14 involvement. Sometimes this is sort of what’s happening in G-1.2. To me that’s more important than G-15 1.1. G-1.2 is to enhance two-way communications between resident organizations and City Council and 16 providing access to information. In some sense, that’s what’s really going on. We want input into the 17 decision-making process of Council. We want a dialog there and in particular, the – one of the things 18 that needs to be talked about in this is the idea that was – there was something made – it was a policy 19 made by the City Council in the last few years and that is that Staff reports come out not according to 20 the Brown Act Requirements of 72-hours in advance but actually, 10-days in advance for the City 21 Council. Last minute things actually mean that the item gets re-agenized and I think that should be in the 22 Comp. Plan because really, that’s an important process of what’s going on. The idea that we get early 23 Staff reports in order to get public participation and that’s – new thing before there change the project, 24 change – new information, new designs mean that you’re going to discuss it but you can’t make a 25 decision on. It you have to defer it to another meeting and I think that’s – to me, that’s the essences of 26 governance from a land use point of view and that’s what needs to be first. Ok, the next thing that I 27 have here is that I agree also with the comments of – that Len made and the comments that Annette 28 made. I’m very intrigued by the idea of this Gun High School class. I actually also volunteer at Gun High 29 School. I’m the public transit coordinator so I’m the one who is the liaison between Gun High School and 30 the VTA for the 88 bus, soon to be the 288 series of buses. I think that there is certainly a matter of 31 involvement. We need to think about how we do bring – involve – I’m thinking in terms of involving new 32 residents. I think it’s not only new residents because of different ethnic groups or different cultural 33 things or whatever but I think the issue is that we need to think about how we involve new residents in 34 what’s going on and realize, as you pointed out, that when people are involved – when they have school 35 aged kids, they are going to be involved in the schools. That’s – their kids are everything to them and 36 being involved in the schools has a high priority pay off. One of the things that I think is worthwhile 37 thinking about is the idea of engaging. I realize that you talked about people in their early stage of life or 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 30 of 46 later stage of life but I think that when people volunteer in the schools – now they use to volunteer in 1 the schools and their kids graduate from school. The kids graduate from high school and they are empty 2 nesters so engaging those people in volunteering with the City and being involved in the City governance 3 is the next stage of what makes sense. I think that we should take particular effort to transition them 4 into volunteering with the City, where they were volunteering with the schools. Finally, the issue is that 5 I’m still going to complain about the fact that a coordination between the City and the school district is 6 greatly lacking in terms of this document. There was a program in here to require that we consider 7 impacts on schools, in terms of in the Community Services and Facilities Element. It was a program to 8 consider impacts on schools of legislative changes and that was taken out. It was supposed to be moved 9 into land use and it somehow never got in there. I’m still really annoyed about that and frustrated with 10 the process of that. I think it should have been a program – a policy and it should be there but in any 11 event. In governance, that’s something that makes sense in governance, which is the issue of 12 coordination between the City and the school district in terms of land use issues, in terms of school 13 capacity issues, in terms of coordination, and in terms of services. The fact that the park – a lot of park 14 land – park like land in neighborhoods is actually school playgrounds. So, I see the issue in governance is 15 where it belongs. The idea of coordinating between the City and the school district and it goes beyond 16 the City school district -- I forget what the exact name of the Committee but that is a standing 17 Committee. It needs to be mentioned in here. Also, we might want to make as a footnote the 18 realizations because not everybody realizes that Palo Alto – not all of Palo Alto is in the school district 19 and people don’t realize that. Monroe Park is in Palo Alto and not in the Palo Alto Unified School District 20 and also not all of Palo – not all the school districts in Palo Alto like Los Altos Hills and Stanford 21 University and a little part of Portola Valley, it’s actually in – Portola Valley address is on Alpine Road are 22 actually in the Palo Alto Unified School District so it’s kind of an arcane collections of places but it is – 23 the bulk of it is in the City of Palo Alto. Are there any other comments that we have? I guess we have a 24 few things over here. Why don’t we go with Bonnie? 25 Bonnie Packer: Thank you. I want to respond to what Alex was saying about reaching out to other 26 groups and I think my suggestion of including a whole list of these different types of organizations is a 27 way to do it. To add to my list, you might – I think there’s a Chinese Parents Club that is quite active that 28 could be included; groups like that. We don’t have to identify them in the Comp. Plan but that type of 29 groups could be identified like the swim clubs like Eichler and the places where people gather. Looking 30 at the section, I think it’s the last one, the development review section Goal G-6. That seems to me that 31 that is really covered in land use somewhere so maybe it doesn’t really need to be here because it’s 32 talking about – it’s – the Development Center is one place where some residents interact with the City 33 but it’s not the only place. You know, it’s just one of those places so I think it’s probably more – it’s 34 appropriate for land use but I’m not – don’t feel strongly about that. Also, Goal G-5, managing change, 35 and stakeholder collaboration. I think that is also covered in land use, where we encourage – have – I 36 think there’s some programs or policies that encourage more participation of people in these decisions. 37 Then there’s one – a couple of other things. I wonder if it’s appropriate or not to have a little section 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 31 of 46 that describes our Municipal Code and what it covers. I don’t think people are aware that there are laws 1 in Palo Alto and it’s called the Municipal Code and there’s no place for them to find out about it. Even 2 though I agree with you Whitney, this might not be a place where people will go to learn about civics in 3 Palo Alto. It might be something we want to through in there. One other thing and I don’t know how to 4 express this and it was something that has always concerned me. That is the public hearing process that 5 we have at City hall where one person gets up and says something and then another person gets up and 6 says something and we don’t have a vehicle for constructive dialog. We may want to -- as I say, I don’t 7 know how to word this but we may want to have a program or policy which says, consider creating 8 (inaudible) Citizens Committees concerns controversial issues that are before City Council before the 9 public hearing. So, the people can get to listen to one another, just as we have been listening to one 10 another and see where people are coming from. The City Council will be bombarded with different 11 ideas but there’s no way for the citizens – the City Council may discuss amongst themselves, that’s now 12 nine but soon will only be seven people but if you have – if there’s a concerted effort, I know it will add 13 to the Palo Alto process but it may make the Palo Alto process a lot more civil so people understand 14 where they are coming from – where people are coming from. I would like to have – consider looking 15 into the public hearing process to get more meaningful citizen input by having Citizen’s Committees. I 16 don’t know how that would work with the Brown Act. I don’t know what -- the City Attorney’s Office 17 might have to look into that but I’ve always – for the past 25-years that I’ve been involved in civic stuff 18 here, it’s always bothered me. That the public hearing process is really archaic and ineffective I think. 19 Thank you. 20 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I think it’s an integrating thing and maybe that can be done at the PTC level 21 too. Amy? 22 Joanna Jensen: I’m sorry. 23 Co-Chair Garber: (Inaudible) 24 Joanna Jansen: Excuse me. Can I just respond really quickly? Thanks. I just wanted to point out Bonnie, 25 that Policy G-5.1, I think does or it certainly would, in my mind, be intended to do what you were just 26 talking about but maybe if that doesn’t hit the mark… 27 Bonnie Packer: Yeah, maybe instead of just effectively manage change but to effectively deal with public 28 policy or make it broader so it’s not just on a land use issues but it could be other issues. You know, that 29 people have to get together and discuss. Yeah, that’s – I appreciate that. Yeah, that does attempt to do 30 it so maybe that could be expanded a little bit. 31 Co-Chair Garber: I have Amy and then Annette, Alex and then myself. 32 Co-Chair Keller: Amy. 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 32 of 46 Amy Sung: Ok, thank you. I had just really broad comments and so it starts from G-2 about 1 neighborhood organizations. I do recognize that there are some neighborhoods that have a strong and 2 very cohesive neighborhood organization like Mid-town and the one that Alex mentioned in Meadow. 3 Alex Van Riesen: Swim club? 4 Amy Sung: No, your neighborhood organization so it sounds like it – and I do recognize that it’s a very 5 active and you have organized activities. The neighborhood that I am in and also, I think, the other 6 neighborhoods, it is just not as organized and active. I think that is one thing to realize and I really like 7 the ideas that we will include a bunch of organizations. For instance, if the City is coming out with a new 8 policy and it’s very important that the City will notify the stakeholders so you need to know who to call – 9 who to contact. For example, if you’re doing a park, you also want to notify the Boy Scouts of America 10 and the Girl Scouts because – and these other youth groups that are active in outdoor. Also, we have the 11 community gardens and you can also notify the scouts – did I mention that because I have two boys – I 12 have two sons and they were active in the boy scouts and so that’s my family and these other youth 13 groups at that age often need to do community services. I am just thinking that our neighborhood 14 organizations could expand to include a lot of the organizations that we know that are active. Also, they 15 can serve as stakeholders when the City has some new policies or revisions. You want to get them 16 involved and get their input so that is not a policy that is made in a vacuum. Then G-4 is talking about 17 volunteer and involvements. I do real estate as my business and when I moved to Cleveland, Ohio, I 18 remember the first day we moved into our house, there were gift baskets and the welcome wagon. 19 Then when I moved to Palo Alto it was like where is the welcome wagon? There is no such thing and so 20 I’ve been talking about that with some of my colleagues – some of my buyers. Particularly, when they 21 come here, how do we introduce them and orient them and I would serve as that person to introduce 22 them to Palo Alto. I would say try this location, try these activities and if you are interested – I think that 23 this is a way a City can come up with -- you are the Visitor Center, you are the welcome wagon. Give us 24 something that we will hand out to new buyers to our City and answer Alex’s question, your 25 neighborhood, you are seeing a lot of Chinese families that have moved in. What do they do? More 26 Cities have these ESL programs, I would tell them to enroll in the program. That gives you more than just 27 language training. It gives you the new cultural of the expected norm that is the cultural differences and 28 that is the starting point. Also, many of the parents who are here because of the language barrier, what 29 do they do? They have a lot of experience from where they come from. I remember mentioning it to the 30 CEO at Avenidas and so I suggested to her that this is an (inaudible) tab to volunteer groups. They have 31 plenty of time, they have plenty of experiences and they wanted to participate but they need a revenue 32 to bring them in and so that is the volunteers. We need to try a way to, first of all, give them something 33 so they know where to start and I think that is very important and then the liaison. In my trade group, 34 we have a liaison from the Council that will come because our group is an advocate of property rights 35 and because of that, it is a very important that policies that are changed that involve property rights, we 36 want to be in the loop. I think that our City Council can either themselves serve as liaisons to many 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 33 of 46 organizations or they can appoint representatives to service that role and that will create the 1 communication channels. One last thing is what I observed at the City Council last night. I wanted to 2 follow up on what Bonnie said about that everybody gets 2-minute to comment. If I look around the 3 room tonight, I think that we get a lot of communications back and forth and follow ups but when you 4 have a huge group like in the beginning, we each were given 2-minutes. If I were first to talk, I say 5 whatever I said and my 2-minutes is up. When it comes to Whitney, she would gather a lot of thoughts 6 along the way and she would say something and then that would spark something that I thought like oh, 7 I wanted to say that but I already used my 2-minutes and I think that really – in a big group, how do you 8 organize that in such that you created this two-way communication and that is a challenge. More 9 fundamentally, I think Vice Mayor Kniss puts it really, really plainly. It is unfortunate that we’re 10 becoming very partisan. We hold onto our belief and then it's displayed in public so in our – the way that 11 we speak, in our behavior and in our body language, it does not show that we are neighbors. I just 12 thought that a lot of activities and the engagements, besides the politics is a way to bring neighbors 13 together. We -- Palo Alto, has a lot of turnovers and we have a lot of people that moved in and these are 14 the new neighbors so we engage them. We have people who have been living here 50-60-years. They 15 also need to be engaged but that’s my thoughts. Thanks. 16 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you, Amy. Annette. 17 Annette Glanckopf: Well, all those good comments, it’s really hard to follow that but I wanted to just 18 sort of summarize some thoughts that I had as we were going around the room. Also, I don’t know if 19 you’re going to be able to give interesting ideas to Council that doesn't really have a place anywhere 20 else but I’d like to also echo my thoughts about volunteerism. There are lots of different organizations 21 that require volunteers, as we all know and the City has really tried very hard to go out and get new 22 faces and has actually been pretty successful in the last couple of rounds. A lot of the other departments 23 and other needs, still need volunteers and there’s been some discussion in the past about having a 24 person in the City, whether it be a volunteer itself or whatever; a paid Staff, that could sort of get the 25 word out that these are all of the volunteer opportunities that are available so I don’t know if that could 26 be a program or a goal or anything. We’ve talked about this for many, many years and I think it really is 27 a good idea for someone to be able to explain maybe all the Boards and Commissions and whatever, as 28 well as the organizations that Bonnie mentioned. I throw that out as an idea that has been knocking 29 around for a while and I think it’s great. Back to newcomers, there are a lot of – in the old days, when 30 we were in the 50’s, there were these little newcomer clubs around the Country and so Amy touched on 31 that. It was really part of the Mother’s Club or whatever but that might be an interesting idea. I’m not 32 suggesting that we put it back in the Comp. Plan but certainly the real estate community could help by 33 connecting – if we had a group like that, we could really make more connections into a lot of these 34 activities. Whether it could be someone officially elected or appointed or just general things like the 35 Police Department washing cars, which is an opportunity. One sort of random thought that sort of ties 36 into this volunteering at the high schools is that we have this program Palo Alto – called Leadership Palo 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 34 of 46 Alto that really talks a lot about putting this all together but it’s only for a small group of people. The City 1 could develop a Government 101 kind of session that – again, I don’t include this as a policy or anything. 2 It’s just sort of an interesting idea to put in some of the comments to Council. They could teach 3 periodically that would have what Ellen said, which is here’s sort of about who you talk to and this is the 4 structure of the City and many of these things about land use etc. I think that might be sort of tied in 5 with volunteerism and the Newcomer’s Clubs. Now, as far as newcomers, we have this very active 6 program called Emergency Services Volunteers, which is sort of built on the neighborhood watch so if 7 your block has someone that’s involved, they are probably going to deliver your basket of fruit but we 8 don’t have someone on every block so it’s very random. As far as the public hearings, the one thing that 9 we’ve been very successful – I’d just like to pick up – this is a random thought and not a program. We 10 have been very, very successful in getting a lot of interaction as opposed to just sort of talking and not 11 getting any immediate feedback, at these little community meetings. A lot of planning does this or Town 12 Hall also, where you sort of have an open forum and it’s almost like a Senator or someone who would 13 have office hours. We’re you can just sort of go in and talk about things but I’ve gone to a lot of these 14 topic-specific meetings so rather than before a public hearing, you could have this sort of, let's walk 15 around the room and talk to everyone and see charts and they do that a lot with land use and have City 16 Council people there and you can chat with them or key people in the City. You can chat about ideas and 17 that’s also -- try with the Town Hall so I just wanted to sort of tie that together in my own mind and 18 again, it’s more of a random thought as opposed to making a program out of it. Finally, with a little bit of 19 humor, Amy, I’ll say to you after – you’ve put so much time and effort in this so maybe when you have 20 more free time after we’re done, you can get more involved with your neighborhood association. 21 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you, Annette. Alex is next. That’s no problem and I think that I’ll just indicate that 22 I agree entirely with what Annette has said. In particular, in terms of what Amy said about 23 neighborhoods associations and that it would be good to strengthen those. It would be good to connect 24 the real estate community so that when people move into the community, then the real estate 25 community connects them with their neighborhood association. I think that would be good to integrate 26 people. Alex? 27 Alex Van Riesen: Just a couple of follow-up comments. One, Arthur in – oh, sorry. I just wanted to 28 responded to your comment, you said G-5, you liked that paragraph. That paragraph is actually still in 29 the document. It’s on page G-2, they just moved it. They edited it a little bit but it is still in there because 30 I remember reading that comment about widening the sphere and that same language is at the bottom 31 of G-2 so it’s broken into two paragraphs. I think that’s the same – most of that paragraph is still there. 32 Also, on the policy of G-1.1., when you were commenting on the simplify and shortening. I was trying to 33 think of what was the origin of that? I remember – I think, if I’m not mistaken, the origin of that was a 34 story I told about a guy who went through the architectural process for 4-years and they kept changing 35 it and saying that wasn’t – I – that wasn’t ok and I think he was finally pulling his hair because he 36 couldn’t get his building built. I think that was the origin of that language but I think you may be right. 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 35 of 46 Simplify and shorten are not the right words but I think that was the origin of that and that the process 1 seemed to long and when the people felt it was drawn out or felt like they were kind of messed over. 2 Like the expectations were set and then later on -- so I don’t know. That was – I want to say that I like 3 the Gun class. I think it would be awesome if we just moved – I think as Whitney said, we move from a 4 fictitious element to actually giving them real problems in Palo Alto. It sounds like you were dealing with 5 fictitious or made up scenarios but let’s give them real things and work on it. I wanted to suggest that 6 the key volunteer transition and I will admit that this is completely antidotal to my own life; is middle 7 school. My kids are at Ohlone and I’ve noticed that over this last year, they are both in 5th grade, that 8 with each progressive month, I go less to school. They’re on their own and I realized – I’ve decided that I 9 am going to go back to school every day in May because I really like the school but I like being around 10 their teachers and I want to communicate things to people before we leave. I think the thing that strikes 11 me is that we need to capitalize on this transition because what I find happening is if I don’t go to school 12 with them, I’m putting all my volunteer effort back to my own obese of to-dos, right? I think I’d like to 13 have someone maybe be a volunteer coordinator in the City and explore the middle school and this 14 freed up energy when are kids start to – I’m not saying they’re done. I know I’m in for a hellish next 3-15 years. I guess I wanted to also be aware -- I don’t remember what we said about this in the Land Use 16 Element but it seems like with the passing of the building of separate units that the City Council just did. 17 There’s some kind of inverse thing potentially here for dealing – creating neighborhoods. So, antidotally, 18 my neighbors who have lived in their house for 17-years realize that they could make more money if 19 they moved into one of their smaller houses in Santa Clara and rented out their Palo Alto home. Now 20 their Palo Alto home has seven people living in it. One of them in the garage so when you open the 21 garage, it’s like a full room, it’s like a diorama. What I realize is, they have no interest in the 22 neighborhood or in connecting with us and we’ve tried but they are so transient. I feel the tension of 23 creating those other units and creating more – actually, it’s a Stanford grad. who’s created an app. for 24 people who are coming to the area looking for jobs and they will place you in houses with other people 25 comparable to you. This is – I mean, it’s just genius run amuck. I don’t know. I don’t think they will tell 26 me because they don’t want to me to know. (Crosstalk) Ok, I’ll find out and I’ll bring it back to you. 27 (Crosstalk) She’s a nice person but she’s a genius, right? They actually fit people that they think will work 28 together but they pack them in and people are making good money. I do want to say that there was a 29 program that was put out, I think it was the Emergency Service – they put out something like – not like 30 do you want to be a junior policeman but do you remember that? It was a class – what was that? 31 (Crosstalk) You know – it was like – yeah, but you could be any age and learned how to sort of – I think 32 there should be a program like that for a neighborhood champion or something because I think that was 33 effective. I think – I looked at that class and they had 30 people taking that and I’m like -- I think there 34 needs to be structure to developing the volunteers. 35 Co-Chair Keller: Great. Well, we’re running out of time for this thing. 36 Alex Van Riesen: Sorry. 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 36 of 46 Co-Chair Keller: Dan, you wanted to talk again? 1 Co-Chair Garber: Just briefly and I will – It’s ok. For the sake of time, I will not tell a story but I did want 2 to come back and agree with Whitney. I think I love some of these suggestions that we’re coming up 3 with and I think they’re – some of them are extremely important for us. There’s probably some place 4 that should be the Palo Alto’s User Guide or something, where these things should be located in as 5 opposed to the Comp. Plan. Certainly, the website – the City’s website has bunches of this stuff. It could 6 be organized differently but any case, I do think there is – I don’t want to lose a lot of things. I think that 7 some of the things that my Co-Chair mentioned about the – how the Planning Commission should 8 operate, for instance, should really be part of the by-laws of that Board. That’s where that should reside 9 and be owned. I know other things – as opposed to like the Comp. Plan. Anyway, I’ll leave it to Staff to 10 sort that out and maybe there will be some suggestions that we can come back to but I do agree. We 11 shouldn’t lose a number of these ideas because I think that I will agree with all of you. I think they are 12 extremely important. Especially, for this moment in our community, which is struggling with the whole 13 issue of communication, empathy, and understanding of what these issues are that we’re all trying to 14 muddle through. 15 Co-Chair Keller: So, I’ll take it out – finishing this and then we’ll come back to deal with the glossary, the 16 introduction, and the cover. The first thing is that what we really want is a Palo Alto 411. Palo Alto 311 is 17 kind of broken because you get a notice saying it’s completed but you have no idea what they’re going 18 to do about it and it doesn’t get done. It gets checked off as completed, well, what does completed 19 mean? Anyway, it would be nice if the development process where more transparent to those of us who 20 are in the community. There used to be a list of all development proposals. I know there’s a monthly 21 thing but I mean, comprehensive. The monthly thing is only the major ones, not the individual – not 22 every – not a list of every proposal submitted or every project. There used to be a list of that and it’s 23 gone and I’m not sure what happened to it. One of the things that the Brown Act makes hard is that we 24 have a public comment process and then the body deliberates. I wish that there was an opportunity that 25 after the motion is made, to basically say, wait a second? I’d like to comment on the motion. I didn’t 26 know what the motion was about and I’d like to be able to comment on that. I’m not sure how we’d do 27 that but it’s a problem. At this point, let’s – you want to say something? 28 Elaine Costello: Maybe we should move on. 29 Co-Chair Keller: We’re going to move on to the cover page, the introduction, and the glossary. 30 Elena Lee: Could I say something one thing? 31 Co-Chair Keller: Sure. 32 Elena Lee: In just to reference what you mentioned, that right – we – you know, we are trying to make a 33 lot of improvements in terms of what’s available to the public and so we have what’s called Building Eye 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 37 of 46 and that’s a new interface that we have that lists all pending projects on a map. You can open that up 1 via the planning website and you can see all of the pending development in the City. 2 Co-Chair Keller: Ok, great. I know people had some issues but that’s – it’s a good – that’s a useful thing 3 but it may be -- there may be some other interfaces that we can create. Let’s talk about – Bonnie, do 4 you want to go first on the cover, the introduction, and the glossary? 5 Bonnie Packer: Thank you. The only thing I had a suggested in my comments on the introduction is that 6 we add the reference to other organizations. It’s in my written comments I’ve – it’s in the section under 7 major themes. Building community and neighborhoods, I suggested adding the references to all those 8 other organizations. I don’t have any comments on the cover. I don’t care what pictures you put there. 9 As long as they are current, I guess and the glossary, I was going to suggest that if we’re going to add 10 these organizations, then maybe we have definitions of what a service organization is. I don’t know. It 11 may be too cumbersome but if we’re going to refer to them, we may – what’s a Neighborhood 12 Association, what do we mean by a Civic organization? However, I don’t know if those – if people would 13 agree on what those definitions would be so something to consider. That’s all. 14 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Amy. 15 Amy Sung: (Inaudible) 16 Co-Chair Keller: Amy said she doesn’t have much to add. Lisa? Nothing. Annette. 17 Annette Glanckopf: Well, I have a comment on the definitions. Now, I understand that you removed a 18 lot of these things because you’re not referring to them. However, I don’t think anyone is going to be 19 saying, oh gee, that’s in there and it’s not in the Comp. Plan. I think that there is a need -- I think Ellen 20 mentioned it and other people did, there is a need for a solid glossary that defines all sorts of terms. So, 21 this is a very logical place to look for one so I really think that you should leave some of these terms in 22 because we do use them a lot in the City. I have a list of things that I thought were – you eliminated that 23 should be there. I also think you should add things like accessory structure to differentiate that between 24 accessory dwelling unit but that’s my own point. I also notice the (inaudible) and although we do talk 25 about that area, it’s the only neighborhood that is mentioned in there and I’m not sure that’s the exact 26 terminology that they – the geophagy that they would use. Anyway, I want to lobby this group to retain 27 the definitions because I do think that that is one place that people will go to just to try to figure out 28 things. 29 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Len. 30 Len Filppu: Yes, thank you. On the cover itself, I do think that we can maybe consider some new photos. 31 I like [Crunchy] and there’s a lot of [Crunchy] here. A couple shots of Bay Lands but we could show some 32 soccer fields, some tennis courts, kids playing in the – on some of the City provided creational areas and 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 38 of 46 maybe a good shot of downtown. Just – there’s a – just give it a little bit more divergent if you can and 1 when people said the photo – these are dated so I mean, you have [phonetics][Skelly] in there and I 2 know it’s really difficult but they’re gone and whatever. As to the introduction, on page I-1, the green 3 box that talks about the vision. In the second paragraph, it says Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan strives to 4 build a coherent vision of the City’s future from the visions of diverse populations. I just think we’re 5 double vision there. It sounds clunky to me, it feels clunky to me so I would offer that the second visions 6 be changed to input. So, that we build a coherent vision of the City’s future from the input of a diverse 7 population. That’s more active to a – what a government ought to be doing. Oxford comma throughout, 8 you guys have tried – I – please done misunderstand me. I can’t imagine the amount of blood-sweating 9 through your brows writing and revising this. I compliment you greatly. The Oxford common, on 10 continues, to use it and there are places where it still can be done. Let me go back to my final comment 11 and that is on the neighborhood thing. Again, on I-2, major themes of the Comprehensive Plan. Building 12 community and neighborhoods and just after small businesses on the third line, libraries, parks, cultural 13 centers, small businesses and Neighborhood Associations are central components of neighborhood life. 14 Just add Neighborhood Associations. I’m not yet convinced on Bonnie’s argument that we list all of the 15 volunteer organizations. Where do you draw the line? Where does it stop? Some of them, as earlier 16 have been mentioned, are advocacy organizations and a number of things. I think that the neighbors 17 who live and reside in the City have a special voting right for our government and have a special 18 connection and that the – then the activities that they’re involved in is a secondary kind of operations 19 going on. I don’t know exactly how to – there is a wide variety but I think the neighborhoods and 20 Neighborhood Associations and resident organizations of voting citizens in this community have a little 21 bit of a closer tie to the government. Thank you very much. 22 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Elaine – I mean Ellen. 23 Ellen Uhrbrock: I seemed to have lost my cover but I really don’t care a great deal about what’s on the 24 cover but I do agree that it needs updating more with action pictures taken today. I –on the problem of 25 listing all the organizations, I agree would be too long of a list. That’s where you put them in the section 26 on who to call and there are the names of the organizations that need to be listed by their names and 27 then who’s the contact person if you want to know more about this. This is a real problem and being a 28 citizen or being – moving into any area, it’s knowing who is who and who you might want to make a 29 contact with for whatever reason. I think the who to call is the place for that. I want to say tonight, 30 listening to you, especially Amy and Annette, you give me many ideas on what I can do on your 31 suggestions and it's interesting – Avenidas Village incidentally has just started a task force to study on 32 volunteerism for the seniors in Palo Alto. I think you could be of great help to us and we could be of help 33 to the community by doing this so thank you very much. I also am in contact with the people at Stanford 34 and elsewhere that are dealing with the second half of live things and this is a wonderful idea I think, to 35 shift the volunteerism. When you’re already feeling obligated that I belong City and I’m a part of it so I 36 have benefited greatly from listening to all of the people here tonight. Thank you. 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 39 of 46 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Alex. 1 Alex Van Riesen: On the glossary, I just think this is a best. This thing is so long and appropriately so, I 2 don’t know if this is what Annette was getting at in terms of including other terms in it. I – my concern 3 would be being where you would stop or draw the line with that and so I kind of feel like – I think -- I 4 would suggest that this needs to be limited to the words that are in the Comp. Plan but there needs to 5 be some kind of – I agree. There needs to be some handbook or some place for citizen activation where 6 you can find out what everything means so I agree with that. I can’t imagine lengthening this. In terms of 7 the – I think the double edge sword of the front page is that when you put pictures on, the double edge 8 sword is you appeal to the people who identify with the pictures but you lose out on all the people who 9 don’t. I don’t know if pictures are the best way to go unless you (crosstalk) – exactly. Well, animals 10 would be highly – well, there’s dogs here though so they’d be happy. (Crosstalk) There’s – well, I guess – 11 I realize – I agree that they are outdated but I wonder if there is another way to go that would connect 12 people but the pictures are always dicey because people don’t – if they don’t see themselves in it 13 someway, they don’t feel connected. In terms of the introduction, I want to agree right off the bat with 14 what Whitney said about probably combining this. Put these somewhere in governance – I mean 15 governance into the introduction. I actually find the governance section could be – I realize it has goals 16 so maybe it doesn’t work but there are parts of it that feel very inspiring or very hopeful about what we 17 hope Palo Alto to be. It feels like part of the governance things could be in there. I don’t know exactly 18 how to do that. I haven’t given that a ton of thought. I realized when I read on page I – is it I or 1? Is it I-19 2? I-2, in the building community and neighborhood, second line, it says libraries, parks, public – well, 20 arts and cultural centers. I actually scratched that out at first and put community centers but then I 21 realized that was probably meant by public facilities. I guess it raised for me the questions of how we 22 understand community centers in Palo Alto. This brought up even with what’s happening with 23 Cubberley and I think you guys know, Cubberley is coming up – 2019 the lease is being renewed. I guess 24 it just struck me that community centers – my experience are that I participated in Cubberley Day for 25 the last few years but they meet in a tremendous amount of needs within the City and I’m finding that 26 it’s often cultural groups and groups that are more on the fringes. I just struck me that that was worded 27 that way so I don’t know if we want to keep that but it probably seems like we should. The other one 28 was in the paragraph right above it, where it says that includes all land within the City limits, the 29 Stanford University Campus and other property in unincorporated – I didn’t realize – it felt like – as our 30 discussion, it’s been about parts of the Stanford stuff like the – what is it called? It’s there – the Business 31 Park? Is, that right? We never really talked about the University campus so is our sphere of influence 32 really the campus? It is. It’s interesting, I never felt like in our conversations that that’s been true. It’s 33 always been the Business Park or… 34 Co-Chair Keller: I think the Business Park is within the City limits but the sphere of influence includes 35 Stanford University. 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 40 of 46 Alex Van Riesen: Ok. 1 Co-Chair Keller: It’s a technical destination. 2 Alex Van Riesen: Ok, cool because I didn’t understand that. On page I-3, I just noticed in the reducing 3 reliance on the automobile, there was nothing in that paragraph about parking. I don’t know if there 4 needs to be but you did use other things that you’re going to change to try to reduce reliance on the 5 automobile but given that parking is something right now they’re – I think that’s going to be a continual 6 issue. I was – on meeting housing simple challenges, the next paragraph, fifth line, community priority in 7 this plan seeks to increase the supply of housing. I wondered, wasn’t that part of our debate about 8 either affordable or what affordable was or more affordable housing because changing the supply of 9 housing is merely – you know what I mean? Just housing for whoever can afford it so I wasn’t sure what 10 we were gunning for with that but the way it’s written, this plan seeks to increase the supply of housing 11 is just more housing for whoever; for the highest bidder. I don’t know what we were going for there. 12 Anyway, we can come back to that or that’s a question. On keeping Palo Alto safe, as I read this, I 13 realized that the title didn’t seem to actually match what you’re trying to say here. I think – I would 14 suggest that we change it to keeping Palo Alto prepared. Actually, you use the language preparing and 15 preparedness in the paragraph and what all these elements seem to describe is being ready because you 16 can’t really stop these things from happening but you can be ready for them when they do. I think it 17 provides a different imagine of being prepared versus – safe is often an image, I think is connected to 18 crime or sometimes is it a safe neighborhood, at least that’s where my mind went. Then meeting 19 residential and commercial needs, I noticed that it seems to omit small and independent business in 20 here. Am I wrong in that? That – now I realize that that was a big thing that we talked about in part of 21 our vision but it doesn’t or in priorities but it doesn’t really come up that strongly in here so I would 22 insert – if it’s to match what’s come before, I think in the governance section, small and independent 23 businesses. Then in I-5, I wasn’t sure but at the very last line, the Comprehensive Plan or even the next 24 generation, however, the long-term idealistic thinking embodied in each vision statement. There is 25 something about idealistic. I don’t know, maybe it’s because I’m a more present-oriented person but I 26 read that like more idealistic like it’s never going to happen. I thought that maybe there is another word 27 like however the long term strategic thinking or creative thinking or I don’t know. I would suggest 28 strategic for that. I was curious that the EIR is not a part of this plan, is that true? At the top of I-8 it says 29 no EIR, will you cut that out? Are we just – did we take that out for a reason? Top of page I-8, an 30 Environment Impact Report has been prepared but then we just – I was just curious. 31 Joanna Jansen: It’s true that an EIR has been prepared and it still in process right now and it’s also true 32 that it’s a separate document and it’s not part of the plan. 33 Alex Van Riesen: Ok. So, did we take it out just… 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 41 of 46 Joanna Jansen: I have not really ever seen a General Plan that discusses the EIR as part of the plan 1 itself. My feeling is that it’s a little bit confusing because it is a very separate document and it’s not a 2 regulatory document. It kind of lives to facilitate that adoption of the Comp. Plan and then memorialize 3 the mitigation measures but it’s not an on-going kind of parallel side by side part of the plan. 4 Alex Van Riesen: Great, that’s helpful. Thank you, that’s it. 5 Co-Chair Keller: Whitney. 6 Whitney McNair: I don’t really have any comments. I would echo those that Len brought up earlier. 7 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Dan. 8 Co-Chair Garber: I have very little to add but the only thing that I will add is in the description of goals, 9 policies, and programs, I believe, in my mind a program is all these things that have been described here 10 but what I would actually say is that what defines a program is that a resource has been applied to it. 11 Meaning that there is something assigned to it, there is time and money and I might just change the 12 language in the way you are using the resource. That’s… 13 Elaine Costello: What page are you on? 14 Co-Chair Garber: The markup page I-7. Just above other components of the plan but that’s what really 15 distinguishes it, as different from policy and goal because neither policy and goal have resources applied 16 to them. 17 Elaine Costello: Some of them will actually though but that’s ok, we can that up. 18 Co-Chair Garber: That’s it. 19 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I have written down on my list three things plus I have some comments on 20 the document. Three things that I have written is the Oxford comma, the supply of affordable housing. 21 We should emphasize affordable housing and not the merely supply of housing because really, we want 22 to increase the ratio of affordable housing; the amount of affordable housing in the City. Not just 23 increase housing in general, and reinstate the paragraph about EIR. This just makes a reference to it and 24 I think that the EIR – even though it’s defined at a point in time when the Comp. Plan is adopted, I think -25 - I know of people who’ve gone back to the 2010 – the Comp. Plan from 1998-2010 and looked at that 26 EIR and compared it to what happens. I think that’s a wonderful exercise and if this doesn’t reference 27 the EIR, nobody – that sort of makes it harder to that. This doesn’t say that it’s part of this document. 28 It’s a reference to the document and it’s a regulatory requirement of this document to do an EIR. In the 29 words to the Mikado, if it is so, why not say so? Anyway, the next thing is with respect to the pictures. I 30 have a – (inaudible) the pictures, we certainly should update the pictures but not have a picture of 31 Borders Bookstore, which no longer exists. I would not put a picture of Hanna House but if you want to 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 42 of 46 put a similar picture, why not the Perennial Stanford Theater, which is a gorgeous building and has 1 similar attractiveness. Instead of a lone bicyclist, which seems kind of sad. I think (inaudible)(crosstalk)… 2 Co-Chair Garber: (Inaudible) 3 Co-Chair Keller: … Yeah, I think what you want to take a picture of is the gazillions of students who are 4 leaving school. You can take a picture of any of the middle schools or any of the high schools, especially 5 Gun High school. The kids sort of barreling down the street on bicycles, a big pack of them. That would 6 make a great picture so I would hope that you could gather a picture like that. Finally, with respect – 7 Co-Chair Garber: Within the bike lane. Not all over the street. 8 Co-Chair Keller: That’s right. 9 Elaine Costello: I was just going to say taking over the street. 10 Female: With no helmets on. 11 Elaine Costello: Right, no helmets. 12 Co-Chair Keller: No, I actually see them with helmets, I actually do. 13 Male: (Inaudible) 14 Elaine Costello: Smoking. 15 Co-Chair Keller: That’s right. Anyway… 16 Elaine Costello: Earbuds in. 17 Co-Chair Keller: … I have an objection to the deletion on page I-4 of the redline version, where it says in 18 the last paragraph, but not at the expense of the City’s residential neighborhoods. I don’t know why that 19 is taken out. Development needs to be done not at the expense of the City’s residential neighborhoods. 20 Put that back, please. With respect to Table 1, I believe that governance, which is on page I-5, 21 governance needs to be one of the elements. It’s there – it’s missing and I think it should stay but it’s 22 missing. Governance is an element. It’s not a chapter, it’s an element. Well, I think it should stay as an 23 element. 24 Elaine Costello: We need to clarify that. 25 Co-Chair Keller: In any event, in this draft, it’s an element, it should be listed there as an element and 26 it’s not. It is listed – just like community service and the facility is an element not required by the State, 27 governance is an element not required by the State. With respect to the glossary, a couple of things. I 28 have some comments on there. Firstly, let me find it. I agree with restoring things. It does not – let me – 29 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 43 of 46 (inaudible) a glossary is not a dictionary. You don’t worry about what things are in a dictionary or not 1 necessarily referenced by an essay that you write. You look up for your information and they are useful 2 things for information. With respect to Capital Improvement Programs, the CIP is a rolling 5-year 3 program. It’s not a 5-year program in the sense of Soviet and Russia, where they would basically have a 4 5-year plan and then other 5-year plan 5-years later. It’s a rolling plan, every year for the next 5-years. I 5 would replace the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee from 1992 and replace it with the Citizens 6 Advisory Committee for the Comp. Plan; us. That should be mentioned there. There should be a 7 mention of a Concept Plan because we do have this notion of a Concept Plan, which is referenced by the 8 Comp. Plan. In particular, East Meadow Circle is a concept plan – (crosstalk) No, no, East Meadow Circle 9 is a concept plan and therefore, that concept needs to be referenced. Coordinated area plan is another 10 beast but concept plan is one that we started to do, which I think is kind of BS but in any event, we have 11 one. Ok… 12 Co-Chair Garber: I think it’s a CP, concept (inaudible) 13 Co-Chair Keller: Exactly. I think we should – I that the term that’s referenced in the EIRs and should be 14 specifically defined in here is a cumulative impact. I think people don’t know exactly what it means. I 15 think we should define it and it should be in there specifically. I think that we should – we should define 16 grade crossing. 17 Male: Grade crossing? 18 Co-Chair Keller: Grade crossing. There is a mention in the Comp. Plan about grade crossing which is a 19 Caltrain grade crossings. 20 Male: (Inaudible) 21 Co-Chair Keller: Yes, that’s why it needs to be defined. A grade crossing is, for example, it’s an at-grade 22 crossing where Caltrain has the train – the East Meadow and Charleston and… 23 Co-Chair Garber: (Inaudible) 24 Co-Chair Keller: That’s right. 25 Co-Chair Garber: People (inaudible) 26 Co-Chair Keller: It’s where there’s a crossing at the grade with Caltrain and that should be defined 27 because it’s mentioned in various places. The horizon year needs to be updated from 2010 to 2030. I 28 think that that’s funny. I would put back inclusionary housing. Maybe you want to call it inclusionary 29 zoning but it isn’t – it is a concept that should be put back. I think that jobs/housing balance is 30 redundant with jobs/house ratio, which is more specific; we don’t need that. Somewhere else, I saw that 31 the land use circulation map has been renamed so if it’s renamed there, it should be renamed here. I – 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 44 of 46 in terms of low income, moderate income, and whatever, where it mentions area wide medium family 1 income. That’s a great definition but it specifically refers to Santa Clara County and therefore in 2 parenthesis, it should refer to Santa Clara County as what the area that we’re talking about so people 3 know because that is what it is officially. In terms of median, one-half of the set is more and one-half of 4 the set is less. You either say more or less or you say greater of fewer. You’ve sort of mixed your 5 metaphors there. I want to put Mitigated Negative Declaration back. I – moderate income – also 6 mentioned Santa Clara County. I would put Negative Declaration back, those are important terms that 7 people get to all the time. We need to know what they are talking about. I’m not sure why the 1998 8 City-wide land use and transportation study needs to go away. I would put non-conforming use back. I 9 would put the Northern California Power Agency back. I would mention in the Palo Alto Unified School 10 District a footnote that says the (inaudible) of Palo Alto is not in the Unified School District; mainly 11 Monroe Park. Also, that some of the Palo Alto Unified School District aren't in – is outside of Palo Alto. I 12 think that would be useful information. It’s not the planning Commission, it’s the Planning and 13 transportation Commission on the page of 39. I think – I understand that the only region shopping 14 center we have is the Stanford Shopping Center and we probably should say so. I would put vacancy rate 15 back, that is useful and mentioned by various ordinances and such. In particular, it’s an interesting thing 16 – threshold for decontrol of ground floor retail in downtown so that is a useful concept. That’s it for me. 17 Are there any other last minutes’ comments before we adjourn? Dan. 18 Co-Chair Garber: Question for you all, does anybody feel strongly that are names should be in the intro? 19 Elaine Costello: Your names? 20 Co-Chair Garber: Yes, on I-9. 21 Joanna Jansen: Oh, I’ll also just mention that I think that we anticipate that there will – as in the existing 22 Comp. Plan, be an acknowledgment section in the adopted Comp. Plan. 23 Co-Chair Garber: In the back, some place. Yeah, I… 24 Co-Chair Keller: I think that they should be… 25 Female: (Inaudible) 26 Co-Chair Keller: I think that they should be in the back, along with the Planning and Transportation 27 Commission and the City Council and whatever who – people who served both – during the whole 28 process. 29 Elaine Costello: Right, right. That’s what we’re planning to do. 30 Alex Van Riesen: I think they should be in the front but we should be able to give ourselves rapper 31 names. I think… 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 45 of 46 Co-Chair Garber: That’s like the street I grew up on and my pets name? 1 Co-Chair Keller: Ok, great. Amy, any quick things? 2 Amy Sung: Yes. Actually, I didn’t have a lot to add to the intro but I just wanted to touch upon the 3 housing scene because that’s what I do professionally. 4 Co-Chair Keller: The Housing Element because we’re not talking about the Housing Element tonight. 5 Amy Sung: It’s on page I-3… 6 Co-Chair Keller: Ok. 7 Amy Sung: … talking about meeting housing supply challenges. There’s a – every time we talked about 8 housing, people talked passionately about affordable housing. I think that I wanted to just touch upon 9 the affordable housing. Affordable housing as we know it is no longer referred to those less fortunate 10 who are the most typical – what we typically think of. Affordable housing has multiple thresholds and 11 depending on who you talk and everybody thinks differently about affordable housing. Specifically, 12 housing in Palo Alto and in the entire peninsula/Bay Area, we need housing of all levels. Yesterday at a 13 hearing and also so often, people will say well, when I first moved to Palo Alto, I worked really hard and 14 people that wanted to move here, therefore, should also work really hard so that they start somewhere. 15 The thing is, when I moved here, I bought my home when my husband and I were both young engineers 16 and we worked really, really hard. I must tell you today, those young people who wish to buy a home in 17 Palo Alto, working really, really hard is not enough. They work really hard and I see it. They work harder 18 than I use to do but they – that alone, cannot buy a house here in Palo Alto. I think it is very important to 19 say that we will supply housing and leave out that affordable because what kind of affordable are we 20 talking about? For those young professionals over those that are extremely needing help with Measure 21 A that we passed last year; that is the homeless. There are all sorts of levels of help that we can think of 22 and lending help. There is a particular young professional that I am thinking of, they do not financial help 23 but they need help in supply. When we talk about this group, they are not looking at multi-million 24 dollars of luxury. That is (inaudible). All sorts of people – if they do not require financial help so I wanted 25 to really, really emphasize that we are going to supply all levels of housing. Thank you. 26 Co-Chair Garber: Does the word diversity in housing help? Ok, not raise that controversial word. 27 Co-Chair Keller: So -- (crosstalk) thank you. So, I actually agree with Alex’s comment that with the 28 emphasis on affordable housing and I’ll tell you why quickly. The answer is that in all the (inaudible) 29 Housing Element periods, sometimes, not very often, we have met our reallocation overall but we have 30 never ever our allocation of affordable housing. Never even come close and so we are always so far 31 behind in providing affordable housing and we have come close in providing market rate housing 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 46 of 46 according to the arena needs and therefore, an emphasis on affordable housing is not misplaced. 1 Especially, since it’s so hard to do. With that, I will adjourn the meeting at 8:43. 2 Feedback for Continuous Improvement: 3 Future Meetings: 4 Next meeting: May 16, 2017 – Rinconada Library (Embarcadero Room) 5 6 Adjournment: 8:34 p.m. 7 1.CAC comments 2.Draft Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 Comp Plan Update Citizen Advisory Committee Comments and Minutes Cover/Introduction/Governance/Glossary/ Future Lessons CAC Comments on Intro and Governance May 16, 2107 Annette Glanckopf Almost done! Green Boxes: Color looks very nice, but can the font be bigger. I find it very hard to read with the green background. INTRODUCTION Protecting & Sustaining the Natural Environment: I do not know where it fits..we talk about the urban forest, but it would be great to add something that talks about the impact of overbuilding and losing permability …maybe if this protecting the urban forest is a vision, we should also talk about concept of maintaining lot coverage and a healthy area for water to seep into the soil…esp in R1 neighborhoods Meeting Residential & Commercial Needs The city should be committed to attracting and preserving locally owned neighborhood serving businesses Eliminate the phrase in the first paragraph :especially in areas of mobility & greenhouse reduction”. Even though this is an admirable goals, I do not think mention of specific types of businesses belong here. Providing Responsive Governance & Regional Leadership Add highlighted wording It encourages collaboration among citizens, businesses, neighborhood associations and local officials. Uses and Organization of Plan Remove wording “Hope you will find it useful, easy-to-read document. “ much too fluffy and not needed, not too many people will sit down and read the Comprehensive plan cover-to-cover. In paragraph that starts State Law, remove word “above” that follows Table 1 – unless it really is right above the text. In definition of Policy. Why remove the wording “but it is not mandatory”. I suggest leaving it in. As staff has presented previously, the city has not always taken action on all policies in comp plan. Implementing the Plan Question: I thought that prioritization was not going to be done in the comp plan? If this is correct, then do we need the statement “ Additionally the city council may change the prioritization of programs through the regular 5 year review cycle of the implementation plan.” The council always has this prerogative. GOVERNANCE Goal G1: Program G1.1.1 and the wording “neighborhood associations” to read “Enhance 2-way dialog communication between residents, neighborhood associations, other organizations, and the city council…” Goal G2: Policy G2.3 Program G2.3.1 Add Coordinate with neighborhood association. Suggested rewording “Collaborate with neighborhood associations to continue town hall meetings……” Goal 2: Policy G2.4 Program G2.4.1 Add complimentary or no-charge Offer the use of city facilities to civic, environment, cultural, neighborhood associations and social service organizations for meetings & events at complimentary or discounted rates. Note: Over the last 2 years, staff, council and PAN have spent considerable time in discussing the role of neighborhoods and the no-charge use of city owned facilities. Goal G4: Program G4.1.4 reword appreciation package to welcome package. Annette’s comments on Future Comp Plan 5/16/17 Pros •Lots of good experienced people spent long hours working on this •good to have co-chairs •good to have subcommittees •city staff responsiveness •public speakers and letters with content •group listening to recommendations of subject matter experts •taking majority/minority opinion forward •reducing redundancies and repetitions between elements •public outcry against council actions removing programs •agendizing elements for council as only action item Cons •elimination of programs from comp plan by council •composition & selection of members •group way too large. keep to 11-15 members •negative attitude by some CA members when positions mentioned they did not support •consultants lacked Palo Alto view •too much paper •too long a process •city soliciting comments via open city hall •not involving chamber earlier •not sufficient group discussion when a new idea is brought up o we didn't catch on till later, how to champion or disagree o People not listening and thus bringing up same idea after it had been mentioned CAC Comments on Governance and Glossary May 12, 2017 Don McDougall A few comments: Introduction Major Themes, - Protecting and Sustaining the Natural Environment Second sentence “connected network of connected open spaces, parks, and green spaces” does not capture the idea and policies of the Element that the “connections” are important in their own right. Maybe “ network of open spaces, parks, green spaces and their connections”? Governance Goal G-4, Policy G-4.1 Maybe “encourage volunteers from youth to seniors”. “Including” implies that they need special encouragement where as youth and seniors do most of the volunteering today. It’s really a continuum of age groups volunteering that we need to encourage? Goal G-4, Policy G-4.1 Program G4.1.1 Maybe this could be more than one program or made clearer. “expand opportunities for volunteer assistance” – assistance to or by volunteers? Awareness of organizations seems like a good program by itself – and important. And recognition may or may not be part of the awareness. Goal G-4, Policy G-4.1 Program G4.1.4 If we’re going to reach out to the real estate community to develop a package (which would seem to be in their self interest, shouldn’t the program encourage their participation in helping as well? Glossary Should include “Preserves” since both the Baylands and Foothills are defined as “Preserves”, with the implication at least and the fact that they have different origins, purposes, protections and rules of use than “Parks”? CAC Comments on Glossary May 16, 2107 Co-Chair Arthur Keller Jobs/Housing Balance: remove this definition. It is incorrect and redundant with Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio. Moderate Income: reference area as Santa Clara County, as was done for Low Income Peak Hour: should reference morning or evening commutes, not daily. That is, there is a morning peak hour and an evening peak hour, not just a daily peak hour. Pocket Park: should indicate public dining. Private dining facilities are not pocket parks. Or maybe remove dining altogether as an explicit item. Ridge Trail: Can we get an updated figure, rather than using one from 1997? Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD): Should reference that Palo Alto gets its water from the San Francisco Water Department. Should also define San Francisco Water Department, which gets its water primarily from the Hetch Hetchy Reservior. Transit-oriented Development: Should reference Pedestrian and Transit-oriented Development (PTOD), which is a Palo Alto-invented reference and refers to the California Avenue area as an optional overlay. Trip Reduction: minimize the necessity of driving alone or at all. Very Low-Income: reference area as Santa Clara County, as was done for Low Income. Please add this definition: Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE): a device that supplies electrical energy for recharging an electric vehicle. Level 1 EVSEs use 110V AC power. Level 2 EVSEs use 240V or 208V AC power. Level 3 EVSEs provide even faster charging. CAC Comments May 16, 2107 Hamilton Hitchings Here is my in-place comments. Sorry its a little late. If you do not have time to print it, let me know and I can print it and distribute it. Citizen Advisory Committee Post-mortem Feedback by Hamilton Hitchings •The entire committee came to consensus on all the elements and was able to agree broadly on many topics including: o The need for affordable housing o The need to prevent the growth of single occupancy vehicle trips and improve alternatives o The need to reduce GHG o The importance of public safety and community services •For the few controversial land use issues the committee could not agree on we did a good job of laying out choices that represented the different points of view for the city council to vote on •The subcommittees were a big success and are a must have for next time •Staff should attend the subcommittee meetings along with the consultants •Out of the loop consultants not familiar with Palo Alto caused some problems initially •The committee was made up of a cross section of Palo Altans and there was a good effort to select sufficient representation from South Palo Alto •Despite having a 3 to 1 application to acceptance ratio, some committee members who were accepted eventually dropped out and a few others attended barely over 50% of the meetings •Better screening is needed and should include: o A higher level of up-front commitment from participants o PTC should have a voting seat o Stanford should have a voting seat o The Chamber of commerce should have a voting seat but it must be someone who represents the small businesses and not just the big and medium sized ones o More renters o More working parents with students in the Palo Alto public schools who are not from the developer community o Continue to ensure South Palo Alto is sufficiently represented next time o A concerted effort should be made to select members who accurately reflect the concerns of the community o Subject matter expertise should be one of the considerations (like Shani had on the environment, Arthur on transportation, Annette on emergency services, Elaine on transportation) which is very helpful for crafting programs and policies at the subcommittee level o Committee size should be reduce to 15 (22 was too many) o It’s a good opportunity for folks who are considering running for city council because they will learn so much about how the city works •There was not a good job of incorporating the PTC and the original draft. In the case of the transportation element, the PTC had significantly improved it. •Having City Council define the Goals was good but it would have been helpful if they provided more upfront guidance in-terms of their desired output and about specific policies they wanted to see or remove. Problem is it felt like 9 different opinions rather than one unified voice of the council •The coordination with city council was poor •City council’s proposal to remove all programs was disastrous •However, there should be a better mechanism to substantively incorporate city council feedback such as reducing the number of programs •More time should be spent up front solidifying the role of what the committee will produce and getting strong buy in •Have the City Council more closely follow the Comp Plan •More thorough review of citizen input and keep the public more informed about the status such as posting revisions to the elements online and allow citizen comments CAC Comments May 16, 2107 Ellen Uhrbrock To: Co Chairs Arthur Keller and Dan Garber CAC Comprehensive Plan 2030 Re: Who is Interested in your Opinions? Who do you call in City Hall? The job of recommending action on programs in the Comp Plan has been given to the Planning and Transportation Commission. Please encourage members of the CAC and public to attend meetings and share their comments with the PTC. Encourage members of the CAC and public to follow Palo Alto affairs on the city web site: Channel 26; You Tube; Daily Post and Weekly. I will encourage senior citizens to communicate with the city – and the PTC in person and on-line. CAC members can do this through local neighborhood Town Halls. The Comprehensive Plan 2030 can do this by including the names and contacts of staff responsible for each program included in the Comp Plan. Please keep the contact list current and up to date. The Council wants, needs and depends on public input. The public wants and needs to know – WHO TO CALL IN CITY HALL Thank you – Ellen Uhrbrock COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 1 of 35 TUESDAY, May 16, 2017 Rinconada Library – Embarcadero Room 1213 Newell Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 5:30 PM TO 8:30 PM Cover/Introduction/Governance Chapter/GlossaryCall to Order: 5:35 P.M. 1 Co-Chair Garber: Will the secretary call roll please? 2 Present: Garber, Glanckopf, Hetterly, Hitchings, Keller, Kleinhaus, Levy, McDougall, 3 McNair, Moran, Packer, Peschcke-Koedt, Summa, Uang, Uhrbrock, 4 5 Absent: Titus, van Riesen, Sung, Filppu, Nadim, Emberling 6 7 Oral Communication 8 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Welcome to the last meeting of the CAC. Several of you have to 9 leave early this evening. Can I get a show of hands of everybody that needs to go? I know that -- 10 Don, Doria, and Shani. Anyone else? Jennifer. I know that Don is leaving immediately. Shani, 11 you need to leave when? Ok. Jennifer, when do you need to go? OK. I had hoped to do the 12 continual learning piece – the feedback piece with as many people as we can so how many 13 people have comments on the – on our first agenda item? The action on the cover and 14 introduction governance chapter and glossary? I’m seeing one hand, two hands, three hands. 15 Well, maybe we can get through that quick and then I’m thinking that before we lose people, if 16 it all seems ok, maybe we could do the feedback first and then go to the other items. Is that ok 17 with people? Ok. With that – before we get into that. I’m not seeing anyone here for oral 18 communications from the public. 19 20 Staff Comments: 21 1.May 1, 2017, City Council hearing22 2.June 5, 2017, City Council Proclamation for CAC23 3.Next Steps24 25 Co-Chair Garber: Staff, you have some opening comments before we get to our agenda items. 26 27 Hillary Gitelman: Yes, thank you and thanks to all of you for your service on the Committee. I 28 hope you will make time to come to the Council on June 5th for a proclamation thanking the 29 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 2 of 35 CAC for its work. I don’t know exactly what time it will be but my guess is that it’s going to be 1 around 6 o’clock. It always happens right at the beginning of the meeting so you don’t have to 2 stay for the whole darn thing. We will get you more information about the exact time as the 3 day gets closer. Then, just really fast, I know the time is short and those of you who have been 4 watching know all the details here but on May 1st the Council received again your 5 recommendations on land use and transportation. Staff had made a bunch of changes based on 6 their earlier review and really tried to tighten up the programs and reduce redundancy and the 7 like; very well received. I think the Council made substantive changes you could count on your 8 hand. I mean it was really not a lot of substantive change. With transportation, they accepted 9 our recommendation about infrastructure improvements. A whole list that we included in the 10 narrative and they wanted a policy on automatous vehicles, which was something new and 11 great; we’re happy to add that. On land use, they really confirmed all of the policy direction 12 that they had waited on before and they like the way we – what we had done as a Staff is taking 13 a lot of the housing programs and policies that the CAC had worked on and grouped them 14 together towards the beginning of the element and they bought off on that. The new policy 15 that they asked us to add was about school impacts. That’s really a carryover from the existing 16 Comp. Plan so we’re working on language for that, which will go back to them when they see all 17 of the elements together on June 12th. Then last night – just last night they heard natural 18 environment and safety. Once again, very appreciative of the CAC’s work. Particularly the 19 subcommittee’s that worked really hard on that – on those elements. They did make some 20 edits and changes but nothing that kind of rocked our world. I think it was on the holes of a very 21 well received work products. They continued business and economics to next week so we will 22 be doing that at the Council next week. Then as I mentioned June 5th is a proclamation on 23 honoring all of you and then June 12th will the last Council opportunity to provide us with 24 feedback before they refer this to the Planning and Transportation Commission. Our hope is 25 that Planning and Transportation Commission will complete their work over the summer and it 26 will go back to the Council for final adoption in October. We may be calling on you, come this 27 fall, even though your work is done but we may want you to come back for a command 28 performance and support the Council in the adoption of the final work product that we’ve all 29 put so much time and energy into. That’s the wrap-up. Oh, and I know Annette wanted to make 30 sure that everybody was aware of a meeting that PAN is holding this weekend or no, next – the 31 24th, right? 25th? 32 33 Annette Glanckopf: I will just comment on it. One of the hot topics although, it’s sort of 34 diagonally related to the Comp. Plan but not 100% in the Comp. Plan is ADUs; Accessory 35 Dwelling Units. Next Thursday night, 7-9, Mitchell Park, Palo Alto Neighborhoods and Jonathan 36 Lait, who is Hillary’s number two, are going to be presenting. It’s not going to be a pro or con 37 meeting. It’s just going to be like let's get the facts. Nothing but the facts, ma’am so I think it 38 will be really interesting and there’s a lot of questions out there. Staff has done an absolutely 39 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 3 of 35 wonderful job of trying to figure out all the answers so it can be presented in just a very 1 forthright way. Arthur, I guess compliments also for his input to the process. 2 3 Co-Chair Garber: Hamilton. 4 5 Hamilton Hitchings: Hillary, this is – I don’t know how to ask this question but how much 6 change is the PTC going to make and what is that process like? 7 8 Hillary Gitelman: Well, the PTC’s role is to review and make recommendation – the PTC and 9 the Council recently met in joint session and Dori can tell you more offline but I think the 10 Council was pretty clear about don’t reinvent the wheel. We want you to do a review, we know 11 you can add value to this work product but you only have 90-days and we really don’t want to 12 rethink the big policy issues. That was their direction and we’ll have to see. We’re going to be 13 working with them pretty intensively over the summer to help them formulate a 14 recommendation and get it back to the Council in September. 15 16 Agenda Items: 17 1.Action: Cover/Introduction/ Governance Chapter/Glossary18 19 Co-Chair Garber: Ok. With that, rather than going down the line it seems like we only have a 20 couple of comments. Who would like to go first? Annette. 21 22 Annette Glanckopf: Say, I’m obviously technically unimpaired. Just really, I think most of the 23 comments I turned in are in writing but the one thing that I was struck with was that I was 24 reading through this and maybe it’s my older eye. Is that although this looks really nice but 25 when you start looking at some of these little green headings, I could hardly read them. That 26 might just be something to think about. Increasing the font size on those. I’m not so sure why 27 it’s smaller. Most of my other questions – I’ll just go through them really quickly. In the topic 28 meeting house – meeting residential and commercial needs. I wanted to a plug for locally 29 owned neighborhood serving businesses. I think we need to continually put that in the plan. I 30 was concerned that – especially after listening to Council go on and on about visionary, let’s not 31 have specific examples and meeting residential needs. There’s something in the first paragraph 32 about attracting businesses. Especially, in the areas of mobility and greenhouse reduction. I 33 thought that was being too specific. Not that we don’t want to do that, it’s very admirable but I 34 would like to see that wording eliminated because you could probably go through a whole long 35 list of things that you would like to attract. In providing a response of governance and 36 leadership. Most of my comments would be that there was an encouraging collaboration 37 among citizens, businesses and I think it should be neighborhood associations and local 38 officials. Neighborhood associations sort of got left out and I’d like to see that highlighted. 39 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 4 of 35 Again, this is already in writing. There was a table that is in the uses and organization of the 1 plan and there is some word table above. I don’t know how it’s all going to sort out when you 2 edit it but I would remove the word above so you make sure that the table -- it refers to table 3 one and so make sure that table one is really above the text as opposed to below it or on the 4 next page. In that section, the uses and organizations of the plan, I was really struck by the fact 5 that you wanted to omit this concept about the goal – they talked about goals – policies as a 6 specific statement of the principle of guidelines actions. It implies a clear commitment but is 7 not mandatory. I would like to see but is not mandatory left in there. I’m not sure why that was 8 omitted. I think that was very clear on what the Council said. In implementing the plan, I have a 9 question on that. Is there – there was some comment about prioritization and I didn’t realize 10 that we were really going to prioritize actual policies or goals. I thought maybe we would do 11 high, medium or low or year time frame and so on but if we aren’t going to do the prioritization 12 in the Comp. Plan, then I am not sure we need the statement that the City Council may change 13 the prioritization of programs through the regular 5-year cycle. I mean that’s always been a 14 Council prerogative so you just might want to look at that and make sure it’s consistent with 15 what the Council has. In the Governance section, basically, I have a couple places where I think 16 that neighborhood associations need to be called out and probably one of the biggest changes 17 that I would like to see is under Goal 4, Program G-1.4. They talk about new members – new -- 18 welcome people coming into the real estate environment. They talk about an appreciation 19 package and that wording doesn’t work for me. I would say a welcome package. I think that 20 really works better than appreciation and somehow, that seemed very marketing. You can read 21 the small little wording changes but basically, it has to do with the addition of neighborhood 22 associations and rentals. It says discounted rates but it also should say complimentary because 23 the neighborhood associations have had a long set of discussions with the City Manager and 24 Council about providing free meeting space to neighborhood associations once a year. I think 25 that would make it more accurate. 26 27 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, thank you. Jennifer, are you ready? 28 29 Jennifer Hetterly: Sure. I apologize, I wasn’t here last month when you all discussed the 30 Governance Chapter so I don’t have lengthy comments but I do have a couple. First, specifically, 31 Program G-3.1, the Staff report indicates that a specific reference to PAUSD was added but 32 there’s no reference to PAUSD. It’s about regional collaboration and I do think that needs to be 33 explicitly called out in the Governance Chapter. A bigger concern was sort of more generally, I 34 thought was really missing from this chapter was any discussion of maintaining public trust as 35 part of our Governance vision. That we want to have an inclusive, transparent, accountable 36 governance process and it seems to me that there ought to be something in there that goes to 37 those issues, which are important to everybody. Do you want implementation sections 38 comments now also? Ok. I just had a couple there also. On page – that’s the narrative I guess, 39 the introductory narrative? Yeah. What did I say? Something different. Sorry. Page 2 – the 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 5 of 35 bottom of page 2, maintaining and enhancing community character. In Council’s discussion last 1 – last Comp. Plan discussion, there was some talk about whether or not the Comp. Plan should 2 take a position on more or less or same amount of new development. I think the way this last 3 addition here, future land decisions will encourage sustainability – sustainable development, 4 infill within the urban surface area and neighborhood preservation. I think the intent is that we 5 want to – we want infill when it happens to happen in the urban service area but as it reads, it 6 looks as though it’s saying we want to encourage infill in the urban service area and it wasn’t 7 clear to me that that was Council’s direction. I would prefer to see it say limit infill to the urban 8 service area and I would like to see neighborhood preservation move to the middle of that 9 three-item list. Page 5 deletes that clause about thriving business community that serves local 10 residents and brings revenue to the City but not at the expense of the City’s residential 11 neighborhoods. I would like to see that clause restored. Finally, page 110, I’m not sure what the 12 motivation was or why there was a change from – in the second paragraph under implementing 13 the plan. There’s added language that – let me find the beginning. Decisions about 14 development projects, capital, and improvements etc. will be reviewed for conformance to 15 evaluate consistency with the plan. I think conformance was the old Comp. Plan language and 16 that’s been deleted. I’m not sure why we would change that from asking for conformance to 17 just evaluating whether there’s consistency. To me, there’s a substantive – different meaning 18 between those two phrases so I would I like to see conformance restored. Thank you. 19 20 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Dori and then Hamilton. Where their others after Hamilton? Shani. 21 22 Dori Summa: Thanks. I’m sorry, I also missed the last meeting but with regards to the 23 Governance Element. The general tone of it kind of surprised me because it seemed to be 24 about development and planning, more than governance. I would like – I think I agree with the 25 previous two speakers. I thought a sense of the responsibility and the trust that the electric 26 places into – places on elected officials were kind of missing in this and I would like to see more 27 of that. Also, I thought there was too much of an emphasis on regional responsibilities. With 28 regards to the specific phrase that Jen just mentioned, I would like to see that included also but 29 you know, promote commerce but not at the expense of residential neighborhoods. I thought 30 the comment about mobility areas and greenhouse gas reduction areas that Annette 31 mentioned was kind of funny because I don’t think of greenhouse gas reduction—it’s not like 32 you can contain that to an area. It’s every place and you can’t even contain it to Palo Alto so 33 that – so, I thought that could have been worded better. I understand that some of these 34 comments are holdovers from the previous plan but I do not – there’s a bunch of stuff about 35 giving Boards and Commissions more decision-making authority, which I understand was in the 36 old plan but I think it should have been taken out because it’s inconsistent than with the chart 37 that describes – below that describes the Boards and Commissions duties. The Planning 38 Commission and the ARB are advisory bodies, especially the Planning Commission I think, so I 39 think those – I think that could be improved. Yeah, I thought the general tone was not as much 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 6 of 35 about the duties and responsibilities of governance as much as it was sort of about reiterating 1 things about planning and development efficiencies. Then, I’m – I feel a little bit like at the end 2 here we got really rushed and I understand that everybody wants to keep it on schedule for the 3 Council and the Planning Commission but I think it’s a little unfortunate that we didn’t have a 4 subcommittee for governance. That we really had no time to do any correlations of the 5 elements across the entire Comp. Plan. Thanks. 6 7 Co-Chair Garber: Hamilton and then Shani. 8 9 Hamilton Hitchings: First I want to agree with a couple points from the previous speakers. 10 Dori’s point on the Commission and Board and Committee duties and updating that language. 11 The second is on the difficulty of reading; you know I had a really hard time reading this too. 12 The black on the dark green in the really small font is tough and my eyesight is not that bad so I 13 think that would be helpful if it was a little easier to read. My primary comment though is not 14 my own. I wanted to read a letter that was submitted by one of the members of the 15 community, Nielson Buchanan. I’d like my last words on this Committee not to be my own but 16 to be those of somebody else in the community. I’m just going to read his letter, which – since 17 he is out of town today. I strongly urge everyone to take in the heart -- to heart and mind a key 18 value statement in the current comp plan. To paraphrase, currently there is a prominent 19 statement that city strives to promote commerce but not at the expense of residential 20 neighborhoods and then he adds, in the quest of modernizing the comp plan I hope leaders and 21 Council will note and amplify this statement. This statement should be positioned in the 22 introduction to the Comp Plan. That’s my comment. 23 24 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Shani. 25 26 Shani Kleinhaus: I agree with Dori and Jen on their comments and also, with Hamilton. My 27 comments are about the glossary. Can I go into those? 28 29 Co-Chair Garber: Yes. 30 31 Shani Kleinhaus: Ok, so the first one is the creek setback. In Palo Alto, it’s defined on top of the 32 creek bank; like the exact top of the bank. Every other community, including the agencies that 33 look at that, define the top of the bank or the drape line of the immediate riparian vegetation, 34 whichever is wider. That way you actually protect the drape line and riparian vegetation as well 35 so I think that should be here because that’s the custom for every community except for Palo 36 Alto. I did the drape line so that’s on page 13. On page 21, green infrastructure, I think adding 37 connectivity for wildlife. We’ve talked about that and potentially – yeah, adding to the green 38 infrastructure. First, it talks about nature features but often it’s constructed features like we do 39 things for swells for water – storm water and things like that. It’s not all natural. Some of it is 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 7 of 35 actually architecture or designed but the wildlife connectivity here is very important so maybe 1 both these things. Page 41 talks about resilient or resiliency and I think the word ecology is 2 missing. So, a system to absorb defective climate change, maintain – I think ecological function 3 – ecology function shows also be part of that; not just human function. I’m not sure that we are 4 only talking about climate change. I think there are a lot of different things that deal with a 5 resilience that has to do with dealing big (inaudible). There could be a flood, it could be an 6 economic downturn, it could be a lot of different things and they’re not all natural. Those are – 7 I think that’s what I had. One more, the definition of the creek on page 12. It talks about natural 8 water courses flowing from the hills to San Francisco Bay. Usually characterized by distinct 9 channel and a band of dense vegetation along the banks but we’ve discussed urban creeks as 10 well. Even though they are in concrete, they are still creeks and we wanted to treat them 11 differently but we don’t want to ignore them so I think we need to have – maybe split that in 12 some way into two types of creeks. That’s it, thank you. 13 14 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Arthur. 15 16 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I think I really appreciate the work of Staff and the work of this 17 Committee. I think it was a hard – a lot of work that we did over about 1-year and a half, give or 18 take. I also would like to agree with pretty much the comments that have been made in this 19 session just now. I’ll just add to what Shani said just a moment ago because I do think we 20 should think about channelized creeks which are in concrete versus creeks that are more of a 21 natural riparian kind of setting. That also needs the distension between those that are – like San 22 Francisquito Creek, which is a more of a natural setting. Some of the creeks that go through 23 Barron Park, some of them are more natural and some of them are less natural. Then west of 24 Foot Hill Expressway and I think those distinguishing tried to be captured to some extent and 25 then there was a whole discussion about it at the City Council the other night. I think that 26 clarification in this definition would be helpful. I also provided some definitions – some 27 improvements to definitions which I assume are not controversial in my comments but I’m not 28 going to repeat them. One thing that I mentioned was electric vehicles supply equipment, 29 which is useful because of – in the Transportation Element and it’s not defined properly there 30 so that could be used there. I, basically, think that it’s great that we’ve got to this stage and I 31 look forward to hearing your comments in the next portions about where we go from here. 32 33 Co-Chair Garber: Just a couple of quick ones for me. It is not clear to me whether we need 34 potentially two additional items in the glossary. One is the definition of the applicant and the 35 other one is the definition of the property owner. I don’t know if we use that language in 36 particular in the Land Use Element but if we do, it would be worth defining those as a way to 37 help people not always use the word developer. Which we tend to use like Kleenex and it loses 38 meaning. My other comments were nits but I did want to agree with the meeting in resident – 39 meeting residential and commercial needs. My sense there is that there needs to be a stronger 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 8 of 35 emphasis on the interest of the residential neighborhoods and the residents first before the 1 commercial ones. I think that’s pretty consistent with the view of this Committee. Annette. 2 3 Annette Glanckopf: (Inaudible) 4 5 Co-Chair Garber: That was my last one so goes ahead. 6 7 Annette Glanckopf: Well, I just have to comment on what Shani said. We really need to look at 8 the resilience definition. To be honest, I did not look and read every single one of these 9 definitions and I applauded Shani for doing so but that has nothing to do with – we use the 10 term all the time in emergency preparedness so let me get a better definition for at least that 11 component. If everyone is agreed to a -- and we can – that should be added. 12 13 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, I’m not seeing anyone – oh, Ellen. 14 15 Ellen Uhrbrock: (Inaudible) 16 17 Co-Chair Keller: Microphone. 18 19 Ellen Uhrbrock: Please add to the glossary a definition of a stakeholder. 20 21 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, if there’s nothing else. I’m sorry, what? Arthur. 22 23 Co-Chair Keller: It’s interesting that the definition of resilience really – in here that’s on page 24 45, talks about resilience with respects to climate issues. Future effects and maintain the 25 function of climate change. That was different from, I think, the definition that people talked 26 about at Council. They were talking about with respect to the Public Safety Building last night 27 where resilience was to respect of things like earthquakes, natural disasters, floods, terrorist 28 attacks and things like that. I just wanted to postscript that to what Annette just said. 29 Co-Chair Garber: Alright, I’m not seeing any other people that would like to speak. May I enter 30 – would someone like to make a motion to recommend this to the Council? Hillary? 31 32 Hillary Gitelman: I would just like to clarify. I think the easiest thing to do would be to get a 33 motion to transmit these drafts with the CAC’s comments. I don’t know that we’re going to be 34 able to do another iteration before the 12th. If we can, we would but if not, we will do what we 35 did in the prior elements which were transmitted your comments and the transcript. Arthur? 36 37 MOTION 38 39 Co-Chair Keller: I move that the CAC recommend adoption of the… 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 9 of 35 1 Co-Chair Garber: Cover, introduction, Governance, glossary. 2 3 Co-Chair Keller: …the cover, introductions, glossary and Governance to the Council. Give the 4 CAC – give the Staff discretion to be able to include the non-controversial things that we talked 5 about tonight and the comments submitted tonight. Transmit that the Council along with our 6 minutes and notes. 7 8 Annette Glanckopf: Second. 9 10 Co-Chair Garber: Seconded by Annette. All those in favor, raising hands? All those opposed? 11 None. Any abstentions? One abstention, Jennifer. 12 13 Jennifer Hetterly: I would like to abstain just from the Governance section since I hadn’t 14 participated in that process. 15 16 Co-Chair Garber: Far enough. Ok. 17 18 MOTION PASSES 15-0-1 19 20 2.Discussion: Online Comp Plan and User’s Guide Brainstorm*21 22 [Committee discuss the 3rd item first] 23 24 3.Discussion: Lessons Learned and Future Improvements*25 Co-Chair Garber: If I may, I would like to take a few minutes here and talk about goals and 26 pluses and deltas, is that is ok? 27 28 Co-Chair Keller: Are we talking about – I thought we were talking about the lessons. 29 30 Co-Chair Garber: We are going to do the goals first because several people have to leave. 31 32 Co-Chair Keller: Ok. 33 34 Co-Chair Garber: Then we will go back to that. I am now walking over to something called a flip 35 chart. So, I wanted to sort of collect our goals here and have a brief discussion/query of you as 36 to how close we have gotten to any of those and I would like to collect our pluses and our 37 deltas, which both Annette and Hamilton have actually – do we have those At Places? Ok, great. 38 The two – Arthur and I had talked earlier and the two goals that we had going in where define 39 consensus where possible and where it isn’t, collect all views of the topics discussed and report 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 10 of 35 them to the Council for action as opposed to debate them as we had talked about previously or 1 argue – had a constructive conversation about it at the very beginning of this process. The 2 second one was to create a safe place to talk about these issues so we all felt comfortable 3 sharing our views. Are there other goals that we should be putting up here? Arthur, if you could 4 so I don’t have to look behind my head here. 5 6 Co-Chair Keller: Sure. Anybody who wants to speak? Bonnie? Microphone. 7 8 Bonnie Packer: Is there something At Places that I am missing? 9 10 Co-Chair Keller: There’s a memo that was in the back of today’s packet and the memo talked 11 about homework and it was also mentioned in the Staff report. 12 13 Bonnie Packer: I don’t have part of this (inaudible). Oh, in the packet. 14 15 Co-Chair Garber: I wanted to go back to our very beginning and remind ourselves what it was 16 that we were going to achieve. 17 18 Co-Chair Keller: Maybe for the benefit of this group, I’ll read the memo. Shall I do that? 19 20 Co-Chair Garber: Sure. The first item is going to be taken as one of the separate items so you 21 can skip that. Just go to number two, three and four. 22 23 Co-Chair Keller: It says goals, the Co-Chairs sincerely hope that you will join us for the last CAC 24 meeting. As part of our final meeting, we are organizing our discussion of the continual learning 25 agenda item into the following parts. One is one that we will talk about later. Two is Goals. 26 What were the goals the committee was to attain when it started? The co-chairs will share their 27 understanding of these goals with the group and then ask for other committee members for 28 their understanding of what these goals were. The co-chairs will then lead a brief discussion to 29 learn how well these goals were met – or not. Then (inaudible) pluses and deltas, we’ll talk 30 about that later. 31 32 Co-Chair Garber: Yeah. So, where their other goals other than these two that we had? Lisa? 33 34 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I think -- broadly for what we are doing here, correct? 35 36 Co-Chair Garber: Very broad. 37 38 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: Alright. Then, it was certainly to review the policies that were coming 39 from the City and provide our input to the programs. So, to the – more to the implementation 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 11 of 35 part in the programs. I think that was a clear one that we were given. I’ll come back later to was 1 that a pro or was that con but it was clearly a goal. Then, I think another one was that we all 2 had was – it goes to a safe place, which was we all got to share our views, right? There wasn’t 3 just one person talking all the time or something like that. Those were the two. 4 5 Co-Chair Arthur: Anyone else? 6 7 Co-Chair Garber: Ellen, you had your hand up? 8 9 Ellen Uhrbrock: Will you read the goals again? I can’t really… 10 11 Co-Chair Garber: You can’t read my writing? 12 13 Ellen Uhrbrock: No. 14 15 Co-Chair Garber: The first one was – it’s long and I just abbreviated it up here. 16 17 Ellen Uhrbrock: That’s good. 18 19 Co-Chair Garber: Find consensus where possible and where it isn’t, collect all views of the 20 topics discussed and report them to the City Council for action. 21 22 Ellen Uhrbrock: Ok. 23 24 Co-Chair Garber: As opposed to resolving them here. 25 26 Ellen Uhrbrock: Alright. 27 28 Co-Chair Garber: Create a safe place to talk about these issues so that we all feel comfortable 29 sharing our views. Those were the two that the Co-Chairs had offered initially. Then the ones 30 that Lisa just mentioned where to – that we were to review the policies and give input on 31 programs. That we all got to share our views, which took us a couple meetings to figure out. 32 Shani? 33 34 Shani Kleinhaus: Listening to the… 35 36 Co-Chair Keller: Microphone. 37 38 Shani Kleinhaus: … and getting public input, is that in there? 39 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 12 of 35 Co-Chair Garber: Ok. Hamilton. 1 2 Hamilton Hitchings: This is a little bit heightened – might be to high level but I mean I feel like 3 the goal was to do the long-term plan for Palo Alto to provide a stewardship for – to try and 4 create really the best possible future that we can for Palo Alto by setting the policies that are 5 within the control of the City. 6 7 Co-Chair Garber: Create best possible future, is that ok and it’s probably not spelled correctly. 8 Jennifer. 9 10 Jennifer Hetterly: In the create best possible future on a more granular level, my understanding 11 was that our purpose was to integrate both public and input and PTC input and the existing 12 Comp. Plan in a satisfactory manner. 13 14 Co-Chair Garber: Integrate existing Comp. Plan and PTC input and public. Ok. Anyone else? 15 Annette. 16 17 Annette Glanckopf: A simple goal was just getting it done. I mean that’s getting it off the table, 18 right? Also, getting it approved maybe. 19 20 Co-Chair Garber: Ok. 21 22 Co-Chair Keller: Stephen. 23 24 Co-Chair Garber: Stephen. 25 26 Stephen Levy: We had two different… 27 28 Co-Chair Keller: Microphone. 29 30 Stephen Levy: … it is on. 31 32 Co-Chair Keller: Ok, maybe just a little closer then. Thank you. 33 34 Stephen Levy: We had two different Council that appointed members. We did not appoint our 35 members. There are lots of comments in the notes, Hamilton, and others, that I agree with. If 36 the goal was – it should have been to have a Committee that was a representative of the 37 residents and others in Palo Alto. That was a failure and it hamstrung this effort. There was one 38 renter, there was one person, Ellen, who represented the senior population. The Chamber was 39 not represented, business was not represented, developers were not represented. We had a 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 13 of 35 [phonetics] [curphufal] to whether Whitney and Heidi and Arthur were voting members or not. 1 It was a failure to me. 2 3 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, so the… 4 5 Stephen Levy: …and it affected everything. 6 7 Co-Chair Garber: Members are – where… 8 9 Stephen Levy: That wasn’t our goal because we didn’t control it. 10 11 Co-Chair Garber: Understood but the question here is was the membership representative of 12 the City? Bonnie. 13 14 Bonnie Packer: Yeah, I agree with Stephen. One of the things that I was hoping as a personal 15 goal and it's sort of related to share views and that was to learn from one another about 16 different views. What we failed to do was to have a process where we could have meaningful 17 dialogs with respect to the views. It just – just now, when people had some good comments 18 and some I could agree with 100% and some maybe I could agree with 70%. There was no 19 opportunity to have a discussion on the individual comments because the way the meetings 20 were structured, it was this boom, boom, boom. Somebody said something, somebody said 21 something else, somebody said something else. Except in the Committees, at these Tuesday 22 evening meetings, we did not have an opportunity to have an in-depth discussion on some of 23 the issues. It could have been better – I don’t know how it could have been arranged better but 24 that was another area where we shared views but did not adequately discuss them. 25 26 Co-Chair Garber: I’m going to paraphrase that. 27 28 Bonnie Packer: I also would have hoped that we could have all learned from each other from 29 our different perspectives and of course, had this – the appointees had been from a more 30 diverse representation of the community’s interest. We could have even learned more and to 31 respect other – different viewpoints and grow from learning about those different viewpoints 32 and not get stuck in our way. That was one thing that I was looking forward too. I think to some 33 extent, that was a success but because we are not completely representative, it wasn’t a great 34 success. 35 36 Co-Chair Garber: So, the way that I have paraphrased this is where did we learn from others 37 and there’s a spectrum of CAC and subcommittees so we can come back to that, perhaps. 38 39 Annette Glanckopf: Is that a goal, I mean… 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 14 of 35 1 Co-Chair Garber: I’m not sure it is but it’s worth measuring I think. 2 3 Annette Glanckopf: I think it’s important but… 4 5 Co-Chair Garber: Yeah, I’m going to allow it. Elaine. 6 7 Elaine Uang: I’m not – well, it – I just – I’m not sure this is necessarily a collective goal but I 8 think just building off of what Bonnie was saying. I think a personal goal that I would have liked 9 to have seen fulfilled a little bit better was just a collegial environment and getting to know 10 everybody a little bit better on a more personal level because I think that is what kind of 11 facilitates that sort of learning opportunity. I had hoped, I guess initially, that this was a place 12 where we could all get to know each other much better. 13 14 Co-Chair Garber: Did I – Did we get to know each other better? Ok. Annette. 15 16 Annette Glanckopf: Well, I just wanted to add to what Elaine and Bonnie said. I think both of 17 these are excellent and I actually would agree with my own personal goal and I’d maybe make it 18 in the personal comment. I was really struck by a conversation I was having with another 19 Committee and I wonder if the next time through – this is sort of off-topic but it’s relevant to 20 this point. When the Cubberley Committee, I know Bonnie, you were on that, met, they took 21 the areas that they were going to be looking at and they split all the members into groups. So, 22 you would take each element and you’d split members and you’d have to work on the 23 composition to get the right selection. That's really where they did all the dialog and the sharing 24 and they got to know each other and they really had that vital conversation. Then that group 25 came back to the bigger group and presented. This is really sort of a suggestion for the future 26 and I don’t know if we can do that because of various reasons with the Comp. Plan but if we 27 had done it that way, we would have all gotten to know our group much better, we would have 28 gotten to share our views and probably learn from each other. I thought that was an excellent 29 way to go. 30 31 Co-Chair Garber: The process that they used again, just in brief. 32 Annette Glanckopf: It’s a little different, I don’t know. Bonnie can talk to how they split them 33 into groups but there were a number of different areas that the Cubberley Task Force was 34 looking at… 35 36 Bonnie Packer: (Inaudible) 37 38 Annette Glanckopf: Pardon? Oh, I thought you were. Ok. Jen was. Ok, Jen can talk 39 about…(crosstalk) 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 15 of 35 1 Co-Chair Garber: This was where working groups and the working groups came back together. 2 3 Annette Glanckopf: ...but the concept would be here, for the Comp. Plan is each one of the 4 elements that we’re looking at. We would have a subgroup for maybe some of the smaller ones 5 anyway and make sure the composition in that group was balanced as Bonnie described. Then 6 they would report back. Jen, do you want to comment on how… 7 8 Jennifer Hetterly: Yeah, I think… 9 10 Co-Chair Garber: One moment Jen. Let me just get Stephen because he was before you. 11 12 Jennifer Hetterly: Oh, of course. 13 14 Co-Chair Garber: Go ahead. 15 16 Stephen Levy: I think maybe Hamilton… 17 18 Co-Chair Keller: Microphone. 19 20 Stephen Levy: …one – it’s on. 21 22 Co-Chair Keller: You just need to be a little bit closer if it’s on. 23 24 Stephen Levy: One challenge was the size. The size combined in retrospect – the three-minute 25 of everybody going around the room didn’t work; it took up too much time. My own perception 26 was basically talking at each other. In our business and economic subcommittee, we had the 27 very shortest element. We had what two, three- hour meetings or three meetings but it felt 28 really good. In the Land Use Committee, we had really different opinions but it felt better. I 29 think we were cramming too much into an agenda to have a conversation. We have two or 30 three meetings on elements that were very, very long and it was hard. I mean, the 31 subcommittee atmosphere felt a lot better; a lot more collegial to me. Maybe it has to do with 32 the size. 33 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, good. I captured the discussion process in size over here. Anything else? 34 Shani. 35 36 Shani Kleinhaus: (Inaudible) 37 38 Co-Chair Keller: Microphone. 39 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 16 of 35 Shani Kleinhaus: (Inaudible) 1 2 Co-Chair Keller: Microphone. 3 4 Shani Kleinhaus: We tried to see some of the comments like you only go once. Remember 5 those cards? Like green, if you like what somebody says and red if you don’t like it. We tried to 6 do other things and they didn’t go very well. I think we can keep that in mind that we did try to 7 create more or Staff suggested a variety of ways to facilitate more discussion. They either 8 would have taken a lot longer than we have or we didn’t like them and so I’m not sure – you 9 can’t know everybody. I think we need to look at the product and to Stephen, you feel that 10 there were some that were not represented. I can think of a lot of subcategories of me that 11 were not here, right? Like the things that I care about. I would have liked to see six more people 12 from different groups and some that know about toxins and others – they weren’t here. So, we 13 had one person more or less look at environmental issues and I think you represented those 14 groups really well. I don’t know that you need a lot more people to represent one type of thing 15 because we already had like you said, too many in a way. That’s all. 16 17 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, I – oh, Dori? 18 19 Dori Summa: Shani kind of said what I was going to say but I think given the constraints of the 20 time frame, which was not something that we got to decide at all. I don’t really see how it could 21 have been much different. We probably should have spent twice as long on this and had many 22 more subcommittee meetings because they were more productive just purely because of the 23 numbers. That’s all. 24 25 Co-Chair Garber: Ok. I’m going to go quickly through – oh, Whitney? 26 27 Whitney McNair: I would just like to say that I was thinking about that I agree. I think the 28 positive was the subcommittee as well. I think more of the discussion came out at the 29 subcommittee and there was a willingness to listen to different opinions but I think the size was 30 one component of it. The other thing is that subcommittees were done sort of by issue or topic 31 and it was different when it got back to the collective CAC. It was more like a group edit session 32 over and over again. We were able to dive into issues in the subcommittee and I think that was 33 helpful to further different ideas. 34 35 Stephen Levy: One other thing, Dan. 36 37 Co-Chair Garber: Yeah? 38 39 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 17 of 35 Stephen Levy: The length of the sections and the number of programs and policies in some 1 sections led to an editing complex or an editing focus. I had thought originally that we were at 2 more division and policy level and not expected to rewrite every line or every third line in the 3 Comp. Plan. That would – it felt like it devolved into me, except for the very few policy issues 4 where the Committee did achieve its goal of offering differing opinions when we had differing 5 opinions like on the height limit. I think the structure of the thing got into this language about 6 this word or that word rather than what kind of City do we want. 7 8 Co-Chair Keller: Dan? 9 10 Co-Chair Garber: Arthur. 11 12 Co-Chair Keller: A few things. Firstly – 13 14 Bonnie Packer: I just have one more thing. 15 16 Co-Chair Keller: Yeah, I haven’t talked at all. One thing is that the process of appointing the 17 CAC was flawed. First of all, I agree with the premises that were made that it should only be 18 residents and that there are other people who are a representative that aren’t voting. They 19 don’t live here, they work here or they do other things here but it’s essentially just like the 20 Planning Commission – Planning and Transportation Commission; they are required to be 21 residents. I think it makes sense for the CAC to be comprised of residents. I do think that what 22 happened is the City Manager appointed the CAC and it was done in a way that was skewed in 23 various ways. So, the Council had to correct that and appoint new – additional people, which 24 essentially made it – made the group even more unwieldy. Now I note that the previous Comp. 25 Plan, which was finished in 1998, it was started in 1992 and it was a Committee of 37 people. It 26 was a larger Committee but on the other hand, it had a longer charter. What happened here is 27 that the whole process was in some sense confused. There was a PTC process that went on for 28 four, five, six years. Then there was a CAC process that was expected to last a year, year and a 29 half and it lasted more like 2-years. I think that they were unrealistic expectations of how long it 30 would last. There where – I think it would have been better if the Council had – when it formed 31 the CAC, had articulated what it’s goals were in terms of who should be appointed and what 32 kinds of representation was needed. Maybe even the Council should have appointed it because 33 after all, they are worried about not – a Council appointed thing would have to be a Brown Act. 34 We wound up being Brown Act anyways, so it would have been better if they have just gone – it 35 would have been faster if they had just gone through it and appointed us in the first place and 36 had the appropriate balance; is what they should have done. I also think that in a group of 21, 37 25, 37; in a large group, it does not make sense to have us be able to do detailed deliberations 38 here. It would not – just as Shani mentioned, we really didn’t have an alternative in terms of 39 how we do it, other than giving everybody a fair share to speak. We experimented with that 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 18 of 35 and we experimented also with the idea of having more of a discussion afterward where people 1 could raise their cards. I think that that balance between everybody speaking and people 2 commenting afterward and a discussion was helpful when we were dealing with one element at 3 a time. When we had more than one thing on the agenda, the topics – the popcorning 4 afterward didn’t work very well because they were – tended to be abbreviated so we couldn’t 5 have one round of everybody commenting and enough time to popcorn on that. We were sort 6 of – we spent a lot of time on land use and transportation, which I think were really important. 7 Those are perhaps the most important elements. We talked about integrating them and we 8 never did. Not clear to Council to integrate them. Maybe the Planning Commission will look at 9 them as an integrated unit but I’m willing to bet that it won’t happen. I think we took – we 10 looked more at the 1998 Comp. Plan. I think we did not take enough advantage of what was in 11 the PTC recommended drafts. There was a lot of work there. It was done intensively over a 12 period of years and I think we would have been well served to have done more work based on 13 the PTC draft. Not all of it was good but it was more – it was an intensive amount of work that 14 we essentially, largely abandoned and didn’t start – not completely starting from scratch but 15 essentially didn’t start from there and I think in retrospect, that would have been a better thing 16 to consider in detail. I think that it would have been more helpful if in terms of the public 17 commenter – the public commenter was – we had at the beginning, we tended not to see much 18 of it until later on. The questions were kind of diffuse and it was not clear. The question – to 19 extent that when the public commented, it was not clear how to actualize their comments. 20 They weren’t encouraged to make comments on specific programs or policies; they were high 21 level. It was not clear sometimes what the comments really meant or what they were talking 22 about. I think that to some extent that when we think about this, let’s think a little bit – maybe 23 next time let’s think a little bit more about how we incorporate public comments so that we can 24 ask them more specifically to comment on particular things that they would like to see and 25 particular things that they would like to change. I do think that there are opportunities for 26 being at a high level and perhaps we could have done more about that at the very beginning. 27 Maybe we could have had a meeting before we got into any of the elements where we had 28 some high-level discussions about that – about what we see as the future of this City. I’m 29 guessing that we would have had, for 25-people on the CAC or 24, we would have had 24 or 25 30 views. I think that there would have been that much difference in terms of that and I’m sure 31 what that would have happened. Except maybe brought out some high-level issues for us to 32 think about. I think that in some sense, the main thing that I would do differently is one, I would 33 take more advantage of the PTC’s work. Two, I would have had a plan to have this take more – 34 a longer time anyway rather than the rush. We sort of extended the time anyway and then we 35 rushed at the end. I think we should have been more realistic and I think the next go around 36 should be more realistic about how long the process really takes. 37 38 Co-Chair Garber: Hang on, I wanted to get… 39 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 19 of 35 Bonnie Packer: It’s a follow-up of exactly what he said. 1 2 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, quickly and then Dori and then Julia. Ellen, did you have something more? 3 Then Elaine and then Lisa and Whitney. (crosstalk) 4 5 Bonnie Packer: Ok, I just want to – because I was a graduate and alum. of the… 6 7 Co-Chair Garber: First one. 8 9 Bonnie Packer: … the 37 – oh, wait, am I on? Yeah, I’m on. Of the 1992-1997 Comp. Plan 10 process and what you said Arthur, that’s exactly what happened. It was – we started out with 11 vision – big vision – 37 of us, we started out thinking the really high level and then we were 12 given like classes on architecture 101 or zoning code 101. All the members of the – we were – 13 got a lot of information to go with. Then we broke into subcommittees on issues and we had 14 good substantive discussions. Then after all that stuff got put in, then there were Committees 15 that did the editing; they actually did that and that was in subcommittee. I don’t remember all 16 the details but for the future Comp. Plan, somewhere there may be a file of how previous 17 Comp. Plans were done and you might – somewhere, these comments – because exactly what 18 you said Arthur is what happen in the previous Comp. Plan and how that was developed. We 19 started the high level. We had a swat analysis and it was really exciting and you got a lot of 20 input from the public. Now the PTC work might have been good but that had no public input 21 and that was – it had very little. There were two – I understand that there were two people on 22 the Committee when PTC got together and it was some stuff and I looked a lot of that in the 23 beginning of this. I had the PTC book that you gave us and we did try to integrate it or at least I 24 did. I looked at that and I think the Staff did. Anyway, I recommend to Staff that we have future 25 Comp. Plan processes have a file somewhere so our comments are not lost. So, I agree with 26 what Arthur was saying because I experienced it and it was good and that was the Comp. Plan 27 that we looked at. 28 29 Co-Chair Garber: Previous to this one. 30 31 Bonnie Packer: That was a pretty good plan and we only had to really change it a little bit really. 32 33 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you, Dori. 34 35 Dori Summa: Really quickly because I have to leave. I don’t think it was the best process. I don’t 36 think it was the worst process. I think one of the problems was that the people that were 37 chosen to be on this Comp. Plan where chosen mostly, almost all of us, because they had 38 predictable and reliable points of view that were already expressed. I’m not sure that was really 39 the best idea. It’s a little overly politicalized for my taste but I would really like to – as I have to 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 20 of 35 leave, I would really like to thank the Staff especially and the Co-Chairs who tried, I think, really 1 hard to make this be as good as a process as it could be. Yeah, you get another – come to the 2 Planning Commission, you get another cut at it. 3 4 Co-Chair Garber: Dori, thank you. Shani, you are taking off too? Thank you too. Julia. 5 6 Julia Moran: So, a couple things are that it looks like we’ve gotten – gone past goals and onto 7 pluses and so… 8 9 Co-Chair Garber: We kind of went there, didn’t we? 10 11 Julia Moran: …I decided to jump in. I would say again, this is more of a Council appointing 12 versus us as a Committee but I think it seems that -- or the City Manager. The appointments 13 were made, it seems to me, a little to politized in a way and too focused on the Land Use 14 Element. I mean, it seems pretty clear that the reason why five more people were added on 15 and the imbalance had to do with that element. Although, I would say all of the elements are 16 significantly important and you’re – we missed the diversity in those other elements because 17 we were so focused on that. With that, the – I mean when there – I think that we need to – if 18 we want to have more diversity on our – on these, we need to change the application and 19 change the outreach. I saw the application the first time that it came out and I said, I haven’t 20 been on enough Commissions and Committees. I’m not going to get this, I’m not going to apply 21 for it. Then, so you know, I didn’t do it and then the second round came out and said they 22 wanted people under 35, renters, and south side of Palo Alto. I thought about it and realized 23 that if I don’t apply for this, no one like me is going to apply for this because we just don’t fit 24 the criteria. The application needs to be changed if you realistically want people younger, 25 renters, to be a part of these Committees. Secondly, the Council needs to do a better job. The – 26 those three criteria, they picked five people to add to the Committee. None of them were 27 under 35, none of them are renters and I assume most of them were from the south side of 28 Palo Alto. I was picked as the sixth person to replace someone who had been taken off. If 29 you’re going to say that that is important to you, follow up on it and add those people. I mean 30 again, none of you are part of that decision but I think that absolutely needs to be pushed 31 forward in future Committees if that’s actually something that’s cared about. I wish – we’ve 32 talked about a few things that we wish we had done at the very beginning. I remember one of 33 the first meetings, maybe two meetings, we spent so much time on how we were going to 34 structure the meetings and how many minutes we were going to get and I wish we would have 35 spent more of that time on what we wanted the structure of the Plan to be in. I know that was 36 – it was difficult because of there – the Council has a way that they want to see the Plan and we 37 kind of realized through the process that we might want it to be a bit different. I think it would 38 have been incredibly useful to have a better working meeting with the City Council and really 39 worked through instead of trying to guess what they really meant or didn’t mean in a more 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 21 of 35 casual setting. How much should we flush out these programs and what should we be focusing 1 on? I think a lot of that was guess work done towards the end and I think the Chairs did a good 2 job of clarifying a lot of that but it would have been nice to have that from the beginning; a bit 3 more structure. As for – just a quick comment on the – or antidote, on the safe place goal, we 4 also talked about those red and green cards. I think that the Committee did work really hard in 5 making this a safe space. I thought it was fantastic when we had those red and green cards and 6 it was horrible. Everyone agreed that it just felt nasty and regardless of whether we have 7 different views or not, no one wants to hold up a giant red x saying (made a sound). I 8 appreciated that about the group. Thanks. 9 10 Co-Chair Garber: Whitney, I think you were next. 11 12 Whitney McNair: We had – let’s see. There are two goals, one was to create a way to share 13 different viewpoints and one was to create the best possible future for the City. Those are two 14 that you wrote up there. I had this down – I had written down my lessons learned and 15 something that was just raised really, that I feel the needs to voice it. It’s a little bit of a popcorn 16 but I’m going to say it anyway. I see the City as a balanced ecosystem. It is – has different 17 entities and different uses for different purposes. To say that only residents should be involved 18 in a process for a City, I think is pretty short sided. For me, I represent the largest landowner in 19 the City of Palo Alto and one of the largest employers in some – an entity that is not leaving. It’s 20 going to be in Palo Alto forever. I think companies that choose Palo Alto, they choose it for a 21 reason. They are invested in the future of Palo Alto. Many of their employees live in Palo Alto 22 and they want to know what’s happening in Palo Alto too. There shouldn’t just be an automatic 23 distrust of their knowledge, their ideas, or their motivation behind being involved in a public 24 process. They have a lot of different viewpoint and information that the group here doesn’t 25 have and I think to meet the goals that you have identified for yourself to say that they 26 shouldn’t be involved is, I think, is a mistake. At a minimum, I think the Chamber should have 27 been involved or some other entities. I recognize that when I started, I was sort of seen as an 28 outsider in here and it’s frustrating that after 2-years there might be some lingering issue with 29 my involvement. I hope that I provided another vantage point from which to consider ideas and 30 that I cared about the project and the outcome of the project. I recognize that trust takes a long 31 time to build and the group sort of started out a little shaky on the trust but I thought over 32 time, we really grew to become a more cohesive group and the trust was stronger. I think the 33 subcommittee – by breaking up the format and using the subcommittees, I think that really 34 helped build the trust. There was a point in time I think, at one of the Council actions that kind 35 of dissolved that trust to some extent but I do believe that the group – in the way the group – 36 the way the CAC was working together, that trust was on the rise and people felt more 37 comfortable in sharing their opinions. 38 39 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Lisa and then we will come back to Elaine and Ellen. 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 22 of 35 1 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: Some of these have already been made – said. It’s kind of to the positive 2 and then to the negative or change things. So, the positive was certainly that I got to work with 3 all of you. I mean I think it’s been a great experience and I learned a lot. Yes, I wish I had known 4 you even better personally so there are things that I would have improved but that’s definitely 5 been one. The fact that the City Council and Staff actually had a CAC at all, I think is very 6 positive because many Cities wouldn’t. Whether we think we did a great job or not a great job, 7 the fact that we exist at all, I think is a very positive. I think this type of involvement should go 8 forward. Then going to the goals, it feels like we met most of them so that’s a positive. So, I’ll go 9 to the negative or the delta but it is in the context of that I am still glad that I did this and I’m 10 glad we did this, right? So, it’s only in the sense of the improvement. I – thinking back to the 11 very beginning, I do still feel that we may have gotten a clear message from City Council as to 12 our role but I don’t know that City Council was actually aligned with it. The City Council 13 members should have obviously changed during our 10-year on the CAC, right? I think at the 14 very beginning when the – coming from City Council -- and I know Dan and Arthur you shared 15 that with us, that the Council really wanted us to focus on the programs more than on the 16 vision and the higher level and such, which frankly – to Bonnie’s point too. I don’t find as much 17 fun but it’s certainly important. It would have been a lot of fun, I think several people 18 mentioned this if we could have done at the very beginning that more holistic, big picture, black 19 sheet of paper – well, what is the future in the context of already having a very good plan, 20 right? We weren’t starting from scratch. I think it would have done a few things, one is bringing 21 us closer with Council and where they were going. Secondly, I think it would have given us all 22 that chance to really think of the big picture and see the – I don’t know, the vision part of it. 23 That would then give us a better foundation than to dive in and do the programs. I would do 24 that differently. Whether in the future City Council and Staff would want a body like the CAC to 25 get involved more broadly or more narrowly is totally their decision but I think it depends on a 26 little bit on – maybe a little bit more thought into that and also communication with us in the 27 CAC. Along those same lines, I think it would have been helpful if at the beginning and then a 28 couple times during if Council had been willing or could have had representatives of Council 29 rather than the full sitting Council, to have some joint meeting with us like in this room. To 30 really talk through things, how are we doing, are we doing what they are thinking, what they 31 are looking for and is it working for us? You know, are we on the right track as far as – I think 32 that would have been helpful and that is not in any way a negative to Staff who has done an 33 awesome job from my perspective. I actually feel that it’s not quite fair because we’re all in a 34 sense working for the City Council and this context in a way. It’s helpful to have that direct 35 dialog so that’s not in any way a negative. It’s really more of how would we have added to that. 36 Several of us have mentioned but I do think this group, when we started, was too big and 37 whether it’s Annette’s idea of how to do that but another thought I had along the same lines 38 was have a larger group, maybe 50, that’s kind of a vetting and input and then place a smaller 39 group that’s the real CAC maybe. In a business context, I tend to find that if you have more than 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 23 of 35 10 people, you’re not going to get decisions made. Now, if you’re not a decision-making body, it 1 doesn’t really matter but if the future one, they might be more focused on that and where 2 actually coming to decisions and aligning on positions. I think 10 is about max and I like the idea 3 of a representative. I absolutely feel that it should include the younger and renters and etc. that 4 you said. Also, to Whitney’s point, I think there should be some business. So, whatever it is but 5 its only 10 people and they are the ones that do the core brunt work of this with Staff and with 6 City Council. A broader group could then have more constituencies and more representation. 7 You would go back and forth to them but they wouldn’t be doing the deep dive work, it would 8 be more of here’s the idea that we are working on. Let’s get inputs and have we missed 9 anything. Maybe get a flavor for what the feel is. So, that was one thought. Sorry, minor in the 10 context of my comments but I do think that Stanford and the school should have voted. I don’t 11 think Planning and Transportation Committee should because they get it later and so I think 12 that was appropriate but I don’t think that – but again, hopefully, we still heard the good 13 inputs. I think – oh, the last would be more of a question and it may be for later but is whether 14 Staff and the Council found having the CAC useful? I would be very interested in the feedback 15 from that. I mean, going back to the goals, did we do what – even though it changed what the 16 Council wanted and has it been helpful and is there anything that we would do differently in 17 that perspective. Sorry for that long -- but again, even with all that I said on the things that I 18 would do differently, I’m very glad and honored that I got to be part of it and at least to get to 19 know you all a little bit. I would have liked to know you better but – and it was worthwhile. It 20 was really great to see the commitment and just the fact that we all care a lot about our City. 21 So, anyway. 22 23 Co-Chair Garber: Lisa, thank you. I’m forgetting who was next. Ellen or Ellen and then Elaine. Go 24 ahead. Then, Annette, we will come back to you and Hamilton or Stephen, Annette and then 25 Hamilton. 26 27 Ellen Uhrbrock: Basically, I see this as a management problem and maybe they appointed the 28 wrong people. What they did was put out an application and maybe not thought through as 29 well what they wanted to achieve but every one of us actually applied for the job and we got it. 30 I applied – I’d be very interested to know why each of us did so but I applied because I think 31 that I can and my job is to be a link to the senior population, which is really a pretty silent 32 population and input to City Council affairs. I have worked at from the beginning, to be a link 33 through my different networks, which is an idea I got from Hillary when we were working on 34 the expo. May 30th, 2015. When they first asked us to pool out networks, I was shocked. I 35 thought it was an invasion of privacy and I still do, I still do but nevertheless, I’ve come around 36 to it and I’m pretty good at working my networks now. I have learned a lot from the experience 37 of being on this job, which I applied for. Why did I apply, because I was asked by one of the 38 senior groups who monitor the transportation progress of the long-term plan and the only way 39 I could do it was to apply for the general CAC? Then hope that I get appointed on the 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 24 of 35 Transportation Committee. Now one of the interesting things (inaudible) experiences on the 1 Transportation subcommittee, which I think accomplished a lot, was that one of the members 2 stated or at least the way that I interrupted it, that the Council didn’t want us to look at the 3 programs. The programs are what interests me the most and I always – when I was reading and 4 doing my homework, I would just scan the policies and then I would look at the programs and 5 see how could the seniors participate in this. A good example is the goal of shared writing and 6 cutting SOVs. How could seniors participate in this and what they can do? I not only want them 7 to participate but I want the data to go down into the big database to see it’s a working and 8 active group. Basically, I think it’s our fault if we didn’t contribute what the City Council wants 9 and we did our best and I’m really pleased to know all of you. I have to tell you, my last 10 community to the senior groups and using my network was a statement saying it’s over. This is 11 your last chance to convey ideas to the City Council through the CAC. From now on, you do it 12 through the Planning and Travel Commission and that’s where it’s moved to and we’ve got to 13 move with it there. 14 15 Co-Chair Garber: Great. Thank you. Elaine and then we will go to Stephen, Annette, Hamilton 16 and then Arthur once (inaudible). 17 18 Elaine Uang: I feel a little bit bad because I wasn’t going to say very positive and optimistic 19 things so I apologize for following you. On the two goals that you set out first; did we collect 20 views? I think we did do a good job of that so I’ll start with that. I do think that was a positive 21 that we were able to – maybe it wasn’t the best process and I know we didn’t get to have the 22 discussion that we would have liked to but I think we were able to at least place hold a lot of 23 different views so that’s good. As far as a safe place, I actually on several occasions have raised 24 to Staff that I did not feel that this was a safe place. Both in this larger Committee and in the 25 subcommittee level. I think – Don McDougall is not here but he put it well one time. I just had a 26 casual conversation with him afterward and he said it’s actually really great when people show 27 passion and that is definitely something to be foster. I think there were moments where one 28 person’s passion may have triggered another person’s dismissiveness or I – not I – I can’t – I’m 29 not sure what the right word is. I think it obviously – a lot of times the passions would induce 30 other passions and then the counter passion would not always be productive or not productive. 31 It’s all productive, they are all important viewpoints. I guess I’m saying that I didn’t feel like we 32 all respected each other’s views and sometimes there were some comments that didn’t 33 sufficiently acknowledge other points of views. I just want to put that out there because I do 34 think that was a – it made it certainly a very difficult and unpleasant process for me. I would not 35 say that serving on this body, while most of you are very lovely and I enjoy meeting and 36 working with you but I would not say that this was fun. I think this was too long. It was almost 37 2-years. I’m really worried about how inaccessible this process is to the general public. This is 38 supposed to be a general plan for 15-years that is going to really impact a lot of people in this – 39 in our City. Not just the residents but the people who work here and the people who come here 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 25 of 35 to play. It will affect a lot of people, some who might live here only for 2-years and some who 1 might live here for another 40. I am really concerned that – while I’m glad that a body like this 2 exists. If you really want this to be successful going forward, I think it really needs to be made to 3 be fun and made to be understandable so that people understand what’s going on and what is 4 happening. I think we had a tendency to dive into the weeds a little bit too much. I think for a 5 body like this it’s going to be most accessible when people kind of understand high-level things 6 so I agree with a lot of those let’s talk about the vision comments. That’s really where – 7 everybody’s got a vision and yes, we might not agree with 25 people or 50 people or whatever 8 the overall vision is but people want to play in the sandbox of visions and imagine what their 9 life is going to be. Keeping it at that level is probably where you would get the greatest number 10 of input from the most diverse group of people – the broadest group of people. I also want to 11 echo Bonnie’s comments. One of the things that I continue – I always had a concern and this 12 existed for whole the 2-years of this process was that we weren’t getting a really grounded 13 education on A: what a general plan is supposed to be and what it’s supposed to cover. B: how 14 our City works? You know we have a Council-manager model. I’m not sure that a lot of us really 15 understand that or know what our local government system is and so Staff and the 16 professionals who run our City do a really good job of running our City. In a way, the elected 17 officials aren’t really the folks who are supposed to do all the minutia and the nitty gritty. They 18 are supposed to make the higher level strategic decisions. I wish we would have gotten a 19 grounding in how our City is run financially a little bit better. I think that was a big missing 20 component and also just how our City intersects with other localities and agencies. What is the 21 lay of the land? How does Stanford work? How does – what’s our jurisdiction over Stanford? 22 What is the County line? Where do the County agencies come from? We just didn’t have that 23 background and so a lot of times we were just shooting out our hip that whatever we feel like is 24 the answer of the day but there’s real information that should go into the thoughts and the 25 comments that we offer and when we – absent that. I learn a lot for sure but I think it would 26 have helped if all of us had got in a basic grounding. Yeah, I guess – yeah and I do also want to 27 echo some of Julia’s thoughts about having more young folks. I liked Hamilton’s comments and 28 his written comments about having folks in high school. If you think about it, in 2030, I don’t 29 think anybody here in 2030 is going to be in their 30s or their 40s and so I think the youngest of 30 us will probably be in our 50s or something like that. 31 32 Hamilton Hitchings: (Inaudible) 33 34 Elaine Uang: No, I mean I am serious, right? We – I’m a little bit scared for the future of Palo 35 Alto because we didn’t put anybody on this body who is going to realistically represent the 20 36 and 30s or whatever in 2030. 37 38 Co-Chair Garber: Bonnie needs to wait around to do her 3rd one. 39 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 26 of 35 Elaine Uang: Yeah but I am sorry Bonnie, you’re still not going to be 30 in 2030. 1 Bonnie Packer: (Inaudible) 2 3 Elaine Uang: I guess I just want to put that in context because that was something that always 4 worried me at the very beginning of this process. It still worries me, I feel like, to some degree. 5 The reasons why I – my husband and I chose to stay in Palo Alto was -- in a way I think – I’m a 6 little bit worried that they will be in jeopardy in 15-years. Sorry to be a downer but that’s where 7 I stand. 8 9 Co-Chair Garber: No problem, great. Thank you. Stephen, then Annette, Hamilton and then 10 Arthur. 11 12 Stephen Levy: I think there are a lot of mistakes that were done to us and I think there’s one 13 real whopper that we did to ourselves. We are a group divided about growth and divided about 14 what that means for so-called residential neighborhoods. I lived in a residential neighborhood 15 most of my life and I disagree with everybody who used that phrase but we should talk about it; 16 not my experience. I know homeowners that live in residential neighborhoods that also 17 disagree with you. I think there was a confusion between residents and homeowners but the 18 thing that we did to our self was we didn’t pick five meetings to peruse, educate, and talk to 19 ourselves. Five meetings about what growth means and the impact of growth. He nibbled 20 around it on this program. We fought about the language on moderate job growth in the 21 Business Element but we never had hours and hours and hours of discussion that would 22 humanize us, maybe bring us together and educate us about what are the real differences and 23 facts. 30-years ago we used more water than we do now and we have 15,000 more people. 30-24 years ago we had 4,000 more kids in the schools. 30-years ago the air was dirtier. 30-years ago 25 there was less traffic, I agree. I agree with that but we got caught up in all this fear stuff and 26 never really took on that central (inaudible) issue in which we could have informed our self and 27 offered something back to the Council. I don’t expect that we would agree but I would expect 28 that we would better understand and clarify the disagreements. The second muck-up that was 29 kind of something that we bought into but it was done to us was that this is a Comp. Plan. It’s to 30 2030 and that’s all I work on in my life is for people to do stuff to 2030 and 2040. It’s not what 31 Palo Alto should be like in 2018. In that respect, it doesn’t matter a damn woot what the last 32 City Council or this City Council, which disagreed with the last City Council means. They 33 shouldn’t be telling us what to do. We should be planning for a City in which there will be five 34 more new City Councils. There are always transitions in power. Look at Washington. If all you 35 did was say well, Obama was for this but he’s out and now Trump’s for this. We ought to do 36 what he says. That’s no way to plan anything and so we got caught up in what we think about 37 what is happening today, not 2030. I’ll end with that there are 45% of the people who are like 38 Julia, they are renters. There are almost not 20% of the people who are like Ellen. That’s a 39 scandal for the formation of a Committee. I think we should have had a developer. If you – I 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 27 of 35 disagree with you about residents but there are resident developers, there are resident 1 business owners, there are resident people from Stanford. I went to the meeting on Friday, the 2 Silicon Valley at Home Housing Authority of Santa Clara meeting on housing for low-income 3 residents and they had a developer and they had someone from the league of California Cities, 4 who disagreed with a lot of the policies. It was a really good discussion with a lot of consensus 5 at the end. I think those people should be brought in. I think the structure of the Committee 6 really hamstrung us. 7 8 Co-Chair Keller: I think Annette, were you next? 9 10 Co-Chair Garber: I apologize. Annette, thank you. We’ll come back to you, Bonnie. 11 12 Annette Glanckopf: Well, it’s in a transition into my real comments. I wanted to just add some 13 positive things. I think it was good that we did the Housing Element as a sort of earlier. It would 14 have been really cool to have a liaison from that group to participate in this one. I think also, as 15 far as a positive, I thought time comments with all respect to – I agree, we didn’t have enough 16 dialog etc. but that, in many ways, was very good. It all made us a little bit crisper and moved it 17 along. Of course, the chocolate was one of the highlights of the whole thing and the food as 18 well so thanks again to everyone. Especially Lisa and all the good meals that we received from 19 the City. I think on the cons, I agree that the dots did not work at all for me. That many of our 20 comments on the Comp. Plan where really to prescriptive. They were really—Council really 21 called that out also so I think that was something that we have to worry about to the next – but 22 I would really like to go into this whole thing about what we’ve been talking about as far as 23 vision. That would have been good I think. I agree with the comments that were made that 24 there could have been more education at the beginning of each section. Actually, I think this 25 time the vision was sort of done by that one-day effort – I forgot what it’s called. Palo Alto 26 something. Does anybody – this sort of came together and really did attracted a huge audience 27 of people from the City and that really did bring together a lot of visions. Although, it really 28 never went into the Comp. Plan. It really was sort of a recruiting for this Comp. Plan but I’m 29 going to leave my comments on how I think recruiting should be done to another time. That 30 obviously was a real failure for whatever reasons because we didn’t have the composition that 31 everyone would have desired. I am still a little bit on the fence about this concept of voting and 32 non-voting members. I’m not sure why we even had that. We didn’t even take that many votes. 33 There were only a couple of things and I don’t think it really would have made a difference one 34 way of the other if we counted the non-voting members in or out. I think Whitney has been an 35 amazing resource and to Stanford, obviously, is an absolutely critical stakeholder in this whole 36 process. So, I think – I always learned every time Whitney spoke so that’s obviously critical. I 37 think the Chamber – I say this with two feelings. They should have been included obviously 38 because it’s a key element. Of course, with a Staff of two, it would have been very, very hard 39 for them to make a commitment for this length of time so maybe someone from their Board or 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 28 of 35 someone from their membership could have been a developer like Stephen said or someone 1 else that had a business viewpoint. I would have liked to see a really small, locally owned 2 business person but boy, that would really be impossible because they spend all their time 3 keeping the doors open. I think the school – again, this has nothing – it’s not a personal 4 comment. I didn’t think the school – having someone from that community was – the School 5 Board, was particularly critical. I think more so having parents with small kids that could really 6 represent. That to me was a critical element and I would be fine to have the Planning 7 Commissioner be a voting member. Again, I am totally ambivalent or curious about this whole 8 thing about that perspective. Many of our Boards and Commissions don’t always require 9 residency so that doesn’t seem to be a real barrier. Maybe if we had someone that was going to 10 represent something that was not Stanford or schools or something that I can’t even think of. 11 Sustainability that came from back east or came from another community, that wouldn’t be 12 appropriate but I think we need to think about that with a grain of salt. Chamber, School Board 13 no. I think it would have been interesting to have a Council liaison. If you look at a lot to the 14 Boards and Commission, they actually have a Council Member that’s assigned to this group and 15 I think that there really has been a barrier between this group and Council. We really haven’t – 16 we sort of have to wait until we get it to Council before we get any feedback and then we have 17 to come back and sort of redo things. I still think it would be an incredible challenge to get 18 volunteers, especially the younger people to come to this. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be 19 here, whether it be a teen or a young parent. Boy, it’s hard to get people to volunteer for 20 anything so I think that’s a wonderful aspirational goal. I think it’s a real challenge to find the 21 right persons so we’re lucky you came and joined the effort. In closing, I think saying everything 22 we did about not having maybe the right mix of people. I think it was really important in the 23 subcommittee thing that we had the Staff’s from the different departments because even 24 though we might not have had the right composition in many people’s minds, which I am fine 25 with. We really did have the Staff that related to the element that would come and talks about 26 the issues and we could have had more, I think, education but they came and said this is what’s 27 happening. They added, I think, the content to any of the discussions that we were having. 28 Maybe we missed a little bit but my feeling is that in the end, we did come out with a product 29 that we’re taking to Council that is an excellent document and it is – even though we did have a 30 couple of stumbling points and I can’t say that I agree with every single thing in here because I 31 don’t but I think it was a collaborative process. I do think it will serve as a really good goal as we 32 move forward to 2030. It’s hard to know what the future looks like. We could – I have to say 33 this, we could have one great earthquake and we might be a small town with 10,000 people 34 again. 35 36 Co-Chair Garber: With no cars. 37 38 Annette Glanckopf: With no cars, right. So, it’s really hard to think about the future and we just 39 have to do the best that we can and maybe, as sort of a compromise is having the Comp. Plan 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 29 of 35 be reviewed periodically. You can sort of say this is the way it’s going and boy, that thing does 1 not make sense at all. I would like to see some way that you could half way through – if none of 2 these things became a problem or something else became an issue, how that could be inserted 3 into the document. Again, I just feel that we should be proud of what we’ve done and I do think 4 it did come out to represent lots of different views. 5 6 Co-Chair Garber: Annette, thank you. Hamilton, Arthur and then Bonnie or Bonnie... 7 8 Hamilton Hitchings: Thank you. There are so many great comments tonight. This is really – I 9 really love what everyone is saying and I’m going to reiterate some of them and make a couple 10 of additional points. I want to start with you, Whitney. I really appreciated you being on the 11 Committee. It was really helpful and it was wonderful to have somebody from Stanford that I 12 could throw ideas against so thanks for listening. I really appreciate you being here. Just on 13 Stanford, you know one of the questions is about whether Stanford should vote? The thing for 14 me is Stanford basically agreed to put all this land under the control of Palo Alto so I just feel it’s 15 not really fair if they don’t have a say the policies of Palo Alto. They are – essentially Palo Alto 16 was the town for Stanford. I mean they are fundamentally integral and like Elaine said, while I 17 come from a very strong residential perspective so technically, I should be for only residents. I 18 mean the community is much more than just the residents. It’s the businesses, it’s Stanford, it’s 19 the small business owners so I do think that it makes sense to have them. Like Annette said, it 20 doesn’t – the voting doesn’t really matter because, at the end of the day, it’s the Council that 21 does it. We are here to put together a body of things and that’s why I think we should support 22 the PTC representation and we should have had the Chamber of Commerce more involved. 23 Really somebody who’s going to represent all the businesses as well. Elaine, thanks for sharing. 24 If I contributed to that in my excitement about policies and about making you feel like it wasn’t 25 a safe space, I want to apologize. 26 27 Elaine Uang: (Inaudible) 28 29 Hamilton Hitchings: You know, I do get passionate… 30 31 Co-Chair Garber: She is talking about me. 32 33 Hamilton Hitchings: …about policy. Yeah, (crosstalk) – but I really appreciate you sharing and I 34 just want you to know that I have a lot of respect for your opinions. The next things are that I 35 want to talk about something that Stephen and Bonnie said, which I thought was spot on. 36 Bonnie, couldn’t you have said this at the beginning. Not that – we were so cumbersome so I’m 37 not sure it would have helped but I hope we can do this next time. That is that I love this idea 38 that you are talking about that at the beginning of the Council, we don’t start – we don’t dive 39 into the editing. We say these – this is our vision and we sort of talk about the vision. Then we 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 30 of 35 talk about these are the big issues. We all knew land use was – and how fast are we going to 1 grow is the big issue so rather than like we’ll get to that when we do the Land Use Element, we 2 talk about that. I like what Stephen was saying. It would have been great to hear this is why I 3 believe this because it’s really easy to ascribe motivations but they are not always – sometimes 4 those are projections as opposed to how actually people feel. If we had started this discussion 5 with Stephen saying this is what I believe and this is why I believe it and here’s my experience 6 on it. This is kind of getting to Bonnie’s thing. Rather than try and have these conversations on 7 everything, focus on the big issues that are really the decision because once you get past those, 8 then it’s a lot—it’s much more minor. It’s more about these editing and stuff like that. The – 9 where that—the real magic is what happens is if you do that up front and then you go to the 10 Council and you say this is what we think and get the Council feedback out front. For me, the 11 biggest failure in this entire process was our interaction with the Council. It didn’t help that we 12 had sort of a transition of the Council but at the beginning, we were told that we want you to 13 focus on the programs and we were then basically—partly because it got a little bit bloated but 14 also for other reasons as well, they stripped out all the programs. It’s like, you told us to do this. 15 We just spent a year on it and now you’re stripping it out so we had a fundamental – it’s very 16 hard to hit a moving target. We all know, we’ve all worked on projects. When the goal of the 17 project is changed 2/3 of the way through, it’s really disruptive. I feel like there needs to be 18 more upfront commitment by the City Council that essentially can’t be changed by subsequent 19 elections regardless of who’s in power. I mean, I thought Stephen’s point about this – it would 20 be like if Washington, their funding and defunding the entire department every two to four 21 years. You have total chaos and nothing gets done. The same thing here, we need to have 22 consistency and think that basically, the process of the CAC interacting with the Council was 23 just fundamentally broken. There wasn’t really a clear enough road map. It wasn’t adhered to. 24 There wasn’t enough interaction back and forth. Some of the City Council discussions had been 25 very superficial. I don’t think we have necessarily delivered the maximum value to them 26 because I don’t think there was mutual – essentially, we didn’t agree with the Council on what 27 we were supposed to deliver to them and so they weren’t really completely happy. Tom DuBois 28 would say, there are too many programs and we’re like we are too big to deal with that kind of 29 feedback so there wasn’t that process. If we focused on the big issues first, then go to the 30 Council to buy off on them. I think everything after that would be smoother and we frontloaded 31 that. I have a couple other things. The summit was really good and I think 5-years is too long 32 just because they're too many things that can change. Then the last thing – oh, and another 33 thing is I learned so much about this City and this process. Another thing that I thought was 34 really interesting, which hasn’t been mentioned is about Staff. So, Staff did a great job. It’s not 35 easy to be in their shoes with a room full of people with conflicting opinions that they have a lot 36 of passion about. The thing that impressed me the most about Staff is they listened very well, 37 they incorporated our feedback and they leveled up several levels. I mean essentially, 38 collectively we were struggling in the beginning and then by the end, I felt like we were really 39 good in what we did. That was partly because of some circulation in Staff and the Staff kept 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 31 of 35 getting – the people working on this kept getting better and better. Since you are here, you can 1 take those (inaudible). They really listened and they really incorporated things. I thought that 2 went really well. The last thing is that despite the challenges that we’ve had and the 3 disagreements that we have had, we’ve actually agreed on a lot. You know, at the end of the 4 day, even though we all realize that there could have been a substantially better selection 5 process. There will never be a selection process which people say was good. It’s just a political 6 reality. The fact that if you like 100% of the stuff in here, it probably wasn’t a compromised 7 document but I do think that we did produce a good output at the end. Thank you for listening. 8 9 Co-Chair Garber: Hamilton, thank you. Bonnie. 10 11 Bonnie Packer: I just really agree 100% with what Annette said and Hamilton said so I’m not 12 going to repeat all that. I think what you’ve got now is some ideas for the future. People have 13 said, let’s review the Comp. Plan. It’s taken 10-years since this process started so if we’re going 14 to have a new Comp. plan in 2030, you’re going to have to start this in 3-years, again. 15 16 Hillary Gitelman: 2021, you get your application in. 17 18 Bonnie Packer: 2021, ok, so you’re already. So, I’m thinking that to get people involved, we 19 could be a combination of reviewing this existing plan, getting other citizens involved in the 20 process, having more summits and having kind of lecture education series to prepare people for 21 the next plan on economics, on forecasting, on the future of retail because there are lots of 22 articles in the paper now about what retail – how retail is changing. How commerce and 23 neighborhoods are not at odds of one another because if it weren’t for commerce, we wouldn’t 24 be eating or driving or using our cell phone. I mean it’s all –we’re – it’s all part of our lives. What 25 is zoning about? We can have a series of – invite the public to come to these things to get ready 26 for thinking about the future and this could be a City – little school that the City could have. It 27 was kind of like – I’m being nostalgic about the Comp. Plan thing that I was on in 90’s but that’s 28 what we had. We had all kinds of speakers coming to use. We had [Andres Waynee] come and 29 talk to use about all the planning ideas at the time that were exciting. We might of have an 30 economist. I don’t remember it all but it was a lot of stuff. The other thing though that we 31 should – we probably should have more of and maybe we could have done it on our own but 32 required reading before we came to each element on studies that were going on currently. I 33 didn’t know that the study for the shuttle was going on until it just came out. It’s a great report 34 on how our shuttle system could be improved. There’s no mention of that in the Comp. Plan 35 because we didn’t know it was happening. I mean somebody new but I didn’t. All the other, 36 there was the park’s study that was going on and there’s the Bay Lands Master Plan. There are 37 all kinds of stuff that should be in the public’s eye, starting 2020 or 2021. That this is stuff that 38 you should – know your City and know how your City can think in the future. A plan Bay Area is 39 another thing that we should be – everybody should know about if you are interested in the 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 32 of 35 future of the City. We are part of a region so those are just some examples of stuff that you 1 might be thinking about for the future. Yeah, that’s about it and I want to echo the —my 2 appreciation of all the hard work that the Staff did and the Co-Chairs. Yeah, you said it so well 3 so I don’t have to say it again. Ideas for the future – I’m looking forward to reviewing this Comp. 4 Plan in about 2 or 3-years and see how we are doing. If it’s done by then. 5 6 Co-Chair Garber: Lisa. 7 8 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: Is – actually, just a very quick one. We took a group picture quite a while 9 back. Is it available? Super. Can you send it around? Super, thank you. 10 11 Co-Chair Garber: Arthur. 12 13 Co-Chair Keller: Firstly, I think that it’s the job of the Planning and Transportation Commission 14 to periodically review the Comp. Plan and consider changes to it. Unfortunately, I don’t think 15 the Planning and Transportation Commission has done that much. They certainly didn’t do it 16 when I was on it except for the review for this Comp. Plan. I think that the vision of what was – 17 what the task of updating the Comp. Plan morphed. When the Planning Commission first 18 started doing in 2007 – or – I don’t know. I got on the Comp. Plan in 2006 and it seemed like 19 shortly thereafter we started working on it. It was a long time ago. The idea was to update it 20 and simply make some minor changes to it. The PTC started to do that but the Council never 21 reviewed what we did for a long time. Then what happened was it went to the Council – a new 22 Council came on and says we need to do the Comp. Plan and we need to broaden the input to 23 it. Then the scope increased dramatically and therefore, it wasn’t nearly – wasn’t just a minor 24 tweak to the Comp. Plan update. It was – actually, changed the horizon from originally it was 25 2020 and then it was 2025. By the time we got it started is was 2030. For me, the horizon of 26 2030 doesn’t mean that we’re providing Comp. Plan for 2030. It means we’re planning a Comp. 27 Plan for every single year for when the Comp. Plan is adopted through 2030, which means it 28 needs to be a living document that handles the conditions of today and it handles the 29 conditions of 13-years from now; not just the conditions of 13-years from now. I also think that 30 it is important that we had voices like Whitney. I thought that was important. She added a lot of 31 value to the – to us, to our discussion so I think it’s important stakeholders – we could have had 32 more stakeholders. I agree with the idea of having small businesses involved but I’m not sure 33 how we could make that feasible. I’m not sure how we could have had maybe some – I think 34 having more young people involved and more seniors involved, I think would have been helpful. 35 I wonder about if it’s even 2-year process, having a high school student involved is kind of hard. 36 Especially, in their junior and senior years, it’s kind of hard. Especially if the process doesn’t 37 finish and then it goes on and then they are gone when they go off to college. I don’t know how 38 to do that. I do think – I understand that when we were appointed, there were members who 39 were appointed who were residents and then there where ex-official members who were from 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 33 of 35 Stanford, from the School Board, and from the PTC. My understanding of an ex-official member 1 is somebody who has the power of the floor but not the power to vote. That’s my 2 understanding of how (inaudible) order and all that kind of stuff handles ex-official members so 3 that’s where that came about. I think that does make sense and the next time, we need to think 4 about how that is structured to perhaps do that better. If we had to do this all over again, I 5 think that it might have been better to do a process closer to what done in ‘92-’97 but that 6 would have taken the luxury of having 5-years, as opposed to a process where we thought we 7 doing it with the PTC on a small process. I also think that one of the things that I’ve noticed 8 when I was on the Planning Commission for 8-years is that if you have a particular project that 9 people like or don’t like, they’ll fail the auditorium. If you have a law and 15 to 20 people come 10 out, that’s a lot for dealing with a law. When you are dealing with the Comp. Plan, it’s very hard 11 to get people to understand that essentially, it’s like an amendment to the Constitution. 12 Everything flows from that but people don’t generally come out to speak on issues that are 13 effective in the Comp. Plan. It was actually near the end of the PTC process on the Comp. Plan 14 where we were actually getting people to come out. We had a lot of people come out and 15 commented on the Transportation Element, for example. I think it – we had half a dozen 16 people, at most maybe 8 or 10 at the most times when people came out and talked at this 17 meeting. I’m not sure what we could have done better in terms of outreach. I wish had more 18 representation in terms of the schools and in terms of things that happened there. There was a 19 scheduling issue, we changed to correspond to their schedule but then they couldn’t make it 20 after all, which was unfortunate. I think that Stanford is an important part of the community 21 but most people, not everybody but most people move to Palo Alto for the schools. Some 22 people move for other reasons but most people when they come here, they’re here because – 23 they come here originally because they want their kids to go to Palo Alto schools so I think that 24 is important. I’d like to – people have acknowledged Dan and I and our work. I’d actually like to 25 acknowledge all of you. I think that we could not have done this without everybody working 26 together. I think it was a rather collegial group. I think people did have an opportunity to 27 express different views. I think that we were trying to figure our way along in terms of how 28 voting went and part of that was because of Council comments about how the voting process – 29 we were sort of finding out way through that. I think that when we wound up with the idea of 30 trying to achieve consensus where we could and trying to identify cohesive points of view when 31 we couldn’t achieve consensus. I think that was a good goal but I’m not sure how well we 32 achieved it. I think that when we have consensus, that should have been better presented to 33 the Council as opposed to here are the changes the Commission meant. I think if it was a 34 consensus, it should have been clear as opposed to an issue to consider. I think – I wish the 35 Council had given us more feedback and we had an opportunity to review what the Council said 36 and revised what we did. Mostly that went to Staff to revise and I think Staff did as good of job 37 as they could but there was a little input opportunity for us to weigh in and reflect on Council 38 feedback. In a longer process that may be what we’re talking about in terms of what Bonnie 39 had experienced in the ‘90s. I think that maybe that would have had a better opportunity for 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 34 of 35 providing that. I think that in – if we were – in 2030, things are going to be a lot different I 1 expect. We don’t even know how it’s going to be different. My crystal ball is pretty crowded 2 and I assume most of yours are. I’m hoping that we have a process more of a major revision in 3 2030 as opposed to an incremental update. 4 5 Co-Chair Garber: How many feel that they changed their minds on a topic over the course of a 6 year and a half? 7 8 Hamilton Hitchings: Just say cake and I think you will get a consensus. 9 10 Co-Chair Garber: Anyone? 11 12 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I would like to hear your view, Dan and also, ideally Hillary’s on how this 13 had gone. 14 15 Co-Chair Garber: I think mine is in here. 16 17 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: You’ve got yours already? 18 19 Co-Chair Garber: It’s been expressed in a variety of ways. I actually think I’m going to write 20 something. Hillary? 21 22 Hillary Gitelman: Yeah, I don’t want to take a lot of time but someone didn’t mention all the 23 homework that you did. I have been so impressed by the amount of reading and thinking all of 24 you have done in this process. Really, it was so wonderful to come every month and to go 25 around. I know it was frustrating when we were doing the three-minute thing but you each 26 offered individual perspectives and insights to the process. It was because you had done some 27 thinking about these issues and that’s the kind of value that we get as planners out of these 28 community processes. I hope you feel good about that. I hope you feel good about the work 29 products we created. It’s been a pleasure working with all of you and don’t forget to come on 30 the 5th of June for your proclamation. 31 32 Co-Chair Garber: Lisa, I will share with you this. I did have some personal goals. I really viewed 33 my role here more as a facilitator. To try and find ways to get the community, as represented 34 by us, as good or bad as we could. Finding a way to talk with each other about these issues as 35 best we could. I didn’t look to actively, although I did at times, advocate particular issue one 36 over the other. I was really holding a lot of that in abeyance to be able to – I think there is 37 greater opportunity for all of our progress by hearing us speak and that was as important as 38 what it was we said. As part of that, I – with the exception of one topic, I really separated 39 myself from a lot of other things that were happening in the City so that I wouldn’t be 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 35 of 35 perceived of as influencing or having a hidden agenda or thing like that. One of the things that I 1 ended up getting involved with, as you all know, is basements. I had a personal commitment 2 that I had made to Arthur at the beginning which was to share all the correspondence with him 3 that I received, which I think I actually managed to do. I was interested in getting to know all of 4 you. I didn’t have a chance to meet with all of you one on one. Some of the members that 5 aren’t at the tables are the ones that I primarily did not have that chance but for me, that was 6 the most rewarding part of all of this. [Video ended] 7 8 9 Celebration of Appreciation of CAC Members 10 11 Adjournment: 8:30 p.m. 12 Attachment G June 1, 2017 Comprehensive Plan Update 2030 Draft Elements For Council Consideration at June 12, 2017 Hearing Hard Copies Provided for City Council only. Hard Copies to be available at City libraries and City Hall 5th floor. Electronic Copy Available at www.PaloAltoCompPlan.org