HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-24 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
August 24, 2015
Special Meeting
Council Chambers
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the
Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
1 August 24, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the
presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the
Council, but it is very helpful.
TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times
are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur
in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called.
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Call to Order
Closed Session 6:00-7:00 PM
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
1.CONFERENCE WITH CITY LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Ed Shikada, Suzanne Mason, Kathy Shen, Frank Lee, Nancy Nagel,
Dania Torres Wong, Sandra Blanch, Lalo Perez, David Ramberg, Joe
Saccio, Molly Stump, Walter Rossmann, Eric Nickel, Catherine Capriles,
Geo Blackshire, Albert Yang, Natalie Korthamar, Dennis Burns)
Employee Organizations: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA);
Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA) and Employee Organization:
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1319; Palo Alto
Police Manager’s Association (PAPMA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
2 August 24, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 7:00-7:10 PM
Oral Communications 7:10-7:25 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Consent Calendar 7:25-7:30 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
2.Adoption of an Ordinance Changing the End of Term Date for
Commissioners Serving on the Human Relations Commission, Library
Advisory Commission, Public Art Commission and Utilities AdvisoryCommission from April 30 to May 31 of Various Years and Making
Minor Non-substantive Language Changes
3.Approval of an Amendment to the Office of Emergency Services
Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Information
(C4I) Critical Emergency Response Contract Number C13149763 to
Add an Additional $25,000 in Funding to the Contract for a Total Not to
Exceed Amount of $275,000
4.Policy & Services Committee and Staff Recommendation that the City
Council Authorize a Request for Proposals for; a Technical Study of
Increased Air Traffic Noise, to Designate a Council Member to Act as a
Liaison to Engage in Regional Mitigation and Advocacy Efforts, Adopt a
Resolution Urging the Federal Aviation Administration to AddressIncreased Aircraft Noise in Palo Alto, and Direct Staff to Engage in
Additional Outreach, Coordination and Advocacy Activities Regarding
Aircraft Noise
5.SECOND READING: Adoption (with Minor Staff-Initiated Changes
Following First Reading) of an Ordinance Deleting Section 18.42.110 of
Chapter 18.42 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Adding a
New Section 18.42.110 Pertaining to the Siting and Permitting of
Wireless Communications Facilities; Exempt from California
Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)
and 15301, 15302 and 15305. (FIRST READING: June 29, 2015,
Passed: 8-0, DuBois absent)
6.Approval of Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Palo
Alto and Caltrain Regarding Vegetation Removal and Fencing
3 August 24, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Enhancements and an Intrusion Detection Camera System Beta Test in
the Caltrain Corridor in Palo Alto and the Adoption of a Related Budget
Amendment Ordinance
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
7:30-9:00 PM
7.Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance Implementing a Local
Minimum Wage Requirement of $11.00 by January 1, 2016 and
Discussion of Collaborating With Other Cities to Implement a Regional
Minimum Wage of $15.00 Per Hour by 2018
9:00-9:15 PM
8.Approval of Response to Grand Jury Report “A Slow Rising Emergency
–Sea Level Rise”
9:15-9:30 PM
9.Approval of Response to Grand Jury Report on Protecting Our Most
Vulnerable Residents
9:30-11:00 PM
10.PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance to Amend Chapters 18.38, PC Planned
Community District Regulations, and 18.79, Development Project
Preliminary Review Procedures; Exempt from CEQA under CEQA
Guidelines 15061
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
At-Pace Memo
Attachment B
4 August 24, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Policy and Services Committee Meeting August 25, 2015
Special City Council Meeting August 26, 2015
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Public Letters to Council
Set 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
August 24, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Adoption of an Ordinance Changing the End of Term Date for
Commissioners Serving on the Human Relations Commission, Library
Advisory Commission, Public Art Commission and Utilities Advisory
Commission from April 30 to May 31 of Various Years and Making
Minor Non-substantive Language Changes
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance (Attachment A) extending
terms on the Human Relations Commission, Library Advisory Commission, Public Art
Commission and the Utilities Advisory Commission from expiration dates on April 30 of various
years to May 31 of various years.
BACKGROUND
The above requested changes are the result of a situation that arose during the regularly
scheduled spring 2015 recruitment for the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). Currently,
terms for UAC Commissioners expire April 30 of various years. The UAC reviews the Utilities
Department budget during its regular meeting in May of each year and makes
recommendations to the City Council for budget approval.
On May 4, 2015, the City Council appointed three candidates (Danaher, Schwartz and Van
Dusen) to the UAC. On May 6, 2015, the UAC reviewed the Utilities Department budget and
made recommendations to the City Council for budget approval. Re-aligning terms on the UAC
to end on May 31 of various years will allow the UAC to review the budget before new
Commissioners are appointed.
The City Council on August 12, 2013 approved revisions to the Board and Commission
Recruitment Program to allow two scheduled recruitments per year (spring and fall). To
maintain this schedule, terms on the Library Advisory Commission, Human Relations
Commission and Public Art Commission would need to extend to May 31 of various, in
alignment with the proposed change to UAC terms.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Ordinance Changing the End of Term Date for Commissioners (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
NOT YET APPROVED
150812 sh 0140136 1
ORDINANCE NO. ________
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Changing the End of Term Date
for Commissioners Serving on the Human Relations Commission, Library
Advisory Commission, Public Art Commission and Utilities Advisory Commission
from April 30 to May 31 of Various Years and Making Minor Non-substantive
Language Changes
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
A. Currently, terms on the Human Relations Commission, Library Advisory
Commission, Public Art Commission and Utilities Advisory Commission expire on April 30 of
various years. This transition period makes it difficult for new Commissioners on the Utilities
Advisory Commission to effectively exercise their responsibility to review and advise the
Council on the Utilities Department’s annual budget; and
B. To remedy this situation, Council intends to realign the Spring Commission
transition period (applicable to the Human Relations Commission, Library Advisory Commission,
Public Art Commission and Utilities Advisory Commission) from April 30 to May 31, when
review of annual budgets is complete.
SECTION 2. Section 2.16.070 (Schedule of Appointments) of Chapter 2.16 (Boards
and Commissions Generally) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.16.070 Schedule of appointments.
(a) The City Council shall review applications to fill vacancies in the following
boards and commissions in AprilMay of each year:
(1) Human Relations Commission (Chapter 2.22)
(2) Library Advisory Commission (Chapter 2.24)
(3) Public Art Commission (Chapter 2.18)
(4) Utilities Advisory Commission (Chapter 2.23)
(b) The City Council shall review applications to fill vacancies in the following
boards and commissions in December of each year:
(1) Architectural Review Board (Chapter 2.21)
(2) Historic Resources Board (Chapter 2.27)
(3) Parks and Recreation Commission (Chapter 2.25)
(4) Planning and Transportation Commission (Chapter 2.20).
(c) The City Council shall fill vacancies in all other boards and commissions in April
May or December of each year, at its discretion.
NOT YET APPROVED
150812 sh 0140136 2
(d) The City Council may fill mid-term vacancies during the next regularly
scheduled recruitment for the board or commission or may hold a special
recruitment, at its discretion. Special recruitments shall be subject to the
requirements of Section 2.16.060.
SECTION 3. Section 2.18.040 (Term of Office) of Chapter 2.18 (Public Art
Commission) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.18.040 Term of office.
Commencing on September 6, 1984, there shall be three members whose terms
expire January 31, 1985, and four members whose terms expire January 31, 1987. Subsequent
appoints shall be made for terms of three years, or until their successors are appointed.
Effective January 1, 1991, the terms of those members due to expire on January 31, 1991 shall
be extended to expire on April 30, 1991. The terms of those members due to expire on January
31, 1993 shall be extended to expire on April 30, 1993. Subsequent appointments shall be made
for terms of three years, or until their successors are appointed. Terms of office on the Public
Art Commission shall be three years. Commission appointments shall be staggered so that
three (3) members are appointed in 2018 and every three years thereafter, and four (4)
members are appointed in 2017 and every three years thereafter. Effective January 1, 2016,
terms of office due to expire on April 30 of each year shall be extended to expire on May 31 of
the same year, and thereafter terms of office shall commence on the the first day of June. If a
successor is unavailable, a member may remain in office until his or her successor is appointed.
SECTION 4. Section 2.22.020 (Term of Office) of Chapter 2.22 (Human Relations
Commission) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.22.020 Term of office.
Terms of office on the Human Relations Commission shall be three years
commencing June 17, 1982, there shall be two members whose terms expire March 31, 1983,
two members whose terms expire March 31, 1984, and three members whose terms expire
March 31, 1985. Effective January 1, 2014 January 1, 2016, terms of office due to expire on
March 31April 30 of each year shall be extended to expire on April 30May 31 of the same year,
and thereafter terms of office shall commence on the first day of MayJune. If a successor is
unavailable, a member may remain in office until his or her successor is appointed.
SECTION 5. Section 2.23.030 (Term of Office) of Chapter 2.23 (Utilities Advisory
Commission) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.23.030 Term of office.
Terms of office on the Utilities Advisory Commission shall be three years. Effective
January 1, 2014January 1, 2016, terms of office due to expire on July 6April 30 of each year shall
be lengthenedextended to expire on April 30May 31 of the followingsame year, and thereafter
terms of office shall commence on the first day of MayJune. Commission appointments shall be
staggered so that in each three-year cycle, two members are appointed one year, two members
NOT YET APPROVED
150812 sh 0140136 3
are appointed the next year, and three members are appointed the next year. If a successor is
unavailable, a member may remain in office until his or her successor is appointed.
SECTION 6. Section 2.24.030 (Term of Office) of Chapter 2.24 (Library Advisory
Commission) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.24.030 Term of office.
Terms of office on the library advisory commission Library Advisory Commission
shall be three years. Commission appointments shall be staggered so that two (2) members are
appointed in 2013 and every three years thereafter, and three (3) members are appointed in
2014 and every three years thereafter. Effective January 1, 2014 January 1, 2016, terms of
office due to expire on January 31April 30 of each year shall be extended to expire on April
30May 31 of the same year, and thereafter terms of office shall commence on the first day of
MayJune. If a successor is unavailable, a member may remain in office until his or her successor
is appointed.
SECTION 7. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 8. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA
Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance
will have a significant effect on the environment.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
NOT YET APPROVED
150812 sh 0140136 4
SECTION 9. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5985)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/24/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Emergency Preparedness
Summary Title: Amendment for Additional Services
Title: Approval of an Amendment to the Office of Emergency Services
Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Information (C4I)
Critical Emergency Response Contract (C13149763) to Add an Additional
$25,000 in Funding to Contract for Total of NTE $275,000
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Office of Emergency Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve Amendment Number One to Contract No. C13149763
with Public Safety Innovations (PSI) to add $25,000 for continued equipment maintenance and
repair services and a revised Total Not to Exceed Amount of $275,000 over a Five Year Period.
Background
On June 17, 2013, Council approved a contract with Public Safety Innovations (PSI) for $250,000
over five years to perform maintenance work across a facet of Network, Computer, Data, Radio,
and other telecommunications systems that reside in vehicles, portable platforms, or in fixed
locations in support of the Palo Alto public safety team. These critical emergency response
resources require maintenance and upkeep proven to be best performed through outside
vendors. Previously, multiple vendors had been used to maintain these various systems;
however, Palo Alto’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) instituted a comprehensive contracting
mechanism to maintain these systems to a high state of readiness while improving
administrative efficiency through the management of one vendor, PSI, across the range of
technical requirements in this agreement.
Discussion
The Office of Emergency Services has accelerated the anticipated pace of works to make
substantial lifecycle improvements to the Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC),
including upgrades to radio interoperability, data, video, and the auxiliary power system. OES
has also fully equipped the MEOC Support Vehicle (MSV) (a Ford F-550 Prime Mover) and the
Director's Command Vehicle (DCV) (a Ford F-250). Information about these innovative vehicles
City of Palo Alto Page 2
and systems are posted on the OES website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicsafety. The MEOC
was designed in 2009 and entered service in 2010. As with most computers and related high-
tech equipment, it was anticipated that certain systems would be obsolete or end-of-life.
Performing work on certain systems contemporaneously allowed some projects to be
completed more quickly and at lower total cost. Further, there were one-time setup (upfitting)
expenses associated with bringing the MSV and DCV online as new vehicles.
OES has expended the majority of the funds available in this purchase order due to the
frequency and intensity of use of the vehicles being greater than originally anticipated. The
MEOC was deployed 32 times in calendar year 2014 to support missions ranging from Stanford
Football games to SWAT call-outs to visits by the President of the United States. Further, some
equipment has become functionally obsolete due to 1) advances in technology happening at a
more rapid rate than anticipated; and 2) due to new standards being adopted, including the
new Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Communication System (SVRICS) being deployed in
Santa Clara County. A further accelerator of the rate of spending was bringing the MSV and
DCV online. OES is in the process of completing a new Request for Proposal (RFP) process to
comply with City purchasing policies. Since it will take several months to complete this process
and enter into a new multi-year contract, OES would like to ensure funding is in place for
continued equipment maintenance and repair services work that may be needed until a new
contract is executed. There is ample time remaining on the existing contract for these
additional services.
Resource Impact
No additional appropriations is needed to amend the current contract, and the costs will be
absorbed in the Office of Emergency Services’ existing Fiscal Year 2016 operating budget.
Possible funding needs for a new contract will be evaluated and presented to Council once the
RFP process is complete.
Policy Implications
This action is consistent with existing City Policies.
Environmental Review
The recommendation in this report does not constitute a project requiring review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A - OES Critical Emergency Response Contract (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B - Contract Amendment One C13149763 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3831)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/17/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approval of OES Critical Emergency Response Contract
Title: Approval of Office of Emergency Services Command, Control,
Communications, Computers and Information (C4I) Critical Emergency
Response Contract
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee
to execute a contract with Public Safety Innovations in an amount not to exceed
$250,000 over a 5 year period to perform maintenance work across a facet of Network,
Computer, Data, Radio, and other telecommunications systems that reside in vehicles,
portable platforms, or in fixed locations in support of the Palo Alto public safety team.
Background
Palo Alto public safety organizations operate critical emergency support vehicles
manufactured by LDV, Inc. including a Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC)
comprising one satellite system, one SyTech RIOS Interoperable communications
system, 32 various radios of all bands (High Frequency (HF), Very High Frequency
(VHF), Ultra High Frequency (UHF)), and 5 onboard networked computers; a Mobile
Forensics Lab; a Special Weapons and Tactics Van; and a Ford F-550 MEOC Support
Vehicle (MSV) consisting of 8 VHF radios and a SyTech TAC2 Portable RIOS.
Additionally, the OES provides command and control of emergency response efforts
from a central Emergency Operations Center linked to geographically distributed, fixed
Department Operations Centers via radio, internet, and computer networks. These
systems require specialized system upkeep and maintenance to maintain a high level of
readiness in preparation for All Hazards.
Discussion
These critical emergency response resources require maintenance and upkeep proven
City of Palo Alto Page 2
to be best performed through outside vendors. Multiple vendors have been used to
maintain the various network, computer, data, radio, and other telecommunications
systems. Palo Alto’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) has been executing contract
work piecemeal through various procurement methods and with various vendors which
has become untimely and inefficient. OES has instituted a comprehensive contracting
mechanism to maintain these systems to a high state of readiness while improving
administrative efficiency through the management of one vendor across the range of
technical requirements in this agreement.
Solicitation Process
On May 3, 2013, a request for proposal (RFP) for professional services in support of
Critical Emergency Response RFP 149763 was issued. It was sent to four vendors. The
solicitation period was 18 calendar days. On May 21, 2013, one proposal was received
from Public Safety Innovation, Inc. (PSI). The project manager contacted the three
other vendors as to why they did not respond and he was informed the scope of
services did not meet their business model. OES evaluated the proposal and
determined that PSI was qualified. PSI has an outstanding past performance record
and has demonstrated they are qualified to satisfy the requirements in this scope of
service
PSI, Inc will accomplish the contract requirements through planned and on call work
authorizations received from OES. Invoices for the scheduled work will be submitted to
the project manager, validated, and paid in the form of purchasing orders over the life
of this agreement.
Resource Impact
The total five year cost of $250,000 is available in OES FY13 operating funds. No
additional funding is required.
Policy Implications
The recommendations in this report do not represent a change in City policies.
Environmental Review
The recommendation in this report does not constitute a project requiring review under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
PSI Contract - C13149763 052913 (PDF)
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 20111
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C13149763
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
PUBLIC SAFETY INNOVATION INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this 17th day of June, 2013, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and
PUBLIC SAFETY INNOVATION, INC., a California corporation, located at 2376 Gold Meadow
Way, Gold River, CA 95670 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to contract for critical emergency response services for C4I (command,
control, computer, communications and information) (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant
to perform these services in connection with the Project (“Services”).
B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise,
qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in
Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
Optional On-Call Provision Services will be authorized by the City, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by the City’s Project Manager. Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1. Each Task Order shall designate a City Project Manager and shall contain a specific scope of work, a specific schedule of performance and a specific compensation amount. The total price of all Task
Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Compensation set forth in
Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for work performed under
an authorized Task Order and the City may elect, but is not required, to authorize work up to the
maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4.
Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010
2
SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 16, 2018 unless
terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this
Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part
of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this
Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and
timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT.
CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of
damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($250,000). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”,
entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed
without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is
determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and
reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”).
If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The
information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY.
CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in
Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of
receipt.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents
that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required
by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services
assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted,
have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications,
insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
3
circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and
in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may
affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and
all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives
notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design
documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors,
omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project.
This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works
project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of
design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%)
of the CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the
CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved
recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing
the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with
CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or
transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations
hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not
be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval
of the city manager will be void.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.
CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement
without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee.
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of
the city manager or his designee.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Chuck Schuler as
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
4
the Project Supervisor to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If
circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key
personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any
key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project
manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do
not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the
adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property.
The City’s project manager is Nathan Rainey, Office of Emergency Services, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Telephone: (650)617-3197. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including
without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees
that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested
in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual
property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make
any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time
during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records
pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and
retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect,
indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents
(each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any
nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all
costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and
disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or
nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
5
operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive
the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not
be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of
any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision,
ordinance or law.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full
force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D".
CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an
additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies.
18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers
with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to
transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect
during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional
insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently
with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk
Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not
be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the
Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement.
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be
construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions
of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be
obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as
a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss
arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or
in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written
notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately
discontinue its performance of the Services.
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
6
19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of
the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of
a substantial failure of performance by CITY.
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and
other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given
to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will
become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT,
CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s
services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by
the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will
survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25.
19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONSULTANT recited above
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has
no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement,
it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
7
certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer
or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California.
21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as
that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT
shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the
Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status,
weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE
REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred
Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by
reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero
Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third,
recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste
requirements:
All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal
computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices,
reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a
minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved
by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional
printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and
printed with vegetable based inks.
Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in
accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not
limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.
Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional
cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from
the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed.
SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION
24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a)
at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,
or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
8
the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take
precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this
Agreement.
SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action
will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply
to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the
parties.
25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any
duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be
deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with
CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d)
about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and
appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City
immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the
security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct
marketing purposes without City’s express written consent.
25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they
have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CONSULTANT shall provide consultation, engineering, technical, and installation services for a
broad range of technologies from satellite communications to vehicle installation / upfitting. The
project manager for this contract will request work via work authorizations (task orders) that will fall
within one or more of the requirements below. Deliverables will be defined as needed through work
authorizations where no current deliverable can be specified.
Program and Systems Assessment
Task: Assess current systems, capabilities, and status of equipment for the PAPD MEOC (Mobile
Emergency Operations Center) and MSV (Mobile Support Vehicle). Assessment will be concluded
within the first 30 days of the contract start date.
Compensation: Work performed under this category will be billed at Consultation Rate ($250/hr).
Systems Engineering
Task: Assist OES in developing designs and plans for communications capabilities: radio, antenna,
network, software, equipment for the Emergency Operations Center & mobile and portable
platforms.
Compensation: Systems Engineering work will be performed at Consultation Rate ($250/hr).
Network Administration
Task 1: Conduct routine maintenance of client and server software – administer client and server
upgrades once a quarter.
Task 2: Configure RIOS client software on various remote PCs (10-20 each). Perform
system maintenance to ensure remote PCs are operable on RIOS client.
Task 3: Network Configuration. Work with Palo Alto Police Department Technical
Services Division to establish and maintain network connections, VPN, and other secure data feeds. Task 4: Other Computer HW/SW. Work with Palo Alto Police Department Technical Services Division to establish and maintain hardware and software servers and clients. This includes servers, computers, smartphones, and other devices that may be in use by the City of Palo Alto. Task 5: Remote Video and Telemetry. Support public safety deployments of fixed and
portable camera, sensor and video systems.
Compensation: All Network Administration to be performed at the PSI Technical Services Rate
($128/hr).
Radio Installation, Maintenance, Programming
Task 1: Engineer and design interoperability systems for radio installations and antenna
configurations.
Task 2: Program and test radios or radio interoperability systems.
Task 3: Configure, install, mount and modify radios or radio interoperability systems.
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
Compensation: Basic Installation services will be performed at the PSI Install Rate ($85/hr).
Configuration, radio programming, basic designing, intricate installations will be performed at the
PSI Technical Services Rate ($128/hr). Engineering and intricate design work will be performed at
the PSI Consultation / Engineering rate ($250/hr).
Vehicle Installations
Task: Installation of emergency vehicle equipment applications such as computer mobile data
installations, light bars, warning controllers, strobe accessories, push bumpers, etc.
Compensation: Installation work performed at PSI, Gold River or basic installation work performed at customer location will be billed at the PSI Installation Rate ($85/hr). 1.6 EOC Deployments / General Staff Support Task 1: Serve on an incident command staff or emergency operations staff as Communications Leader (COM-L) or Communications Technician (COM-T) on an “on-call” basis or in support of pre-planned events. Capable of checking-in within three hours.
Task 2: Drive and put into operation Mobile EOC in a support staff role for emergency call outs or
for pre-planned events.
Compensation: Deployments and support role services will be billed at the PSI Technician Rate and
will be subject to PSI Travel expenses ($128/hr).
1.7 Consulting Support
Task 1: Develop technical specifications and scopes of work in accordance with technical expertise.
Task 2: Review documentation, professional input and guidance for RFP documents, bid review,
design, or similar.
Compensation: Consultation services will be performed at the PSI Consultation Rate ($250/hr).
1.8 Documentation and Training
Task: Develop appropriate documentation and training to designated City Staff on
network, computing, and radio systems (RIOS, Networks, Video, Radio).
Compensation: Documentation and training work will be performed at the PSI Consultation Rate
($250/hr).
2. Contract Management
2.1. Invoices. PSI shall prepare an invoice for all allowable expenses performed for each assigned
work authorizations. An advance copy of the invoice shall be sent to the COR to ensure that all
records are included and the invoice is for authorized work not later than 30 days following
completion of work authorization. PSI will send the official invoice to the Palo Alto Police
Department, c/o Dana Lamberson, 275 Forest Avenue.
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
2.2. Subcontracting. PSI will be the single point of contact with the City. Any subcontracting done
by PSI as part of this Agreement shall be done by mutual agreement. In all cases the vendor is
responsible for system design, performance and the quality of the services provided.
2.3. Security. In accordance with Department of Justice requirements, PSI shall ensure their
personnel are fingerprinted in accordance with Police Department guidelines. The cost for
fingerprinting is the sole responsibility of the vendor.
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
EXHIBIT “A-1”
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES “ON-CALL” TASK ORDER
Consultant hereby agrees to perform the work detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 are incorporated into the Agreement by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel
required by this Task Order as described below.
CONTRACT NO. C13149763 ISSUE DATE
1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NUMBER C13149763
1B. TASK ORDER NO. 2. CONSULTANT
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: COMPLETION: 4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $__________________
BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT $__________________________________ 5. BUDGET CODE: _______________
COST CENTER_________________ COST ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP___ _______PHASE___
6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME/DEPARTMENT_________________________________________ 7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES
MUST INCLUDE:
WORK TO BE PERFORMED
SCHEDULE OF WORK
BASIS FOR PAYMENT & FEE SCHEDULE
DELIVERABLES
REIMBURSABLES (with “not to exceed” cost) 8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Scope of Services B: __________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hereby authorize the performance of I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance
the work described above in this Task Order. of this Task Order and warrant that I have
authority to sign on behalf of Consultant.
APPROVED: APPROVED: CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY INNOVATION: ______________________
BY:__________________________________ BY:____________________________________ Name ________________________________ Name __________________________________
Title_________________________________ Title___________________________________ Date _________________________________ Date ___________________________________
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or
decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY
so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt
of the notice to proceed.
Milestones Completion
No. of Days/Weeks
From NTP
1. Program and Systems Assessment On Call
2. Systems Engineering On Call
3. Network Administration On Call 4. Radio Installation, Maintenance, Programming On Call 5. Vehicle Installations On Call
6. EOC Deployments / General Staff Support On Call
7. Consulting Support On Call
8. Documentation and Training On Call
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule
attached as Exhibit C-1.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $250,000.
CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this
amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total
exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the
CITY.
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for
which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are:
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel
and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $500 shall be approved in advance by
the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written
authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request,
shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services,
schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including
reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The
additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and
agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to
commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements
and restrictions in this Agreement.
Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011
EXHIBIT “C-1”
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
Program and Systems Assessment $250/hour
Systems Engineering $250/hour
All Network Administration $128/hour
Radio Installation, Maintenance, Programming – Basic $85/hour
Vehicle Installations $85/hour
EOC Deployment / General Staff Support $128/hour
Consultation services $250/hour
Documentation and training work $250/hour
Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011
Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011
EXHIBIT “D”
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES
WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES
YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY
YES
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED.
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY
DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE,
SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL
INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS”
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL
NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF
THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER
THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT
OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6023)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/24/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Policy & Services Committee Recommendation regarding Air
Traffic and Adoption of a Resolution
Title: Policy & Services Committee and Staff Recommendation that the City
Council Authorize a Request for Proposals for; a Technical Study of Increased
Air Traffic Noise, to Designate a Council Member to act as a Liaison to Engage
in Regional Mitigation and Advocacy Efforts, Adopt a Resolution Urging the
Federal Aviation Administration to Address Increased Aircraft Noise in Palo
Alto, and Direct Staff to Engage in Additional Outreach, Coordination and
Advocacy Activities Regarding Aircraft Noise
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
The Policy and Services Committee recommends that the City Council approve the following
motions:
1. Direct staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Technical Study, including data
analysis of aircraft noise over Palo Alto and recommendations for alternatives to reduce
noise, and return to Council with the results of the RFP by no later than December 2015.
2. Direct staff to utilize the different tri-cities meetings as a vehicle to engage and measure
the interest of surrounding cities in the flight path/noise issue and to reach out to
several adjacent cities as a complement.
3. Elevate aircraft noise as a City priority and request advocacy at various appropriate
levels.
4. Authorize the Mayor to appoint a Council Member representative as liaison to the Sky
Posse (local advocacy group) and as a non-voting representative to the Airport Round
Table or its subcommittees and other regional bodies as needed.
5. Direct the City Manager to continue to work with residents.
In addition, Staff recommends that the City Council:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1. Adopt the attached Resolution to urging the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to
address increased aircraft noise in Palo Alto.
2. Direct the City Attorney to meet with residents to review state and federal statutes and
regulations, and provide information on pending legal proceedings relating to aircraft
noise in other regions.
Background
On February 10, 2015 the Policy & Services Committee discussed the topic of air traffic impacts
on citizens of Palo Alto. The staff report discussed in detail the background of this issue and
presented the Committee with a previous staff report associated with this matter. The February
report also contained a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from the City as well
as a letter to the San Francisco Airport Roundtable. It also included correspondence to the City
Council from a local advocacy group, Sky Posse. At the Committee meeting, a discussed detail
of the issue with the Sky Posse. The results were the recommendations listed above.
Since the February 10, 2015 meeting, staff has been working closely with Sky Posse, County of
Santa Clara Supervisor Joe Simitian’s Office, and United States House of Representative Anna
Eshoo’s Office. Specifically, Sky Posse representatives and staff created the attached scope of
services for a RFP. Staff intends to issue the RFP after Council approval and return to Council by
December 2015. The Policy & Services Committee recommended that Council approve $30,000
for the technical study. Staff does not believe that the Council needs to approve funding for the
study at this time. When staff returns to Council in December with the results of the RFP, staff
will recommend an amount and source of funds for the study.
Staff has also been working closely with Supervisor Simitian’s Office. The work has led to the
attached resolution. Adopting this resolution will assist with regional and national advocacy
efforts. The County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors will review a similar resolution in
August. Staff believes that Council’s approval of the resolution will help Anna Eshoo in her
efforts to work with the FAA.
On July 24, 2015, Congresswoman Eshoo convened a meeting with FAA Administrators to
ensure that the FAA heard directly from residents and their elected representatives. The
meeting was successful in that the FAA acknowledged an increase in complaints and committed
to continue to gather input from the region. They also agreed to return to the region for
additional meetings and encouraged elected officials to continue to work with San Francisco
Airport and the Roundtable. In addition to the meeting, Congresswoman Eshoo has sent FAA
Administrator several letters in her role as member of the Quiet Sky Caucus.
Discussion
Staff is appreciative of the efforts by the Congresswoman Eshoo, Supervisor Simitian, their staff
and the Sky Posse. Staff continues to recommend a steady approach of being responsive to our
residents’ concerns while working with our neighboring cities, the Association of Bay Area
Governments, San Francisco International Airport, the SFO Airport/Community Roundtable,
City of Palo Alto Page 3
County of Santa Clara and the United States Congress. Staff does want to caution the
community that cities have a limited role in the area of airspace and that this resource is
governed by the federal government.
The proposed scope of services described in the RFP is largely focused on quantifying the
change in air traffic patterns that has occurred over Palo Alto over the past few years, and
specifically the dramatic increase in concentrated, low-altitude flights and associated noise
levels. Recognizing that this issue may fall outside the FAA’s conventional metrics for
determining adverse impacts, the scope of services should retain the flexibility to accommodate
alternative approaches. Staff believes that by the time the results of the RFP return to Council,
there will be further developments from the FAA’s input gathering phase.
Additionally, with Council’s appointment of a liaison to Sky Posse on this matter, greater
alignment and consensus building on next steps is possible. This includes engagement with
other communities throughout the Bay Area, which will be supported by the Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors.
Resource Impact
Staff will return to Council with the results of the RFP which could require a Budget Amendent
Ordinance for contract services. Staff time is another resources impact and reallocation or a
request for additional staff resources could come before the Council as part of the FY16 mid-
year budget or as part of the FY17 budget. Staff will have further information about this
element when the results of the RFP return to Council.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Reso Urging FAA to address increased aircraft noise v2 (PDF)
Attachment B - Scope of Work for RFP (DOCX)
Attachment C - April 10, 2015 Eshoo Letter to FAA Administrator (PDF)
Attachment D - April 15, 2015 Eshoo and Farr Letter to FAA (PDF)
Attachment E - June 15, 2015 Quiet Skies Caucus Letter (PDF)
Attachment F - February 10, 2015 P&S Staff Report (PDF)
Attachment G - February 10, 2015 P&S Final Minutes (PDF)
Attachment H - ABAG Regional Airport Committee Roster (PDF)
Attachment I - Public Letters to Council (PDF)
***NOT YET ADOPTED***
RESOLUTION NO. ________
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Urging the Federal Aviation Administration to
Address Increased Aircraft Noise in Palo Alto, CA
1. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is implementing a transition to
the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) to standardize arrival and
departure routes through the use of GPS-based technologies in 21 identified
metroplexes, which are regions with multiple airports serving major metropolitan areas.
2. The Northern California Metroplex includes four commercial airports, San
Francisco International Airport (SFO), Oakland International Airport (OAK), Mineta San
Jose International Airport (SJC) and Sacramento International Airport (SMF).
3. As part of the transition to NextGen, the FAA recently changed the flight
paths followed by commercial aircraft flying into and out of SFO, OAK, and SJC, as well
as other airports in the Northern California Metroplex under a project the FAA calls the
Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (NorCal
OAPM).
4. According to the FAA, the NorCal OAPM consists of new procedures and
technologies to establish more direct flight routes intended to significantly improve
safety, efficiency, and reduce fuel burn and carbon emissions.
5. On July 31, 2014, the FAA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact that
NorCal OAPM would not have any significant noise impact on communities and
surrounding areas based on inadequate sound metrics which do not reflect disturbance
on the ground.
6. The noise generated by flights in the Northern California Metroplex is
primarily impacting Santa Clara County residents of Los Gatos, Palo Alto and the
Summit/Skyline area, and to a lesser degree the residents of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Mountain View, and Saratoga. The considerable increase in the number of flights
overhead each day and the lower flight altitudes result in a significant increase in the
amount of aircraft noise experienced on the ground.
1
***NOT YET ADOPTED***
7. As evidenced by the increasing number of complaints received by the City
of Palo Alto City Council and staff, the new routes have created noise impacts that
appear to be far more adverse than those of the former routes for our residents.
8. The number of noise complaints submitted to the SFO Noise Abatement
Office from Palo Alto residents has increased significantly in the last year, as shown in
this table:
May 2014 May 2015 June 2014 June 2015
Complaints 45 1397 60 2733
Complainants 3 318 11 150
The number of complaints from Los Gatos and Summit/Skyline increased from
zero in January/February 2015 to 3553 complaints, from 89 callers, in June 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE the Council of the City of Palo Alto does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1:
A. The City Council requests the FAA immediately mitigate the increased aircraft
noise at ground level in Palo Alto caused by the NorCal OAPM project by identifying all
short- and long-term solutions and the expected timetable for their implementation.
B. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto requests the FAA, as part of the
above analysis of aircraft noise mitigation measures, raise immediately the altitude of all
flight paths over our city, reduce the number of night time flights into SFO, and, as part
of the longer-term solutions, redesign the flight paths within the Northern California
Metroplex so that the noise burden is borne equitably by all communities that benefit
from air travel, and reconfigure the final approach paths so that descent over the bay is
maximized.
C. The City requests that the FAA urge Congress to amend the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act to eliminate the availability of a categorical exclusion
and bar the presumption of no significant affect on the quality of the human
environment that currently apply to navigation performance and area navigation
procedures.
D. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto requests that the Congress of the
United States implement statutory changes to the FAA that require more robust
2
***NOT YET ADOPTED***
community engagement before flight paths are changed, more accurate measures of
noise experienced on the ground, and independent research on the impacts of aviation
noise on health and learning.
E. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto requests that the FAA continue to
meet with community representatives and impacted residents from Palo Alto to discuss
further and address these matters.
SECTION 2: The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet
the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality
Act and, therefore, no environmental review is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
____________________ _____________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ _____________________
City Attorney CITY MANAGER
3
DRAFT - SCOPE OF WORK
SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
The purpose of the work solicited under this Request for Proposal (RFP) is
to assess the history of air traffic patterns over the Northern California
(NorCal) Metroplex so as to identify the evolution of the traffic volume,
altitudes, and speeds that have occurred and to determine the above as a
function of location within the San Francisco Bay Area. Additionally to
model the noise impacts of this traffic and how that noise has evolved
and analyze the official published route structures and flight procedures
over time and identify all changes that have occurred in these routes and
significant procedure changes since 1990.
Consultant shall also identify potential alternate flight routes and/or
operational procedures that would reduce noise impacts and/or more
equitably distribute noise, and to assess impact of these measures on fuel
cost, efficiency, and safety. Consultant shall be required to have an
understanding of existing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airways
and Standard Arrival Route (STAR) and Standard Instrument Departure
Route (SID) to the various airports in the NorCal Metroplex. Finally, to
evaluate, recommend and install aviation noise monitoring systems for
Palo Alto.
Services are required to analyze a database of National Offload Program
(NOP) data, and to prepare reports and graphical outputs that allow an
understanding of this traffic history in a form that can be easily
communicated to government officials and the public.
Proposed deliverables are intended to illuminate the kind of data analysis
desired. The consultant/contractor is encouraged to propose other
methods of data display that have similar content and intent.
General
Contractor will provide analysis services utilizing a database supplied by
the City of Palo Alto (or contractor’s own equivalent databases). The NOP
data currently available was obtained from the FAA via a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request. It consists of flight data from September
DRAFT - SCOPE OF WORK
SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
2003 through December 2014. Contractor shall obtain updates to the data
as they become available so as to include data through at least June 2015.
The NOP raw data will be supplied on a USB hard drive or equivalent
media as required.
It is assumed that the contractor has and is familiar with the use of
software appropriate for both the data analysis and noise modeling and
has appropriate computer hardware to efficiently perform the analysis
and generate appropriate outputs.
Data outputs shall be in standard forms such as Microsoft Excel, Word and
PowerPoint and Adobe PDF formats. Other output formats may be
proposed as deemed applicable by the contractor.
The underlying tabular data for any graphical outputs shall also be
supplied as a deliverable.
Analyzing this database and any other similar databases in the
consultant’s possession and generating the outputs defined as
deliverables constitute the primary responsibility of the Contractor.
Definitions
The Contractor shall propose a list of Regions and Cities for analysis. At a
minimum they should include Palo Alto and nearby cities between San
Francisco and San Jose, and relevant areas with NorCal Metroplex traffic.
For the purposes of this RFP, the following definitions shall be used:
“Bay Area” is defined as the volume within the selected area of the NorCal
Metroplex and altitudes up to 10,000 feet.
“Cell” is defined as one of the many rectangular volumes 0.5 x 0.5 miles
(and height of 10,000 feet) on a regular grid across the “Bay Area”. Cells
over the Pacific Ocean or other unpopulated areas may perhaps be ignored,
DRAFT - SCOPE OF WORK
SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
subject to approval of the City, and assuming this would allow for
significant savings.
“City” refers to the set of Cells for which any portion lies within the City’s
city limits. Alternative definitions using circles of a defined radius may also
be considered.
Contractor may be asked to define other Reference Regions. For this
proposal, “City” shall be interpreted as any defined region we want to
consider as an aggregate of cells.
The “altitude” of any flight within a Cell shall be defined as the minimum
altitude for that flight within the Cell. All altitudes are in feet above mean
sea level.
The airport associated with a particular flight shall be the destination
airport for arrivals and the origination airport for departures. For flights
between two Bay Area airports, the destination airport takes precedence.
“Night” is defined as 22:00:00 PM to 06:59:59 AM inclusive
“Evening” is defined as 19:00:00 PM to 21:59:59 PM inclusive
“Day” is defined as 07:00:00 AM to 18:59:59 PM inclusive
(These are consistent with the CNEL definitions.)
“Full Day” is defined as the 24 hour day.
“Hour” is defined as the 60 minute interval from (e.g.) 12:00:00 to 12:59:59
inclusive
“Month A” for a given year is defined as the 30 days of March 1 – March 30
inclusive.
“Month B” for a given year is defined as the 30 days of July 1 – July 30
inclusive.
DRAFT - SCOPE OF WORK
SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
“Month C” for a given year is defined as the 30 days of November 1 –
November 30 inclusive.
The Contractor may propose three different comparison months if deemed
advisable.
For comparisons of entire years, “Year” refers to one of the three years
2004/2005 (Year 1, baseline), 2010/2011 (Year 2), or the most recent 12
months of data (Year 3). Note, the NOP data density (time between data
points) is lower for 2004 and 2005. Interpolation may be necessary to
assure flights are not missed by the analysis and that year-to-year
comparisons are valid. Alternatively, 2006 might need to be used as the
Year 1 analysis. The months of the preceding years should be the same as
those obtained for the most recent year. For instance, if the most recent
year ends in June 2015, than the year 2004/2005, shall be from July 2004 to
June 2005, and the year 2010/2011 shall be from July 2010 to June 2011.
(This is for purpose of achieving an accurate comparison of the three Years.
We may also ask for other particular periods, which may be of significance,
depending on changes in routes or procedures.)
“Respite Minutes” are defined as minutes in which modeled noise from
flights is below 45 dBA.
A “Respite interval” is defined as the duration of uninterrupted Respite
Minutes between two noise events.
Tasks:
1. Generation of ‘mock’ data output for review/approval
Contractor shall generate sample ‘mock’ outputs of data deliverables so
that all parties understand what the deliverables will look like and that
they are acceptable.
The list of Cities/Regions shall be approved before proceeding.
DRAFT - SCOPE OF WORK
SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
2. Flight data by Cell
a. Tabular Data for each Cell by hour
i. Analyze the data for Years 1-3 and Months A-C.
ii. Determine data for the flights in each Cell by hour.
iii. Prepare summary tabular or database file(s) containing the
following fields for data by hour:
iv. Cell X position (e.g. longitude)
v. Cell Y position (e.g. latitude)
vi. City for the Cell (N/A if not in a City, “Bay” if over the Bay).
vii. Year
viii. Month (A, B or C)
ix. Hour (01 – 24)
x. Day/Night/Evening Designation
xi. Number of Flights (all airports)
xii. Number of SFO flights
xiii. Number of SJC flights
xiv. Number of OAK flights
xv. For all airports combined, and for each of the altitude
ranges below, the number of flights, and minimum,
maximum, average and standard deviation of speeds for
flights with altitudes:
1. between 0 and 999 ft inclusive
2. between 1000 and 1999 ft inclusive
3. between 2000 and 2999 ft inclusive
4. between 3000 and 3999 ft inclusive
5. between 4000 and 4999 ft inclusive
6. between 5000 and 5999 ft inclusive
7. between 6000 and 6999 ft inclusive
8. between 7000 and 7999 ft inclusive
9. between 8000 and 10000 ft inclusive
Note: this table would be very large. Contractor shall propose ways
to reduce the size of this data if needed.
b. Tabular Data for each Cell by Full Day
DRAFT - SCOPE OF WORK
SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
i. Prepare summary tabular or database file(s) containing the
following fields for data by Full Day:
ii. Cell X position (e.g. longitude)
iii. Cell Y position (e.g. latitude)
iv. City for the Cell (N/A if not in a City, “Bay” if over the Bay).
1. Year
v. Month (A, B or C)
vi. Day (1-30)
vii. Number of Flights (all airports)
viii. Number of SFO flights
ix. Number of SJC flights
x. Number of OAK flights
xi. For each airport (SFO, SJC, OAK, Other), and for each of the
altitude ranges below, number of flights, and minimum,
maximum, average and standard deviation of speeds for
flights with altitudes:
1. between 0 and 999 ft inclusive
2. between 1000 and 1999 ft inclusive
3. between 2000 and 2999 ft inclusive
4. between 3000 and 3999 ft inclusive
5. between 4000 and 4999 ft inclusive
6. between 5000 and 5999 ft inclusive
7. between 6000 and 6999 ft inclusive
8. between 7000 and 7999 ft inclusive
9. between 8000 and 10000 ft inclusive
c. Graphical display of Cell flight data by month and year
i. Prepare Cell maps of the Bay Area with color coding for
intensity levels (at least five levels) showing number of
flights for each Month (A-C) and Year (9 charts). Use same
color coding scale for all 9 charts.
ii. Similar Cell maps for ‘Day’, ‘Evening’ and ‘Night’ flights
individually.
iii. Similar Cell maps for number of flights in each of the
altitude ranges specified in Task 2A.
DRAFT - SCOPE OF WORK
SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
d. Graphical display of changes in flight characteristics by Cell
i. Prepare Cell maps of the Bay Area with color coding for
intensity levels (at least five levels) showing % growth in
number of flights between Years 1, 2 and 3. Alternatively, if
substantial savings can be achieved, the comparison chart
should only be for each of the three Months defined above.
ii. Similar Cell maps for % change in number of flights in each
of the altitude ranges specified in Task 2A.
e. Aggregate Data by City
i. For this task, only flights below 8000 feet shall be included
in the analysis.
ii. For each City, aggregate the Cell data for the City and
prepare graphics to illustrate the following vs. time.
iii. Number of departures and arrivals associated with each
airport.
iv. Total number of departures and arrivals.
v. % growth of total number of flights (with respect to same
month of 2004 baseline).
vi. Growth above/below aggregate growth for all of Bay Area
(% disproportionate growth)
vii. The above two charts (v and vi) should compare various
sets of cities.
viii. Altitude distributions (histograms) for each month and year
ix. Hour of Day distributions (histograms) for each month and
year
x. Average speed distributions (histograms) for each month
and year
xi. For months A-C and years 2 and 3:
1. Change in altitude distribution vs. 2004 baseline
month (histogram)
xii. The following should be broken down by airport (SFO, SJC,
OAK and ‘other’):
1. Change in mean and standard deviation of altitude
(vs. 2004 baseline month)
DRAFT - SCOPE OF WORK
SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
3. Noise Modeling
For Task 3, only flights below 8000 feet shall be included in the analysis.
Consultant shall model ground level noise effects of aircraft using the
Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) or equivalent system to provide
information about noise exposure to populations on the ground. Results
based on DNL, SEL and max noise levels should be compared.
a. Tabular data for each Cell by hour
i. Analyze the data for Years 1-3 and Months A-C.
ii. Model noise data for each Cell by hour.
iii. Prepare summary tabular or database file(s) containing the
following fields in each line for data by hour:
1. Cell X position (e.g. longitude)
2. Cell Y position (e.g. latitude)
3. City for the Cell (N/A if not in a City, “Bay” if over the
Bay).
4. Year
5. Month (A, B or C)
6. Hour (01 – 24)
7. Day/Evening/Night Designation
8. DNL contribution (i.e. sum of this value over 24 hours
will be the DNL for that City/Cell)
9. Number of events with sound exposure level < 45
dBA
10. Number of events with sound exposure level
between 45 and 49 dBA
11. Number of events with sound exposure level
between 50 and 54 dBA
12. Number of events with sound exposure level
between 55 and 59 dBA
13. Number of events with sound exposure level
between 60 and 64 dBA
14. Number of events with sound exposure level
between 65 and 69 dBA
DRAFT - SCOPE OF WORK
SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
15. Number of events with sound exposure level
between 70 and 74 dBA
16. Number of events with sound exposure level > 75
dBA
17. Number of Respite minutes
b. Tabular Data for each Cell by Full Day
i. Prepare summary tabular or database file(s) containing the
following fields in each line for data by full day:
1. Cell X position (e.g. longitude)
2. Cell Y position (e.g. latitude)
3. City for the Cell (N/A if not in a City, “Bay” if over the
Bay).
4. Year
5. Month (A, B or C)
6. Day (1-30)
7. DNL value
8. Number of events with sound exposure level< 45 dBA
9. Number of events with sound exposure level
between 45 and 49 dBA
10. Number of events with sound exposure level
between 50 and 54 dBA
11. Number of events with sound exposure level
between 55 and 59 dBA
12. Number of events with sound exposure level
between 60 and 64 dBA
13. Number of events with sound exposure level
between 65 and 69 dBA
14. Number of events with sound exposure level
between 70 and 74 dBA
15. Number of events with sound exposure level> 75 dBA
16. Number of Respite minutes
17. Average and standard deviation of respite intervals
for ‘Day’ hours
18. Average and standard deviation of respite intervals
for ‘Evening’ hours
DRAFT - SCOPE OF WORK
SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
19. Average and standard deviation of respite intervals
for ‘Night’ hours
c. Graphical display of Cell noise data by month and year
i. For the following graphical reports, two noise metrics will
be used:
1. The DNL standard
2. The number of events with SEL exceeding 45 dBA at
ground level.
ii. Prepare Cell maps of the Bay Area with color coding for
noise metric levels (at least five levels) showing:
1. DNL level for each Month (A-C) and Year (9
charts). Use same color coding scale for all 9 charts.
(Alternatively, DNL contour maps could be used for
this data.)
2. Number of events exceeding SEL of 45 dBA
3. For (2), similar Cell map for ‘Day’, ‘Evening’, and
‘Night’ flights individually.
4. For years 2 and 3 and months A-C:
5. “Change” Cell maps showing increase/decrease of
DNL level vs. 2004 baseline month
6. “Change” Cell maps showing increase/decrease of
“Number of events with SEL exceeding 45 dBA” vs.
2004 baseline month
d. Graphical display of noise data by City
i. For each City, analyze the Cell data for the City by
month/year and prepare graphics to illustrate the following
vs. time, separated by ‘Day’, ‘Evening’, and
‘Night’. Compare several adjacent cities on each of these
graphics.
ii. Average and standard deviation (across Cells of the City) of
DNL levels
iii. Average and standard deviation of “Number of events with
SEL exceeding 45 dBA”
iv. Total “Number of events with SEL exceeding 45 dBA”
DRAFT - SCOPE OF WORK
SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
v. Average and standard deviation of Respite intervals
vi. Average and standard deviation of the number of Respite
Minutes
vii. For each month/year:
1. Histogram of #Cells at various DNL levels
2. Histogram of #Cells at various “Number of events
exceeding 45 dBA”
3. Histogram of Respite Intervals
4. Histogram of Respite Minutes
viii. For years 2 and 3 and months A-C:
1. Change in DNL level vs. same month of 2004
baseline.
2. % Change in “Number of events with SEL exceeding
45 dBA” vs. same month of 2004 baseline.
3. Change in average number of Respite minutes
4. Change in average Respite Interval
e. Population Impacts
i. Obtain population density information for the Bay
Area. For each Cell and month/year, compute overall
impact in two ways:
1. Impact 1 as “Population” x DNL level
2. Impact 2 as “Population” x “Number of minutes
exposed to noise > 45 dBA”
ii. For each impact, sum individual Cell data to aggregate
impact over the following geographical regions:
1. Prepare chart of total impact for each case vs. time
for Bay Area
2. Prepare chart of total impact for each case vs. time
for each City.
4. Airline Route Analysis
a. Published Route and Procedures Review
i. Review published routes, procedures, and related
documentation, identifying operational changes at SFO, SJC,
DRAFT - SCOPE OF WORK
SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
and OAK with relevant impact on route usage and traffic
levels over Palo Alto, since 1990.
b. Route usage analysis
i. This task applies only to flights into/out of SFO, OAK and
SJC.
1. For Years 1-3 and months A-C, analyze each flight
and:
a. Assign it to a published route.
b. Determine average distance from ideal route,
excluding final descent from 1000 feet
c. Determine length of any path extensions due
to vectoring/deviation (excess path length over
published route)
d. Assign a descent type (dive and drive vs.
continuous descent)
e. Assign it to its airline
2. For each route, aggregate flights for each
Month/Year and prepare graphics to illustrate the
following vs. time and broken down by
Night/Day/Evening/Total
a. % of total flights utilizing each route
b. Time-averaged distance from ideal route
c. Average length of deviations by route
5. Assessing Alternatives
Identify ‘lesser used’ airspace and/or routes and operational procedures
to eliminate low-altitude flights over Palo Alto and neighboring
communities; to have fewer and less frequent flights below 8,000 feet
overland, and these with a more equitable distribution. Seeking to
eliminate nighttime flights over residences, IFR procedures crossing
Menlo IAF and San Jose flights transiting below SFO traffic at 2000 feet.
Among specific alternatives, a solution that steers flights at an altitude of
about 10,000 feet at the South of the Bay should be evaluated.
DRAFT - SCOPE OF WORK
SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
Estimate the per-flight fuel cost associated with these alternate flight
paths and procedures.
Estimate the per-flight fuel cost associated with modified paths that keep
traffic higher over populations and over the Bay for final approach.
6. Evaluate, recommend and install aviation noise monitoring systems for
Palo Alto.
@ungrexx st tfir ltnitrh Ststex
ffiax\iugturr, BCI at1515
.Iuly 15,2015
The Honorable Bill Shuster
U.S, House of Representatives
2268 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Peter DeFazio
U.S. House of Representatives
2134 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio:
We write as members of the Quiet Skies Caucus, an organization in Congress dedicated to
reducing the impact of aircraft noise on the communities we represent. Every day, millions of
Americans are forced to contend with acute levels of noise from passing aircraft-noise that
disrupts their homes and businesses, negatively affects their health, and reduces their overall
quality of life. We believe the 2015 Federal Aviation Administration Reauthortzatron Act offers
a unique opportunity to address this serious issue and respectfully request that you consider the
following recommendations as you prepare the legislation for introduction:
1. Mandate a robust community engagement process, including pre-decisional public
hearings, for any new flight paths or procedures or changes to existing flight paths
and procedures - Along with improved capacity and fuel savings, the impact of aviation
noise on affected communities should be considered when FAA assesses the overall
benefits of proposed flight path changes. Meaningful, two-way communication with our
communities is vital to ensuring that the concerns of residents are heard and incorporated
into the final design of new airspace. i
2. Require FAA to use supplemental metrics when considering the impact of aviation
noise on affected communities and lower the acceptable DNL threshold from 65 to
55 DNL * FAA's current metric for quantifying aviation noise exposure, Day-Night
Average Sound Level (DNL), reflects mean noise levels and does not adequately capture
the complete effects of noise on affected residents. When considering flight path changes,
FAA should take into account other variables, including the concentration of extended
noise, the frequency of flights, air traffic from 10PM to 7AM and impacts of low-
frequency noise. In addition, FAA should lower the current threshold from 65 to 55 DNL
to reflect the fact that this standard, first established in the 1970's, is arbitrary and does
not align with current health research and the lived experience of families in our
congressional districts.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Clarify that airport operators are legally allowed to implement-and should
strongly consider-mitigation options in communities experiencing aircraft noise
levels of less than 65 DNL - Though FAA is no longer legally barred from doing so, the
agency has resisted funding the mitigation of homes and businesses experiencing aircraft
noise levels below a 65 DNL threshold. For the reasons described above, this metric may
not adequately capture the impact of noise on the lives of affected residents and FAA
should strongly consider allowing airport operators to mitigate residences experiencing
less than 65 DNL where other metrics dictate that such measures are warranted.
Reform Section 213(c)(2) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act af 2012 -This
provision provides a categorical exclusion from adequate environmental reviews for
flight path changes implemented through the NextGen process. It was written in an
overly broad way and should be revisited by your Committee. Environmental reviews
were instituted by Congress to protect Americans from actions that could be detrimental
to their lives, and we believe bypassing such reviews in order to expedite the process will
be materially harmful and could set a dangerous precedent. More broadly, we hope that
the Committee will encourage FAA and its industry partners to continue working to
implement new systems in a manner that takes into account not just safety and efficiency,
but noise as well.
5. Mandate independent research on the health impacts of aviation noise - Few federal
studies have been conducted to measure the health outcomes and consequences of
prolonged exposure to high levels of aviation noise. Better research will help to inform
and improve FAA policies on this important issue.
Thank you for considering these recommendations. We look forward to working with you as
you develop the 2015 FAA Reauthorizationto ensure that this legislation addresses the harmful
impacts of aircraft noise on our communities.
r
Sincerely,
f%,U
Mike Quigley
Member of Congress
4.
Ruben Gallego
Member of Congress
teve Israel
Member of Congress
I
b/^/ 3,4/+
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Member of Congress
Katheiine Clark Crowley
Member of Congress ber of Congress
Tammy Member of Congress
Eshoo
Member of Congress
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Member of Congress \'lember ol Cungrcss
Zh,l<
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5517)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Agenda Items Meeting Date: 2/10/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Discussion about Air Traffic Over Palo Alto Skies
Title: Discussion and Direction to City Manager Regarding Air Traffic Noise
Impacts on Palo Alto Citizens
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee recommend to the City Council to
direct the City Manager to continue to work with residents, to utilize the City’s federal
legislative consultants, and to work with neighboring cities, counties and other governmental
organizations on a regional approach in advocacy to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Background
On October 6, 2014, City Council referred the topic airplane noise to the Policy & Services
Committee for discussion. This was due to the October 1, 2014 decision of the San Francisco
International Airport Community Roundtable (Roundtable) to only allow the City to participate
as a nonvoting member. Prior to this decision, on April 29, 2014, staff presented City Council
with a report about the FAA Draft Environmental Assessment (EA). The report included letters
from Congresswoman Eshoo, former Mayor Shepherd and City Manager Keene where they
requested a 60 day extension for comment period on the EA.
At April 29, 2014 meeting, City Council decided to contact the FAA and Roundtable. Therefore,
on May 2, 2014, the City issued a letter to the FAA presenting a list of comments and concerns.
Additionally, Council sought to join the Roundtable and on May 29, 2014 the City submitted this
request to the Roundtable Chair. On June 5, 2014 concerned residents met with City Manager
Keene to further discuss the noise problem, to discuss the EA, to inform staff about political
initiatives to abate noise and to propose immediate actions to reduce noise. Over the next
several months, staff began working with residents on their questions and requests. In July
2014, the FAA issued the “Finding No Significant Impact and Record of Decision,” which can also
be found at the link above. This decision was not favorable to the City, therefore, staff
continued to meet with residents.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The City pursued membership on joining the Roundtable. However, on October 1, 2014 the City
was notified that it could only participate as a nonvoting member. On October 24, 2014 the
Palo Alto Weekly published two articles titled, “Unfriendly skies: Residents, city officials gear up
to fight increased airplane noise” and “Making a noise: Government officials attempt to
influence aircraft regulations.” These articles provide a perspective into the history and sense of
the community’s actions. They reference key documents such as the Anna Eshoo letter from
2000, the Grand Jury Report about the Roundtable, and the September 12, 2014 letter from 26
Congress members to FAA Administrator. On December 10, 2014, the resident group referred
to as Sky Posse Palo Alto, sent City Council a letter. In response to the Roundtable decision and
in preparation for the Policy and Services Committee, staff from the City Manager’s Office met
with Sky Posse representatives on several occasions. Attached is the presentation prepared by
Sky Posse for the committee.
Discussion
Staff recommends a steady approach of continuing to work on behalf of our residents in
regional and federal advocacy regarding airplane noise. Staff is aware that cities have a limited
role in the area of airspace and that this resource is administered by the federal government.
Staff believes that utilizing our federal legislative consultants to work with the federal agencies,
elected officials and the newly created Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus would be an
appropriate use of City resources. Additionally, joining neighboring cities to discuss regional
approaches would also assist with advancing Sky Posse’s goals. This action can take many forms
such as meeting with San Mateo County cities, continuing to attend the Roundtable as a non-
voting member, and/or working with our neighbors in Santa Clara County to create a new
Roundtable. Additionally, the City can encourage the Association of Bay Area Government’s
Regional Airport Planning Committee (RAPC) to convene and participate in the meetings.
Finally, Sky Posse has suggested the hiring of a consultant. Staff is uncertain about the cost and
benefits of this proposal.
Staff believes that the proposed recommendation will continue to advance our citizen’s goals.
Through the actions mentioned above and proposed actions, staff has acknowledged the
airplane noise problem, prioritized it and is willing to continue to assist our citizens with
advocacy at the regional and national level.
Resource Impact
Staff time and possible contract dollars are impacts to the General Fund.
Attachments:
-: 4-29-14 Staff Report (PDF)
-: 4-29-14 City Council Meeting Minutes (PDF)
-: 5-2-14 Mayor's Letter to FAA (PDF)
-: 5-29-14 Mayor's Letter to Roundtable (PDF)
-: 10-24-14 PA Weekly Article (PDF)
-: 5-12-2000 Anna Eshoo Letter (PDF)
-: San Mateo Grand Jury Report (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
-: 9-12-14 Congressional letter for FAA reform (PDF)
-: 12-10-14 - Letter from SkyPosse to City Council (PDF)
-: Sky Posse Palo Alto Presentation (PDF)
Policy and Services Committee
MINUTES
Page 1
Policy & Services Committee
Minutes 02/10/2015
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Chairperson Burt called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Berman, Burt (Chair) DuBois, Wolbach
Absent:
Oral Communications
None.
Agenda Items
1. Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2014.
Harriet Richardson, City Auditor, presented the quarterly report for the
second quarter of Fiscal Year 2015. There were three audits close to
completion; the Franchise Fee Audit, the audit of Utility Meters Procurement
Inventory and Retirement, and the Parking Funds Audit. The Franchise Fee
Audit and the audit of Utility Meters Procurement Inventory and Retirement
have been sent out for initial review where edits and updates were accepted.
Once the information was returned they would be sent out for final review
and comments. Staff was anticipating returning to the Policy & Services
Committee (Committee) with those audits by March, April at the latest. The
Parking Funds Audit was reviewing the parking in lieu fees for University
Avenue, California Avenue and residential parking permit funds. The Parking
Funds Audit, as of December 2014 was 75 percent complete. Staff was
anticipating an April return date for Committee review. Staff was considering
issuing two reports for the Franchise Fee Audit because the work was split
into two areas. Staff performed some of the audit and an outside consultant
performed other areas of the audit. Staff released the results of the National
Citizens Survey on January 26, 2015. The results would be presented to
Council with the Annual Performance Report. In 2014, Staff was requested
to streamline the annual reporting process for the Services Efforts and
Accomplishments Report (SEA).
MINUTES
Page 2
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
One change will be moving the data tables to the end of the entire report by
department. There would be themes throughout the report to provide more
of a Citywide picture on performance such as stewardship and community
services, financial, environment and sustainability. The three themes would
be community, stewardship and public service. The Sales and Use Tax
allocation reviews were performed by Staff and an outside consultant. By the
end of the second quarter the City had received $3,000 in refunded
misallocated Sales and Use Tax revenues. The consultant prepared quarterly
reports on sales tax updates which provided an economic view of the
happenings of the City. The Auditor’s Office administered the Fraud, Waste
and Abuse Hotline. There was little activity in recent months and no
complaints were logged during the last quarter.
Council Member DuBois confirmed the National Citizens Survey would not be
released to Council until May 2015.
Ms. Richardson stated that was correct. The results were published although
generally there was a Study Session regarding the results and the annual
report because they were both based on performance types of issues.
Council Member DuBois asked when the data was collected.
Ms. Richardson stated with the National Citizens Survey, the data was
collected during the fall. The National Research Center conducted the survey
for the City; they compiled the data and produced the report.
Council Member DuBois asked if Staff was going to alter the report with
customized fields for the 2014 report.
Ms. Richardson stated no, the National Research Center completed the
report. Staff compiled a summary of the information because the full report
was lengthy. The summary was pulling the relevant issues to the forefront in
an executive summary.
Council Member DuBois was under the impression Council had asked for
more data so they could decipher it themselves.
Ms. Richardson explained Staff had the raw data and using a new software
program; Tableau, they were able to interact with the data.
Council Member Berman asked about the external quality control review
(Peer Review). He recalled the City had fallen behind on it, although best
practices it should occur every few years.
MINUTES
Page 3
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
He believed upon Ms. Richardson’s employment it was a focus of hers. He
asked for information on how and if the Peer Review was helpful to Staff.
Ms. Richardson stated the Auditor’s Office had passed the Peer Review. She
wanted to express the City had not fallen behind on having the Peer Review
performed, but had fallen behind on the reciprocity requirement and
updating the office policy and procedures. Staff performed two Peer Reviews
in 2014 which caught the City up to date on their requirements.
Council Member Berman asked if it was helpful to have outside auditors’
review the department.
Ms. Richardson stated the Peer Reviews were conducted through the
Association of Local Government of Auditors. They have training programs
for auditor’s in various jurisdictions throughout the country and those
auditors were assigned different areas to complete a Peer Review. Since it
was a reciprocal process Palo Alto did not pay for the service but they did
cover the travel costs. The benefit to Staff was receiving different ways in
which to complete processes for more efficiency.
Chair Burt asked if the end dates scheduled were current.
Ms. Richardson stated the Franchise Fee Audit may move out 30 days. She
was working with the City Attorney’s Office for clarification. She clarified
once completed it would only be part one of the two reports. She was
confident the Utility Meter Audit would remain in March. The Parking Fund
Audit remained good for April.
MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member
DuBois that the Policy & Services Committee recommend the City Council
accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2014.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
2. Discussion and Direction to City Manager Regarding Air Traffic Noise
Impacts on Palo Alto Citizens.
Khashayar Alaee, Senior Management Analyst, stated on October 6, 2014
Council referred the topic of air traffic noise impacts to the Policy & Services
Committee (Committee). Staff had been working with citizens to conduct a
joint presentation.
Staff recommended the Committee refer the topic to the City Council to
direct the City Manager to continue to work with residents, to utilize the
MINUTES
Page 4
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
City’s federal legislative consultants and to work with neighboring cities,
counties and other governmental organizations on a regional approach in
advocacy to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Jim Harriot, Sky Posse, asked the Committee to take up the issue and
consider funding a study at a cost of approximately $30,000 which would be
shared amongst other communities. He felt the matter was one of urgency.
The FAA needed a clear and unified voice. The aircraft noise was affecting
the health, livability, sleep and productivity of the community. There was a
way to repair the issue. The work the FAA and government agencies do
would be better performed if there was a unified, clear voice from the
community. When planes get congested they tend to remain overhead for
longer periods of time causing a louder and longer noise effect.
Lee Christel, Sky Posse, spoke to the data generated on traffic volume. He
shared the traffic volume data by year from 2001 to 2013, calculated in the
month of September. There was a total volume of growth of six percent;
although, a 350 percent increase over the past six years for Palo Alto alone.
In 2001 there was an agreement signed by Anna Eshoo and Gary Fazzino
that the flight pattern be above 5,000 feet. At present there were a fair
number of flights well below that threshold. On November 13, 2014 the
altitude data was collected in a four-hour window. The noise impact varied
by type of plane and altitude. He said, if 41 percent of the flights could fly
above 5,500 feet in altitude why could the remaining numbers not comply.
The San Francisco International (SFO) airport had a complaint system in
place and although it was used by a great number of citizens, as long as the
air traffic controllers were within the FAA regulations the complaints were
not validated. The goal would be for the air traffic control system, NexGen,
to disburse the flight patterns equitably. Congress created a Quiet Sky’s
Caucus of which Congresswoman Eshoo was a member.
Mr. Harriot stated there were professionals in the FAA realm who were
looking toward cities to express the standard of livability. The suggestion for
Palo Alto was to reroute the pattern over the Bay, thereby alleviating the
noise volume over citizenry. There were four lower flying aircraft patterns
that crossed over Palo Alto.
Mr. Christel showed a list of items that could be done by level; federal
advocacy, regional actions, and local action. The request at the federal level
was to reassess the environmental impacts and reinstitute higher flying
levels above Peninsula areas. They felt they did not receive fair and accurate
route change information and would be requesting transparency with future
changes. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had an Office of Noise
Abatement that had not been funded and they were requesting Palo Alto
MINUTES
Page 5
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
push for continued funding. On the regional level there could be outreach to
the air traffic controllers to determine the power the office held and what
were the possibilities of change. They suggested joining or creating a
regional commission to address the issues. They recommended hiring a
consultant to draft a re-route of the air traffic alternative and present it to
the FAA. On the local level they wished for it to be declared that airport
noise was a viable concern. The Quiet Sky’s Caucus was to have noise
monitors but none had been installed. As for the Palo Alto Airport itself, they
wanted to be certain the citizens were aware of the growth and that best
practices were used for noise abatement.
Mr. Harriot summarized the main issue was a large volume and a continued
increase in volume of low-level aircraft flying over Palo Alto. There needed to
be detailed information of the standard of livability and health brought to the
attention of the FAA so they understood what was occurring. He was
proposing the Committee take action to approve the funding for a study that
would include data and data analysis to understand what was currently
happening and what alternatives existed. They believed the study would be
in the range of $30,000 which would be shared by neighboring cities, but
that Palo Alto should be the lead agency.
Chair Burt asked Staff if it was their recommendation that the Committee
continue to hear from other members of the public.
Mr. Alaee stated yes.
Council Member DuBois asked if it was possible to move the Menlo Initial
Approach Fix (IAF) point.
Mr. Harriot stated the IAF was an imaginary point in the sky. A different way
point could be used.
Council Member DuBois clarified there was no actual beacon in the location.
Mr. Harriot stated that was correct. The positive note would be because of
that, it was possible to relocate the GPS point in the sky.
Council Member DuBois asked if Oakland Airport approaches were was
routed over Palo Alto.
Mr. Harriot stated it was rare; outside of the San Francisco Airport the San
Jose Airport impacted the City.
MINUTES
Page 6
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
Council Member DuBois asked what other cities had done to find and
accomplish a solution to similar problems.
Mr. Harriot acknowledged the John Wayne Airport resolved the noise issue
although he was unaware of the method they used. He noted the FAA was
accessible.
Council Member Berman asked whether the FAA had ever accepted an
outside flight plan from outside entities.
Stewart Carl, Sky Posse, clarified the FAA had accepted tailored arrivals or
approaches from airlines. The airlines frequently suggest routes which were
accepted by the FAA.
Mr. Harriot stated there were companies such as Navaris that designed
routes for airports.
James Keene, City Manager, asked if there was any evidence that could be
looked at in other jurisdictions who had presented data related to an
alternative flight path that had actually been accepted and implemented by
the FAA.
Council Member Berman agreed that knowledge would be appreciated.
Marc Landesman, Sky Posse, stated NexGen has unprecedented technology
which was creating radical changes all over the country. The FAA had
specifically responded to the Phoenix Airport situation and had made specific
adjustments to correct noise issues.
Mr. Keene stated in the case of the City of Phoenix, the city ran the Phoenix
Airport.
Jennifer Landesman, Sky Posse, noted the FAA was a federal organization
that was willing to hear from cities and work with them. The current paths
being utilized were flying over schools and it was not a matter of direct noise
but also side noise from the aircraft that caused a louder disturbance.
Council Member Berman stated Mr. Harriot mentioned other communities
had expressed an interest in engaging in the process of change. He asked
which communities.
Ms. Landesman stated East Palo Alto and Menlo Park had expressed concern
over the noise and were interest in a change. She noted Atherton and
Woodside could be approached as well as a benefit to them.
MINUTES
Page 7
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
Council Member Wolbach noted one of the potential accesses was to move
the flight path but that appeared to pass our issues to another community.
Moving the flight path over the Bay was a lesser of two evils although he
asked whether there was an economic cost that may be faced in moving the
IAF or to the airlines for moving the route.
Mr. Harriot stated it may be possible that in changing the routes the path
would shorten for some and lengthen for others. The cost to the aircraft in
fuel was $4.00 per second to be in the air. The requested study would ask
and answer that question.
Chair Burt noted the presentation attested the routes were set in March of
2015. He asked if the change being requested was prior to the setting.
Ms. Landesman stated the FAA was being asked to consider the people on
the ground. The NexGen system had a great deal of benefit and was more
than likely going to happen. The question was when the FAA and NexGen
were reviewing what was working and what was not; the group wished for
their concerns to be considered.
Mr. Landesman stated NexGen was a work in progress and it was going to
last through 2020 so there was an outside consultant firm, Mitra, which
outlined the various obstacles faced by the FAA as NexGen was
implemented. NexGen’s technology saved airlines billions of dollars
throughout the flight world.
Chair Burt asked if Palo Alto was seeking to have the routes changed prior to
their finalization in March or was there a hope to have them changed after.
Ms. Landesman stated there was an implementation being completed on
March 5, 2015 which was a gradual implementation process. The goal of the
FAA was to increase the capacity at the airports. She did not believe there
could be changes made to the impending implementation on March 5, 2015.
Mr. Harriot stated the study, if approved, would not be completed by March
5th. He believed once the study was completed the possibility of an
adjustment could be made.
Chair Burt asked for clarification that one route would be finalized in March.
Bert Ganoung, San Francisco Airport, stated the route being referred to was
an overlay for arrivals coming from the south. The procedures for
MINUTES
Page 8
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
implementation were approved last summer and it was determined to
complete the rollout in stages so as to avoid a mass change at one time.
Chair Burt asked if there would be a succession of rollouts for various routes.
Mr. Ganoung noted the March 5 rollout was the third of three rollouts.
Chair Burt asked what the understanding was of the ability to modify a route
subsequently.
Mr. Ganoung stated the routes had been finalized and were to be released
March 5, 2015. That was not the finalization, but the release date of what
was finalized in the summer of 2014.
Chair Burt asked if there was a potential to subsequently modify a finalized
and released route change.
Mr. Ganoung stated he had no knowledge of the ability; that would be an
FAA decision.
Mr. Keene announced there was evidence of other localities in the country
who were able to effectuate or impact a change on the FAA in a similar
situation.
Mr. Ganoung was aware of other airports and localities that had made
modifications to the metroplex procedures; Denver and Dallas to mention a
couple. Those modifications were made prior to the finalization of the route.
Chair Burt asked how far out the changes were made.
Mr. Ganoung stated the requested changes were more than 20 miles out.
The current requested change was to the direct overlay and he did not
anticipate an FAA allowed change.
Chair Burt asked the role San Francisco Airport (SFO) had in the selection of
the routes to date.
Mr. Ganoung stated none.
Mr. Keene had heard two issues; 1) could the flights be higher, and 2) could
the flights travel across the Bay. He asked if there was knowledge as to why
those requests had been not made in general or during the planning
process. He asked why SFO had not suggested those as preferred
alternatives given the impact on surrounding communities to the airport.
MINUTES
Page 9
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
Mr. Ganoung stated there was a 3D glide slope used in the approach on the
Instrument Landing System (ILS). When the flights come off of Menlo and
join the line, they are at approximately 4,000 feet. The FAA explained there
was a 1,000 foot difference between Menlo and the final approach. The
equipment could not run an Instrument Weather Procedure with a difference
in distance.
Mr. Keene asked if the conclusion was that the requests being made would
not be amenable with the FAA.
Mr. Ganoung stated it would take considerable convincing.
Juan Alonso, Sky Posse, noted albeit difficult to make changes once an FAA
procedure had been made it has been done in the past. There were other
approaches to having the FAA listen more closely to a community such as in
redesigning the air space in Long Island and New York. He mentioned the
larger the voice heard as one the greater opportunity for the FAA to hear.
Chair Burt mentioned approximately a year ago the matter was first brought
to Council’s attention but the issue before the Committee was different. He
asked for clarification on which of the routes had been finalized at the time
and how much worse it might get for the present and future.
Mr. Carl acknowledged the matter was complex and last year when he first
presented the issue to the Council he did not have a full understanding.
There were several different issues that were in an overlay; 1) the flights
dropped from 5,000 feet to 4,000, 2) there was a banning of the Visual
Flight Rules (VFR) which created a ban on the noise abatement routes, and
3) the rollout of NexGen which began in January 2013.
Chair Burt acknowledged there was a series of impacts that affected the City
in different ways. He asked if there was a sense of how impactful the San
Jose Airport (SJC) lower flights were.
Mr. Carl stated the Bay Area had prevailing weather which caused a reverse
flow landing pattern. That caused the SJC flights to fly low and hold over
Palo Alto air space.
Chair Burt asked when the louder plane noises were heard but less
frequently, they were more than likely SJC planes.
Mr. Carl stated yes.
MINUTES
Page 10
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
Chair Burt asked if there would be funding available for the study, if the
Committee was to recommend the Council move forward with it. Staff
confirmed the cost of $30,000.
Mr. Keene stated his understanding was to move forward with the proposal
in conjunction with neighboring cities. He shared his concern with the line of
questions; changing the routes over the Bay seemed to be non-threatening
although other options may cause strife for other communities. He noted
there were letters from influential parties that had yielded no effect.
Chair Burt wanted to frame the study into two segments; 1) was the City
willing to commit to the full study costs of up to $30,000, and 2) a political
discussion on whether or how to gain a stronger voice by having a unified
voice through being representative of multiple cities.
Mr. Keene agreed and mentioned being able to fund the $30,000 was the
least of the issues. The outreach to other communities would be to gauge
the breadth of support more so than a request for funding support. The goal
would be to tailor the efforts in ways that would mimic areas that had
achieved success with similar situations. He wanted to verify whether there
were specific people in Congress and the FAA that Staff should contact.
Chair Burt noted that was the other side he was referring to with the
advocacy points he requested Staff pursue. Did the Committee wish to
recommend to the Council, Palo Alto would pay up to the full amount for the
study.
Council Member DuBois asked who was financially responsible for the
installation of the noise monitors mentioned in the 2001 initiatives which
were never installed.
Mr. Keene was uncertain whether Staff could answer that question or if it
needed to be a member of the Sky Posse.
Council Member DuBois believed the measurement of noise could be as
beneficial to proving the disturbance point as paying a consultant. The cities
that had been successful had use of noise monitors.
Ms. Landesman clarified the Sky Posse has requested raw noise data for the
past 10 years which was available through the FAA. The data was necessary
to inform the recommended study.
Council Member DuBois asked where the noise data was from and was it
centered over Palo Alto.
MINUTES
Page 11
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
Mr. Landesman stated the noise data was needed to determine the type of
noise and whether it was a problem.
Council Member DuBois was referring to having the proper data to present
to the FAA.
Mr. Carl stated his understanding was SFO was scheduled to fund the noise
monitors. They had over 29 noise monitors sprinkled throughout the
Peninsula. It was determined with the economic downturn in 2000 there was
no need to install a noise monitor in the Menlo IAF.
Mr. Harriot noted the ANons data, the AN stood for Airport Noise, but the
data contained the radar traces of every last aircraft that had flown over
Palo Alto every 4.7 seconds. With the ANons data there was definitive proof
of what had historically flown over Palo Alto.
Chair Burt asked if the Sky Posse had requested the data but not yet
received it.
Mr. Harriot stated that was correct.
Chair Burt asked when the request for data was made.
Ms. Landesman stated last week.
Chair Burt asked if the City had joined the request or had made a separate
request.
Mr. Alaee stated no.
Mr. Keene asked if Staff was being requested to make a request.
Ms. Landesman stated no, the Sky Posse was at SFO where they were able
to view the data, see how it worked and how to request a copy. She asked if
City sponsorship was necessary and was informed no.
Chair Burt asked if it was her understanding whether or not it would be
beneficial for the City to co-sponsor the request for data.
Ms. Landesman stated yes, it was not necessary but would assist in the
expedition of the process.
MINUTES
Page 12
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
John Slike, Sky Posse, noted the FAA was up for reauthorization in Congress
in 2015. The directive of the FAA was safety and efficiency while the safety
of the groundlings was not part of their mission statement. Noise was
registered in a process called Day/Night average (DNL) and the FAA’s
objectionable noise level was above 65 decibels. If you lived in an
objectionable level area the airport was obligated to provide noise
mitigation. The noise effecting Palo Alto did not meet the qualification.
Chair Burt mentioned the Staff Report referred to the City making efforts to
become full members of the Community Round Table but the basis was not
clear why they determined Palo Alto would be a non-voting member. He
asked the importance for Palo Alto to be active in the Community Round
Table.
Mr. Keene was uncertain if their participation would make a significant
difference in the current challenge.
Andrew Swanson, Palo Alto Airport Manager, understood there had been
three attempts over the years since 1998 to become a seated voting
member. The Community Round Table was made up of San Mateo County
cities which Palo Alto was not in the jurisdiction.
Chair Burt asked if there was a rational for not allowing Palo Alto and how
important would it be to be an active member on the Round Table.
Mr. Swanson stated in order for Palo Alto to become a member, the
Community Round Table would need to return to each city to request
authorization to change the boarders and the Ordinances would need to be
changed; the process was quite complex. Whether there was a seated voting
member from Palo Alto or not, being actively involved with the group could
only benefit the City.
Chair Burt stated it was unclear what influence the Round Table had over the
issues at hand.
Mr. Swanson stated collectively, as a group it was clear there were different
issues from north and south.
Mr. Keene asked what evidence Staff had that members within the Round
Table were able to identify a significant problem and had been able to effect
a meaningful policy change.
MINUTES
Page 13
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
Mr. Swanson stated nothing to the magnitude of the noise issue the City was
experiencing. The closest matter would have been the 2001 issue with the
Anna Eshoo letter which was worked out.
Mr. Keene stated the initial goal of pursuing participation was because that
was the only existing forum. He understood it was a county boundary order
and Palo Alto was out of the boundary.
Chair Burt stated the annual assignments form did not have the Community
Round Table as a selection therefore no one was appointed as a non-voting
member in 2015.
Council Member Berman asked if the votes or results of votes to the
Community Round Table were public.
Mr. Swanson stated yes, the meeting was a public forum.
Council Member Berman asked for Staff to return with results from the vote
on Palo Alto becoming a seated member.
Mr. Swanson stated he would retrieve the results and notify the Committee.
Jim Lions, a seated member of the Community Round Table, explained the
reason to not include Palo Alto was because the Charter for which the Round
Table was based only included the San Francisco Airport and the cities within
San Mateo County. In order to add Palo Alto the Charter would need to be
changed.
Chair Burt posed to the Committee; whether the Committee would support
recommending to the Council that Palo Alto fund up to the $30,000
anticipated for the Technical Study; if neighboring cities elected not to
participate financially Palo Alto would cover the entire cost.
Mr. Keene suggested any recommendation be dependent upon receiving
more specific information on the request, the expected outcome from the
study and how that could be effectively used with the FAA. He felt they
needed the countervailing data because the FAA relied on that type of
information.
Chair Burt agreed. He believed $30,000 appeared low for a meaningful
study. He hoped the study provided the necessary level of information.
MINUTES
Page 14
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
Council Member DuBois believed the study was worth moving forward
although the issue may be concentrated and there may not be much
extemal support.
Ms. Landesman considered Palo Alto as stateless; the City had been rejected
three times by the Round Table and therefore did not have representation.
She advised against making the study contingent upon how the issue might
turn out. She believed it was an important diagnostic for Palo Alto to have.
Chair Burt stated the intent of the City Manager was to complete a certain
level of scrutiny prior to committing City Funds. It seemed as though the
study needed to move forward. He posed adding a change to the proposed
first action; contingent upon Staff review of the value of the study and their
concurrence it was a fruitful expenditure.
Council Member Wolbach asked if the verbiage was a proposed Motion or a
discussion.
Chair Burt felt it would be more efficient to break out the different aspects
into individual Motions for a clearer understanding.
Council Member Berman supported Staff performing further analysis to
determine the scope of the study and returning to Council with a concrete
estimate of the cost. He was concerned if other communities assisted with
the funding of the study they were going to anticipate input thereby
changing the focus from Palo Alto and possibly increasing the costs.
Council Member DuBois supported the study.
MOTION: Chair Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Berman that the
Policy & Services Committee recommend to the City Council that the City
fund the Technical Study in an amount up to the estimated $30,000, and
that would be contingent upon Staff’s review of the cost and value of the
study.
Council Member Wolbach asked if there needed to be language in the Motion
identifying or defining the specifics of the study.
Mr. Keene felt the type of study was inherent in the inclusion of the value
analysis.
Chair Burt asked the Sky Posse to describe the study they were requesting.
MINUTES
Page 15
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
Mr. Harriot stated the study was to look at the impact of the air noise over
Palo Alto; analyzing the data which had comprehensive radar traces. The
title of the study should be: The Analysis of the Impact of Air Noise Over the
Palo Alto Area.
Mr. Slike stated it was important the question Palo Alto wanted the experts
to answer was defined. Such as how air routes could be designed to reduce
the noise level over Palo Alto without adversely impacting other cities.
Chair Burt understood the concept was to use the data analysis to make a
recommendation. He asked for clarification in that the Sky Posse was
recommending data analysis be approved to the end result of attempting to
reduce air noise over Palo Alto by redesigning air traffic without a disruptive
impact over another city. He asked how the amount of $30,000 was
determined.
Ms. Landesman stated the group spoke to a consulting firm. She noted there
were ranges of possibilities for the study; the amount was determined by the
information received.
Chair Burt asked if the $30,000 encompassed the data analysis and the data
interpretation leading into the recommendation.
Ms. Landesman stated yes.
Chair Burt believed if the financial request encompassed both actions the
wording needed to be clear.
Mr. Landesman noted the point of the study was to come up with a more
scientific route plan to convince the FAA to make changes to the elevation.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add data analysis of aircraft noise over Palo
Alto and recommendations for alternatives to reduce the noise based on said
data analysis.
MOTION AS AMEDED PASSED: 4-0
Chair Burt suggested actions to be taken around the consortium of cities,
state of affairs of the federal advocacy role, whether or not a Council
Member be recommended as a Council representative as a non-voting
member to the Airport Board Advisory Committee, and whether the City
Council should have a liaison to the Sky Posse.
MINUTES
Page 16
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
Council Member DuBois asked if Chair Burt was expressing a specific level of
advocacy for the FAA and SFO.
Chair Burt stated the topic was around what advocacy should be taken.
Council Member Berman said those were the discussion topics.
Chair Burt stated the topics he listed were the remaining topics he had for
discussion and possible action.
Council Member Wolbach supported the recommendations and asked to add
Staff level communication with neighborhoods and residents.
Chair Burt asked if the tri-cities meetings with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto
had been reactivated.
Mr. Keene had reached out to the north facing cities to reinitiate the
meetings and reached out to the south facing cities; Los Altos and Mountain
View to try to engage them. There was a suggestion to include Sunnyvale
given Moffett Field was within their city limits.
Chair Burt explained in the past there had been periodic meetings between
the Mayors and City Managers of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto
outside of the airport noise issue. He believed that was a just forum to begin
the discussion regarding aircraft noise.
Council Member DuBois stated he attended one of the Sky Posse meetings
and there was representation from Woodside and Portola Valley citizenry. He
felt they could be a viable partner.
Chair Burt suggested if at the next Menlo Park, East Palo Alto tri-cities
meeting it could be asked if the other cities would be willing to invite
Woodside and Portola Valley. He asked if the goal was to seek collaboration
with surrounding cities; if so how to go about it. The interest could be
initiated through the tri-cities meetings, from there Staff would know
whether there was interest in creating a consortium.
Council Member Berman agreed and felt the responses received by the
surrounding communities would assist in the understanding as a whole on
how the air noise was being perceived. He asked if the complaints received
could be broken down by city and if so could the complainants be contacted.
If the complainants could be requested to contact their local government
agencies that might add to the overall voice.
MINUTES
Page 17
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
Council Member Wolbach believed finding a path to have outreach to the
City Managers of the aforementioned cities for support would be a positive
notion.
Mr. Keene agreed with the Chair in that the tri-cities forum was a beneficial
area to begin the discussions. Palo Alto had ongoing relationships with most
of the surrounding cities. He could reach out to the City Managers of other
cities although he believed the Mayor/City Manager aspect held a better
weight.
Chair Burt acknowledged Atherton had not been included and believed they
should be.
MOTION: Chair Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to direct
Staff to utilize the different tri-cities meetings as a vehicle to engage and
measure the interest of surrounding cities in the flight path/noise issue and
to reach out to several adjacent cities as a compliment.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Chair Burt stated the next action he wished to take up was regarding the
advocacy role, specifically federal advocacy. The question was whether or
not the Committee wished to provide direction to the full Council or to Staff
dependent on the concurrence of the full Council to ramp up the advocacy in
this area.
Council Member Berman recalled there was a discussion coming up
regarding advocacy matters.
Mr. Keene stated yes, it was tentatively going before the Council in March.
Chair Burt asked when the National League of Cities (NLC) was in
Washington D.C.
Mr. Keene stated the conference ranged from March 7 - 11. He mentioned
the majority of the meeting was around the legislative lobbying.
Chair Burt asked if the NLC conference preceded the legislative advocacy
discussion on the Council agenda.
Mr. Keene was certain the NLC meeting would precede the Council meeting.
He agreed to work on scheduling meetings with the legislative people during
the D.C. trip.
MINUTES
Page 18
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
Chair Burt asked if there should be an item placed on the Council agenda in
order to officially authorize the City Manager to add the airport noise item to
the legislative action item agenda.
Mr. Keene stated no, the Mayor, Council Members and any Staff attending
the NLC would automatically be meeting with lobbyists, and certainly
attempting to meet with the Senators would be a key piece to the
discussion.
Chair Burt asked if it would be appropriate to recommend that the legislative
advocacy agenda include a great emphasis on the FAA issues and having
Staff recommend points that had been endorsed by the Sky Posse.
Council Member Wolbach asked about working directly with the local
legislative offices.
Chair Burt noted dealings with the local political offices were not out of the
realm of possibility.
Council Member DuBois asked if there had been contact or considered
contact with John Martin, the Director of SFO.
Mr. Swanson agreed to reach out to arrange a meeting with the Director of
SFO.
Ms. Landesman noted the Sky Posse had written to Anna Eshoo’s office and
requested assistance. She felt engagement through the City to
Congresswoman Eshoo’s office would be better received.
Chair Burt believed a more effective approach was a combination of citizen
organizations and Staff with elected representatives.
Council Member Berman noted from working in the office of Congresswoman
Eshoo he knew hearing from residents was important and it did hold weight.
MOTION: Chair Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Berman that the
Policy & Services Committee recommend to the City Council that the issue of
aircraft noise become an elevated priority and request advocacy at various
appropriate levels.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Chair Burt recommended the Mayor appoint a Council Member liaison to be a
non-voting member of the Round Table and a liaison to the Sky Posse.
MINUTES
Page 19
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
Council Member DuBois asked for more information on the Community
Airport Round Table and whether they had pull with the FAA routes.
Chair Burt said Staff may have comparative value of participating on the
Round Table even as a non-voting member.
Mr. Swanson stated there would be some benefit of a Council Member being
at the meetings. The non-voting member would be able to bring the
information back to the full Council.
Council Member DuBois asked what power the Round Table had for either
the voting or non-voting members.
Mr. Swanson did not believe the group held any actual authority.
Mr. Keene said other than being able to speak or make suggestions he was
uncertain how the agendas were created.
Mr. Swanson believed a request could be made to the Chair of the Round
Table for any matter to be brought forward. He referred to Bert Ganoung for
clarification.
Chair Burt added that being a non-voting member did put Palo Alto out at
the table and provided an opportunity to see who shared the concerns and
who voting members of the Round Table were.
Mr. Ganoung admitted the Round Table was a good voice and was a
nationally recognized body. With the recent construct of the North and South
County subcommittees he believed a concerted voice would be received well
and be accepted.
Ms. Landesman stated being at the Round Table, one received information
and being that SFO was the only airport out of four that had such a group it
was beneficial.
MOTION: Chair Burt moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois that the
Policy & Services Committee recommend that the City Council authorize the
Mayor to appoint a Council Member representative as Liaison to the Sky
Posse and as a non-voting representative to the Airport Round Table.
Council Member Berman asked if the Sky Posse had a set schedule with
agendas.
MINUTES
Page 20
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
Mr. Carl stated the group was fairly informal but they met monthly.
Chair Burt did not want to imply the Council Liaison would be obligated to
make every meeting.
Mr. Slike stated the majority of the work was filtered through e-mail.
Council Member Berman noted the Liaison may not wish to be added to the
list serve.
Mr. Keene stated his understanding was Mr. Alaee and Staff had been
meeting with the Sky Posse. He believed the most likely option would be for
a Staff member to invite the Liaison to the meeting when the subject matter
was relevant.
Chair Burt did not believe the Liaison would have the bandwidth to meet
with the full committee but there would be representatives and outputs.
Mr. Keene felt it would be better to coordinate the meetings between the
Liaison and the Sky Posse so that there was no conflict when the full Council
met.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member
Berman that the Policy & Services Committee recommend that the City
Council direct the City Manager to continue to work with residents.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Chair Burt thanked the Sky Posse for their engagement and the constructive
way they had been working with the City.
Mr. Harriot stated the City Staff had been very responsive.
Future Meetings and Agendas
March 10, 2015
City Auditors Report
Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance
Chair Burt mentioned there were a number of items being referred to the
Committee that had not yet been folded into the current list of upcoming
matters for discussion.
MINUTES
Page 21
Policy & Services Committee
Draft Minutes 2/10/2015
Mr. Alaee stated that was correct.
Chair Burt wanted Staff to look forward as to when there was likely to be an
issue where two meetings would be necessary in a single month.
Mr. Keene reviewed the upcoming schedule of items and felt there needed to
be a prioritization of the list.
Council Member DuBois recalled discussions at the Council Retreat around
protocols for running meetings.
Chair Burt stated early in the year there was to be an agendized item to
review the Council’s Policy, Procedures & Protocols.
Mr. Keene felt at the Retreat the Council was speaking of the Council
Meetings of the Whole for certain meeting discussions.
Chair Burt believed there was an annual discussion at Council to review the
Policy, Procedures & Protocols.
Mr. Keene stated historically the Council discussed that at the Retreat;
although, this year it was set for a more detailed discussion outside of the
Retreat.
Chair Burt understood the City Manager was suggesting having the Policy,
Procedures & Protocols discussion after the first Committee of the Whole
meeting.
Mr. Keene stated that was correct.
Chair Burt asked when the next Committee of the Whole was to occur.
Mr. Keene stated there were two Committee of the Whole meetings
scheduled prior to the next Committee meeting on March 10th.
Council Member Berman noted the tentative schedule for February 26 was
cancelled but February 17 was scheduled.
Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned at 9:43 P.M.
30
REGIONAL AIRPORT PLANNING COMMITTEE
ABAG ROSTER • JULY 2015
FUNCTIONS: Conducts studies and submits reports and recommendations to the Executive Board and to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission regarding the following matters: • Airport development, development policies, and proposed legislation within and/or related to the Bay Area • Monitoring, updating, and refining the Regional Airport Plan • Such other tasks as may be assigned by the Executive Board or by MTC which are necessary for compliance with state and/or federal requirements
COMPOSITION: Ten officials representing the nine Bay Area counties (three appointed by ABAG, three appointed by MTC, three appointed by the Chair of RAPC, and one appointed by BAAQMD); representatives from each of the three commercial airports; a representative of general aviation airports (appointed by Airport Managers); and representatives from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (3), Caltrans, and the Federal Aviation Administration and three non-voting members representing outer-region airports.
STAFF LEAD: Brad Paul, ABAG Deputy Executive Director, Lindy Lowe, BCDC Senior Planner, and Joe LeClair, BCDC Chief Planner.
MEETINGS: Generally meets twice yearly.
APPOINTED BY VOTING MEMBERS REPRESENTING
ABAG Rich Garbarino, Vice Chair Councilmember, City of South San Francisco
ABAG Desley Brooks
Councilmember, City of Oakland
ABAG Mark Kasperzak
Councilmember, City of Mountain View
BAAQMD Carole Groom Supervisor, County of San Mateo
BCDC Tom Bates Mayor, City of Berkeley
BCDC President and CEO Sean Randolph Bay Area Council Economic Institute
BCDC Geoffrey Gibbs
MTC Sam Liccardo Councilmember, City of San Jose
MTC Jim Spering Supervisor, County of Solano
MTC Jake Mackenzie Councilmember, City of Rohnert Park
At Large Leroy Ornellas Supervisor, County of San Joaquin
At Large Larry Ruhstaller Supervisor, County of San Joaquin
At Large Alice Fredericks Vice Mayor, County of Marin
At Large John Gioia
Supervisor, County of Contra Costa
At Large Jose Cisneros, Treasurer City and County of San Francisco
City of San José Cary Greene, Airport Planner
Caltrans - Ex Officio Terry Barrie, Caltrans Office of
Aviation Planning
General Aviation Airport
Managers
Keith Freitas County of Contra Costa
SFO Airport John Martin, Director (John
Bergener, Alternate)
Port of Oakland Kristi McKenney, Aviation
Planning Manager
FAA Fernando Yanez
31
REGIONAL AIRPORT PLANNING COMMITTEE CONTINUED
ABAG ROSTER • JULY 2015
NON-VOTING MEMBERS OUTER-REGION AIRPORTS
Supervisor Phil Serna County of Sacramento
(G. Hardy Acree,
Alternate) Sacramento County
Carl Miller, Airport Board of Directors
Monterey County
(Tom Greer, Alternate) Monterey County
Patrick Carreno, Airport Board of Directors San Joaquin County/Stockton Airport
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/10/2015 7:43 AM
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Shull <shull.mark@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, August 08, 2015 9:06 PM
To:DuBois, Tom; Council, City
Subject:Re: Status of Airplane Noise
Hi Tom,
The link is dead, but I think I read that article.
My sense of it was that the FAA got one over on the city.
The FAA clearly planned the NextGen implementation as stealthily as possible. Eshoo didn't know, you all didn't
know. Then you agreed to secret closed meetings with them -- no public, not press, no recordings, no minutes. Now,
the FAA can say -- falsely -- that they didn't implement this in secret, in fact, they are communicating with the public, they are having frank exchanges and that everybody understands that it is complicated. With the secret meeting, they
have now covered their behinds for rolling this out without public involvement, and everyone agrees now that its
"complicated" and "takes time" -- i.e., they are gong to do absolutely nothing.
The FAA paid zero attention to the sound impact in implementing NextGen here. Its as if an auto companies were told to improve fleet milage, and they did it simply by removing mufflers on cars. I'm angry, and It bothers me that you all
are not.
We cannot garden outside, we cannot keep our windows open.
And, what will this do to property values as Palo Alto becomes known as noise alley?
Mark Shull
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 7:53 PM, DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Mark,
Sorry for the delay in responding. This writeup in the Weekly accurately captures the meeting
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/07/25/faa-to-work-toward-airplane-noise-
reductionhttp://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/07/25/faa-to-work-toward-airplane-noise-reduction
Working with the FAA will be a slow process, but at least they seem williing to engage with us.
Best,
Tom
________________________________
From: Mark Shull [shull.mark@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 11:25 AM
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/10/2015 7:43 AM
To: Council, City
Subject: Status of Airplane Noise
Hi,
I understand that there was a meeting with the FAA administrator that included representatives from the city (but was
not open to the public). What did you find out and what are you intending to do going forward to address this
serious problem? There has been no communication to residents as far as I (and my neighbors) can tell.
Thanks,
Mark Shull
Waverley Street
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
August 24, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Adoption (with Minor Staff-Initiated Changes
Following First Reading) of an Ordinance Deleting Section 18.42.110 of
Chapter 18.42 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Adding a
New Section 18.42.110 Pertaining to the Siting and Permitting of
Wireless Communications Facilities; Exempt from California
Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)
and 15301, 15302 and 15305. (FIRST READING: June 29, 2015, Passed:
8-0, DuBois absent)
This Ordinance was first heard on June 29, 2015, where no changes were made by Council.
Following the first reading, AT&T submitted a letter to the City requesting some additional
minor changes to the ordinance (Attachment B). Staff and outside telecommunications counsel
have reviewed these changes and concur with AT&T that Section 18.42.110(e) of the ordinance
should be modified (1) to clarify when the City determines an application is incomplete it
should specifically identify which information was missing and (2) to specify the date on which
the shot clock commences when the City deems an application should be processed as a Tier 2
or 3 application, rather than a Tier 1. Staff recommends the following modifications be made to
Section 18.42.110 (e) of the ordinance:
(1) City Review of Application Materials. The timeframe for review of an
application shall begin to run when the application is submitted, but shall be tolled if
the City finds the application incomplete and provides notice of incompleteness that
delineates the missing information in writing. Such requests shall be made within 30
days of submission of the application. After submission of additional information, the
City will notify the applicant within 10 days of this submission if the additional
information failed to complete the application. If the City makes a determination
pursuant to Section 18.42.110(e)(2)(i) that an application submitted as a Tier 1 Eligible
Facilities Request should be processed as a Tier 2 or Tier 3, then the Tier 2 or Tier 3
Processing Time, as applicable, shall begin to run when the City issues this decision.
These clarifying changes do not impact the substance of the provision and thus do not require
an additional first reading of the ordinance. Thus staff recommends that the Council adopt
these changes on second reading of the attached ordinance (Attachment A.)
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment: Attachment A: Wireless Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment: Attachment B: AT&T Letter on Wireless Ordinance (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 3
NOT YET APPROVED
150806 cs 0131334 1 August 6, 2015
Ordinance No. ___
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Deleting Section 18.42.110 of Chapter 18.42 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
and Adding a New Section 18.42.110 Pertaining to the Siting and Permitting of Wireless
Communications Facilities
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 18.42.110 of Chapter 18.42 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby deleted and a new Section 18.42.110 added to read, as
follows:
18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities
(a) Purpose and Interpretation
The purpose of this section is two-fold: (A) to implement within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the City the applicable zoning, land use and other laws, rules, regulations
and policies and procedures applicable to siting applications filed with the City by
wireless communications facilities infrastructure owners and operators and Wireless
Communications Service providers, which seek to install or attach their facilities at
locations in Palo Alto; and (B) to accommodate new wireless technologies and
continued improvements to existing wireless communications facilities while minimizing
their adverse visual and structural health and safety impacts. Consistent with that
purpose, the provisions of this Section are to be construed in a manner that is consistent
with (1) the interest of consumers in receiving the benefits of the deployment of ultra-
high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communication facilities technology and
innovations and the delivery of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless
communications facilities services, (2) the interest in safeguarding the environment,
preserving historic properties, and addressing aesthetics and other local values, and
(3) the interest in promoting the public health, safety and welfare in Palo Alto.
A Wireless Communications Facility is permitted to be sited in Palo Alto subject
to applicable requirements imposed by this Chapter, which may include an architectural
review process, a conditional use permit application process, or both. These processes
are intended to permit Wireless Communications Facilities that blend with their existing
surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or
public safety. The procedures prescribed by this Chapter are tailored to the type of
Wireless Communication Facility that is sought. Building-mounted wireless
communications facilities and Collocation of facilities are preferred and encouraged,
subject to all other provisions of this Section.
(b) Definitions
NOT YET APPROVED
150806 cs 0131334 2 August 6, 2015
The following abbreviations, phrases, terms and words shall have the meanings
assigned in this Section or, as appropriate, in Section 18.04.030 and Section 1.04.050 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time, unless the context
indicates otherwise. Words that are not defined in this Section or other Chapters or
Sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall have the meanings as set forth in Chapter
6 of Title 47 of the United States Code, Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, and, if not defined therein, their common and ordinary meaning.
(1) “Antenna” means a wireless Antenna and its associated equipment. The
term includes a macrocell Antenna and a microcell Antenna.
(2) “Associated equipment” means any and all on-site equipment, including,
without limitation, back-up generators and power supply units, cabinets, coaxial and
fiber optic cables, connections, shelters, radio transceivers, regular power supply units,
and wiring, to which a wireless antenna is attached in order to facilitate mobile
broadband service and personal wireless service delivered on mobile broadband
devices.
(3) “Base Station” means a structure or equipment at a fixed location that
enables FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment
and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined
herein or any equipment associated with a tower. Base Station includes, without
limitation:
(i) Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as
private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and
fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul.
(ii) Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and
backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological
configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems (“DAS”) and small-cell networks).
(iii) Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant
application is filed with the City under this section, supports or houses equipment
described in paragraphs (i)-(ii) above and has been previously reviewed and approved by
the City.
(4) “Collocation” means the mounting or installation of Transmission
Equipment on an Eligible Support Structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or
receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes.
(5) “Eligible Facilities Request” means any request for modification of an
existing Tower or Base Station that, within the meaning of the Spectrum Act, does not
substantially change the physical dimensions of that Tower or Base Station, and involves
(a) the Collocation of new Transmission Equipment, (b) the removal of Transmission
Equipment, or (c) the replacement of Transmission Equipment.
NOT YET APPROVED
150806 cs 0131334 3 August 6, 2015
(6) “Eligible Support Structure” means any existing Tower or Base Station
that exists at the time the application is filed with the City.
(7) “Existing” for a constructed Tower or Base Station, means that the Tower
or Base Station has been previously reviewed and approved under the applicable City
zoning or siting process, or under another applicable State or local regulatory review
process, provided that a Tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it
was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is “Existing” for
purposes of this definition.
(8) “FCC” means the Federal Communications Commission or successor
agency.
(9) “Project” means a WCF to be located in Palo Alto for which a permit is
required by the City.
(10) “RF” means radio frequency on the radio spectrum.
(11) “Spectrum Act” means Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act
and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (providing, in part, “… a State or local
government may not deny, and shall approve, any Eligible Facilities Request for a
modification of any existing wireless Tower or Base Station that does not substantially
change the physical dimensions of such Tower or Base Station.”).
(12) “Substantially Changes” means, in the context of an Eligible Support
Structure, a modification of an existing Tower or Base Station where any of the
following criteria is met:
(i) For a Tower not located in the public rights-of-way:
(a) The height of the Tower is increased by (I) more than ten (10)
percent, or (II) by the height of one additional Antenna array with
separation from the nearest existing Antenna not to exceed twenty
(20) feet, whichever is greater; or
(b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of the Tower that would
protrude from the edge of the Tower by (I) more than twenty (20)
feet, or (II) more than the width of the Tower at the level of the
appurtenance, whichever is greater.
(ii) For a Tower located in the public rights-of-way and for all Base Stations:
(a) The height of the Tower or Base Station is increased by more than ten
(10) percent or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater; or
(b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of that structure that
would protrude from the edge of that structure by more than six (6)
feet; or
NOT YET APPROVED
150806 cs 0131334 4 August 6, 2015
(c) It involves the installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten
(10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground
cabinets associated with the structure; or
(d) It involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the
ground if there is no pre-existing ground cabinet associated with that
structure.
(iii) For any Eligible Support Structure:
(a) It involves the installation of more than the standard number of new
equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed
four (4) cabinets; or
(b) There is entailed in the proposed modification any excavation or
deployment outside of the current site of the Tower or Base Station;
or
(c) The proposed modification would cause the concealment/camouflage
elements of the Tower or Base Station to be defeated; or
(d) The proposed modification would not comply with the conditions
associated with the prior siting approval of construction or
modification of the Tower or Base Station, unless the non-compliance
is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets,
or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding thresholds
in this section.
(iv) To measure changes in height for the purposes of this section, the
baseline is:
(a) For deployments that are or will be separated horizontally, measured
from the original Support Structure;
(b) For all others, measured from the dimensions of the Tower or Base
Station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any
modifications that were approved by the City prior to February 22,
2012.
(v) To measure changes for the purposes of this section, the baseline is the
dimensions that were approved by the City prior to February 22, 2012.
(13) “Tower” means any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of
supporting any FCC-licensed or -authorized Antenna, including any structure that is
constructed for Wireless Communications Service. This term does not include a Base
Station.
(14) “Transmission Equipment” means equipment that facilitates transmission
of any FCC-licensed or authorized Wireless Communication Service.
(15) “Wireless Communications Facility” or “WCF” means any Antenna,
associated equipment, Base Station, small cell system, Tower, and/or Transmission
Equipment located in Palo Alto.
NOT YET APPROVED
150806 cs 0131334 5 August 6, 2015
(16) “Wireless Communications Service” means, without limitation, all FCC-
licensed back-haul and other fixed wireless services, broadcast, private, and public
safety communication services, and unlicensed wireless services.
(c) Types of WCF Permits Required
(1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be required for an Eligible Facilities Request, as
defined in this Section.
(2) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be required for:
(i) Any modification of an Eligible Support Structure, including the
Collocation of new equipment, that Substantially Changes the physical dimensions of
the Eligible Support Structure on which it is mounted, or
(ii) Any Collocation not eligible for a Tier 1 WCF Permit
(3) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be required for the siting of any WCF that is not
a Collocation subject to a Tier 1 or 2 WCF Permit.
(d) WCF Application Requirements
All applications for a WCF Permit shall include the following items:
(1) Any applicant for a WCF Permit shall participate in an intake meeting with
the Planning and Community Environment Department to file an application;
(2) The applicant must specify in writing whether the applicant believes the
application is for an Eligible Facilities Request subject to the Spectrum Act, and if so,
provide a detailed written explanation as to why the applicant believes that the
application qualifies as an Eligible Facilities Request;
(3) The applicant shall complete the City’s standard application form, as may
be amended from time to time;
(4) The applicant shall include a completed and signed application checklist
available from the City, including all information required by the application checklist;
(5) Payment of the fee prescribed by the Municipal Fee Schedule;
(6) The application must be accompanied by all permit applications with all
required application materials for each separate permit required by the City for the
proposed WCF, including a building permit, an encroachment permit (if applicable) and
an electrical permit (if applicable);
NOT YET APPROVED
150806 cs 0131334 6 August 6, 2015
(7) For Tier 2 and 3 WCF Permits, the applicant must host a community
meeting at a time and location designed to maximize attendance by persons receiving
notice under this subparagraph to provide outreach to the neighborhood around the
Project site. The applicant shall give notice of the community meeting to all residents
and property owners within 600 feet of the Project site at least 14 days in advance of
the community meeting. The applicant shall provide a proof of notice affidavit to the
City that contains:
(i) Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting
before filing the application;
(ii) A summary of comments received at the community meeting and what, if
any, changes were made to the application as a result of the meeting;
(8) For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the
maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed Project that
would be permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed Project as a baseline; and
(9) Satisfy other such requirements as may be, from time to time, required
by the Planning and Community Environment Department Director (“Director”), as
publically stated in the application checklist.
(e) Permit Review (“Shot Clock”) Time Periods
(1) City Review of Application Materials. The timeframe for review of an
application shall begin to run when the application is submitted, but shall be tolled if the
City finds the application incomplete and requests provides notice of incompleteness
that delineates the missing information in writingthat the applicant submit additional
information to complete the application. Such requests shall be made within 30 days of
submission of the application. After submission of additional information, the City will
notify the applicant within 10 days of this submission if the additional information failed
to complete the application. If the City makes a determination pursuant to Section
18.42.110(e)(2)(i) that an application submitted as a Tier 1 Eligible Facilities Request should
be processed as a Tier 2 or Tier 3, then the Tier 2 or Tier 3 Processing Time, as applicable,
shall begin to run when the City issues this decision.
(2) Tier 1 Processing Time. For Tier 1 WCF Permit applications, the City will
act on the WCF application, together with any other City permits required for a
proposed WCF modification, within 60 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for
additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time.
(i) If the City determines that the application does not qualify as a Tier 1
Eligible Facilities Request, the City will notify the applicant of that
determination in writing and will process the application as a Tier 2 or
Tier 3 WCF Permit application, as applicable.
(ii) To the extent federal law provides a “deemed granted” remedy for Tier 1
WCF Permit applications not timely acted upon by the City, no such
NOT YET APPROVED
150806 cs 0131334 7 August 6, 2015
application shall be deemed granted until the Applicant provides notice
to the City, in writing, that the application has been deemed granted
after the time period provided in Section (e)(2) above has expired.
(iii) Any Tier 1 WCF Permit application that the City grants or that is deemed
granted by operation of federal law shall be subject to all requirements of
Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7) and 18.42.110(j)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5)
and (6).
(3) Tier 2 Processing Time. For Tier 2 WCF Permit applications, the City will
act on the application within 90 days, adjusted for any tolling due to
requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions
of time.
(4) Tier 3 Processing Time. For Tier 3 WCF Permit applications, the City will
act on the application within 150 days, adjusted for any tolling due to
requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions
of time.
(5) Denial of Application. If the City denies a WCF application, the City will
notify the applicant of the denial in writing of the reasons for the denial.
(f) Tier 1 WCF Permit Process and Findings
(1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director’s
decision shall be final and shall not be appealable pursuant to the procedures set forth
in Sections 18.77 or 18.78.
(2) The Director shall grant a Tier 1 WCF Permit provided that the Director
finds that the applicant proposes an Eligible Facilities Request;
(3) The Director shall impose the following conditions on the grant of a Tier 1
WCF Permit:
(i) The proposed Collocation or modification shall not defeat any existing
concealment elements of the Support Structure; and
(ii) The proposed WCF shall comply with the Development Standards in
Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7), and the Conditions of Approval in
Section 18.42.110(j).
(g) Tier 2 WCF Permit Process and Findings
NOT YET APPROVED
150806 cs 0131334 8 August 6, 2015
(1) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director’s
decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in
Section 18.77.070.
(2) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall grant a Tier 2 WCF Permit
provided the proposed WCF complies with the Development Standards in Section
18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the
architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made.
(3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 2 WCF Permit if the
above findings cannot be made.
(h) Tier 3 WCF Permit Process and Findings
(1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director’s
decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in
Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section
18.77.060.
(2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit
provided the proposed WCF complies with the Development Standards in Section
18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the
architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit
findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made.
(3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 3 WCF Permit if the
above findings cannot be made.
(i) Development Standards
Except as otherwise provided in this Section, a proposed WCF Project shall
comply with the following standards:
(1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible;
(2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the
cabinet and enclosure structure;
(3) Shall be screened from public view;
(4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site;
NOT YET APPROVED
150806 cs 0131334 9 August 6, 2015
(5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any
required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of
noncompliance with the Zoning Code;
(6) An Antenna, Base Station, or Tower shall be designed to minimize its
visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a “camouflaged” or “stealth” design,
including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the Antenna,
Base Station, or Tower into the surrounding area;
(7) A building-mounted Antenna, Base Station, or Tower shall be
architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the Antenna, Base
Station, or Tower is attached;
(8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic
structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required;
(9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted
WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the
zone district;
(10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other
stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and
(11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the
interior/street side and rear setback.
(j) Conditions of Approval
In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and
state law and this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this
Code, all WCF Projects approved under this Chapter, whether approved by the Director
or deemed granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of
approval:
(1) Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be
subject to the conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as
may be preempted by the Spectrum Act.
(2) As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set
of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including
all Transmission Equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after
the completion of construction.
NOT YET APPROVED
150806 cs 0131334 10 August 6, 2015
(3) Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to
measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine
if it meets FCC's standards. A report, certified by the engineer, of all
calculations, required measurements, and the engineer’s findings with
respect to compliance with the FCC’s radio frequency emission standards
shall be submitted to the Planning Division within one year of
commencement of operation.
(4) Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall
indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers,
employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any
claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the
indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any
permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without
limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs
incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion
and at Applicant’s expense, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its own choice.
(5) Compliance with applicable laws. The applicant shall comply with all
applicable provisions of the Code, any permit issued under this Code, and
all other applicable federal, state and local laws (including without
limitation all building code, electrical code and other public safety
requirements). Any failure by the City to enforce compliance with any
applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of its obligations under this
code, any permit issued under this code, or all other applicable laws and
regulations.
(6) Compliance with approved plans. The proposed Project shall be built in
compliance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division.
(k) Removal of Abandoned Equipment
A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases to be in
use for more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, Wireless
Communications Service provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the
cessation of use of that WCF. A new conditional use permit shall not be issued to an
owner or operator of a WCF or a Wireless Communications Service provider until the
abandoned WCF or its component is removed.
(l) Revocation
NOT YET APPROVED
150806 cs 0131334 11 August 6, 2015
The Director may revoke any WCF permit if the permit holder fails to comply
with any condition of the permit. The Director’s decision to revoke a permit shall be
appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section
18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or
phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA
Guideline sections 15061(b) and 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it simply provides a
comprehensive permitting scheme.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
NOT YET APPROVED
150806 cs 0131334 12 August 6, 2015
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6043)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/24/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: City of Palo Alto/JPB MOU
Title: Approval of Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Palo
Alto and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Regarding Vegetation
Removal and Fencing Enhancements and an Intrusion Detection System Beta
Test in the Caltrain Corridor in Palo Alto and the Adoption of a Related
Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $390,400
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve the attached draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
City of Palo Alto and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) regarding
vegetation removal, fencing enhancements, and an intrusion detection system
beta test in the Palo Alto portion of the Caltrain corridor (Attachment A);
2. Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to provide an additional
appropriation from the Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement Fund
(Health Services) for the Project Safety Net program in the amount of $390,400
(Attachment B).
Background
Restricting access to the Caltrain tracks is a necessity in our community’s effort to
eliminate the “suicide hotspot” that exists along the section of Caltrain tracks in Palo
Alto. “Means restriction” (limiting or inhibiting access to proven lethal means) is a
recognized, important component in any effort to reduce suicide rates. The City has
reached agreement with the JPB, which oversees Caltrain, to provide adequate fencing
along the entire eastern section of the four miles of Caltrain tracks in Palo Alto. This
MOU lays out the scope and costs of that work. Caltrain is currently studying potential
enhancements for the west side of the Caltrain right-of-way (ROW) in Palo Alto.
Under the MOU, the JPB will install 8-foot welded wire fencing along the entire east side
City of Palo Alto Page 2
(Alma Street side) of the Caltrain corridor where it is currently substandard or absent
(8-foot welded wire fencing currently exists between San Antonio Avenue and Oregon
Expressway). In order to install the new fencing, existing substandard fencing must be
removed and vegetation cleared in areas where the new fencing is to be installed. The
new fencing will be installed approximately 30 feet from the tracks.
The cost of installing new fencing and the removal of old fencing is approximately
$420,000 and will be paid for by Caltrain. The cost of vegetation removal is $168,000
and will be paid for by the City as a reimbursement to Caltrain, who will contract with
one of their vegetation removal vendors. The City will approve the removal of any trees.
Additionally, the City of Palo Alto and Caltrain have agreed to install an 18-inch three-
cable anti-climb winglet on top of both new and existing 8-foot welded wire fencing for
the full length of the east side portion of the Caltrain corridor in Palo Alto. The cost of
the winglet and installation is $108,000 and will be paid for by the City as a
reimbursement to Caltrain, who will contract with one of their fence installation
vendors.
The City will pay a total of $276,000 to Caltrain as reimbursements if Council approves
this MOU and BAO. Funding will come from the Stanford development funds.
In addition to the installation of new fencing, the anti-climbing winglet, and the
vegetation removal, the City of Palo Alto and the JPB will also conduct an intrusion
detection system beta test at the Meadow crossing.
Intrusion detection systems (IDS’s) are a best practice for rail and transportation
security. However, most such systems are heavily reliant on cameras being monitored
by staff which is expensive, due to labor costs.
The City of Palo Alto and Caltrain were approached by a vendor, CSC Integrations of
Santa Clara, CA, offering a free trial of new technologies called the Suicide and Accident
Intervention System (SAAIS). Unlike traditional IDS’s, the SAAIS developed by CSC
Integrations utilizes automated algorithms (i.e. analytics) to evaluate images and sensor
data to generate alarms and warnings.
Further, the SAAIS is not just basic cameras. It includes thermal night vision cameras,
microwave "virtual trip wires," and other sensors designed to automatically alert
authorities when unsafe conditions are present.
The test system will be placed at the East Meadow rail crossing and, conservatively, will
have a range of 1,000 feet in both directions up and down the Caltrain ROW. Other
cameras will cover the area around the intersection.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
SAAIS alarms and warnings during the test period will be reviewed by both City and
CSC Integrations staff to evaluate the performance of the system. The City will also
pay the vendor to remotely monitor the system’s camera feeds and other functions
from 6:00 PM to 2:00 AM during the 60 day trail period at a cost of $14,400 ($7,200
per month). During this time Track Watch guards will still be present at their four
current locations.
When needed, the Palo Alto Police Department's 911 Communications Center will notify
the Caltrain control center in the event of a perceived safety threat. This reporting
protocol is the same as it today when Track Watch or a citizen calls 911 because of a
perceived safety threat.
Following the 60 day test and evaluation period, the City will have the option to
purchase the SAAIS system, which would then be installed at the Meadow crossing by
CSC Integrations for $172,000. If the pilot is successful and staff believes that the
SAAIS provides an effective solution to monitor the tracks and intersections, staff will
return to Council with an additional funding request to purchase the equipment for one
or more intersections.
The test and evaluation period will commence when the equipment is installed and
performing properly. This will likely be in September 2015.
Staff is also requesting authorization for $50,000 to spend on temporary fencing, if
deemed necessary and feasible, during vegetation removal and fencing installation.
This estimate is based on budgetary quotes at this time which range between $40,000
and $90,000. Staff will issue a solicitation for the temporary fencing to identify a
qualified bidder.
Additionally, staff asks for a $50,000 contingency for the work items mentioned above
to address unforeseen issues and/or costs.
Scheduling and Communication
Scheduling and coordination of this work will require careful planning on the part of the
City of Palo Alto, Caltrain, and CSC Integrations staff. City staff will provide updates to
Council as they become available. Currently, City staff anticipates all work to be
completed by October 31, 2015.
Resource Impact
The Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement Health Services funds set aside
for Project Safety Net are sufficient to cover the City’s financial obligations mentioned
above.
In FY 2012, the City Council allocated $2 million of Stanford Medical Center
development Agreement funds for Project Safety Net. By the end of FY 2015, staff
City of Palo Alto Page 4
estimates that cumulatively $713,319 will have been spent on this effort over the
course of the last four years.
With the additional funding approved in the FY 2016 adopted budget in the amount of
$567,567, the ending balance of this allocation is projected to be $719,114.
With the recommended budget action in the amount of $390,400, the projected
available fund balance for Project Safety Net will be reduced to $328,714. Therefore,
sufficient fund balance is available for this activity; however, given current funding
trends, the allocated funds from the Stanford Medical Agreement will not be sufficient
to cover Track Watch expenses at their current rate in FY 2017.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Caltrain MOU_8-20-2015 (DOC)
Attachment B: Budget Amendment Ordinance (DOCX)
Attachment C: Public Letters to Council (PDF)
11469577.1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT
REGARDING SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CALTRAIN CORRIDOR IN THE
PALO ALTO CITY LIMITS
This Memorandum of Understanding and Funding Agreement (the “Agreement”) is
entered into this _______ day of __________________, 2015, by and between the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board, a public agency (“JPB”), and the City of Palo Alto, a municipal
corporation (“City”).
RECITALS
A. The JPB and its member agency partners are focused on increasing safety throughout
the entire Caltrain corridor to reduce accidents, including intentional acts (suicides),
using a variety of strategies, including fencing, grade crossing safety improvements,
outreach and education to the public and with mental health service providers, and
enforcement.
B. In response to a number of suicides on the Caltrain corridor, including young men and
women within the Palo Alto city limits, the JPB and City initiated discussions on possible
safety enhancements to reduce access to the rail corridor. Pursuant to those
discussions the JPB identified available funding and specific safety improvements that it
could fund and install within the Palo Alto city limits. The City and community partners
identified additional safety enhancements beyond the JPB’s standard design and
available funding and desire to add these as additional deterrent (means restriction) and
have committed to fund these incremental additional safety enhancements.
C. The JPB and City also are interested in demonstrating technology under a “Proof of
Concept” pilot project (“Pilot Technology Project”) to determine if the application of
technology within the rail corridor and at grade crossings can further reduce trespassing
and accidents. Pursuant to this interest, the JPB and City have received an unsolicited
proposal from a safety and security technology provider and have agreed to apply this
technology to one location within the city limits to test and gather data on the
effectiveness of this technology.
D. The parties enter into this Agreement to establish the rights, obligations and procedures
to accomplish the installation of the JPB standard safety enhancements, the additional
2
11469577.1
means restriction enhancements requested by the City, and the Pilot Technology
Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, JPB and City agree as follows:
SECTION I
JPB agrees:
1. To manage, oversee, and implement the following JPB standard safety enhancements
and the City-requested additional means restriction enhancements, in accordance with
the following scope of work:
A. On the east side of the Caltrain corridor, from the northern city limit border to the
southern city limit border, the JPB will upgrade all perimeter fencing by removing
required vegetation and substandard fencing and installing additional, new 8-foot
welded wire fencing. The JPB and their contractors will work in collaboration with
the City of Palo Alto to coordinate vegetation removal to ensure no more
vegetation is removed than necessary to install the new fencing. The JPB will not
remove any tree unless approved in advance by the City. (“Tree” means any
plant measuring 4” in diameter at 4’6” in height.) Combined with already installed
8-foot welded wire fencing on the east side, this will create a contiguous 8-foot
welded wire perimeter fence on the east side of the right of way, with the
exception of public access points (at grade crossings, street crossings, Caltrain
station/platform access). The cost of this additional fencing is $420,000 and will
be funded in full by the JPB from its available safety and security grant sources.
Vegetation removal costs to allow this fencing upgrade will be funded in full by
the City as covered below in Section II.
B. At the City’s request the JPB will add to the existing and newly installed fencing
on the east side of the corridor only, a 45 degree, 18-inch anti-climbing fence
winglet with 3 wire strands to provide additional means restriction to the corridor.
Winglet material and installation costs will be funded by the City as covered
below in Section II.
3
11469577.1
C. The JPB will provide the Pilot Technology Project provider (“Technology
Provider”) access to the corridor to allow the installation of various components,
including multiple cameras, sensors, and data communications equipment. The
JPB will also provide corridor access to the City to provide the required electrical
power and communications/data links to the City’s backbone system. Beyond
identifying the installation locations of equipment and providing access and
protection of work crews to complete the installation, the JPB will have no further
financial obligation for the Pilot Technology Project.
2. To complete the safety enhancements at the costs specified in this Agreement. Any
cost overruns for the agreed upon work scope will be the responsibility of the JPB with
the exception of any changes requested by the City that result in additional scope that
require additional labor and materials, or changes in schedule of the work resulting from
City-caused delays that result in higher costs due to demobilization and remobilization of
contractors.
3. To serve as Project Manager, fiscal agent and awarding authority for all contracts and
change orders required to undertake and complete the vegetation removal, substandard
fencing removal, new fencing installation and anti-climbing winglet installation. The JPB
will work in cooperation with the City to complete this work in an expeditious manner,
with the goal to complete all vegetation and fencing work by the end of October 2015.
The final schedule for the full installation of the Pilot Technology Project is subject to
final approval of the design and installation details being coordinated between the JPB,
City, and the Technology Provider.
4. To provide the City with final invoices for the City-requested safety enhancements upon
completion of the work in order for the City to provide its reimbursement to the JPB.
5. To retain all books, documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence
pertaining to costs of the work described herein as required by California law.
4
11469577.1
SECTION II
City agrees:
1. To provide at its cost the City resources required to assist JPB staff and its vegetation
subcontractor with a final field survey and any required marking of the vegetation to be
removed to facilitate fencing installation, and to complete any required notifications to
City residents, the public and adjacent community prior to the start of vegetation removal
work. The City will coordinate all responses to inquiries received from the public in an
expeditious manner and will cooperatively participate with the JPB to facilitate the JPB’s
timely delivery of the safety enhancements at every stage of the work.
To provide a Project Manager who will provide direction on the vegetation removal,
identifying and approving in advance any and all trees that are to be removed.
To install temporary fencing, if desired by the City, on the east side of the corridor in
advance of any vegetation removal or sub-standard fencing removal or at another time
as determined by the City. The City will pay for and install the temporary fencing in
coordination with the JPB.
2. To reimburse the JPB in the sum of $168,000 for the removal of vegetation to allow the
fencing work scope to be completed. Any and all costs required to complete any
additional vegetation removal if requested by the City and not required for the agreed
upon scope of work will be the responsibility of the City.
3. To reimburse the JPB in the sum of $108,000 for the materials and installation of the 18-
inch anti-climbing fence winglet on top of the JPB’s east side 8-foot welded wire fencing
extending the full length of the east side of the Palo Alto corridor.
4. To directly manage, and fund any and all costs for the installation of the Pilot Technology
Project with the exception of access and protection for any work crews on JPB property
required to complete the system installation and testing. This technology will be installed
at the Caltrain/Meadow Drive crossing. Prior to access to the corridor for installation of
the technology, the City will work with the JPB to obtain from Technology Provider
indemnification and proof of insurance in a form satisfactory to the JPB. All utility
connection and service costs for electrical power and communications will be the
5
11469577.1
responsibility of the City. All monitoring of data, information and alarms generated by
this system will be done in City premises with any back office support hardware required
by the pilot technology installed at the City’s expense. The City, in consultation with the
JPB, shall determine the time period for evaluating the Pilot Technology Project. Upon
the completion the Proof of Concept time period, the technology will be removed unless
the City requests and the JPB agrees that the technology may remain in active use on
the JPB’s property. The City shall be responsible for the expense of removal. JPB will
assume the cost of providing appropriate access and protection for any removal crews.
The City may elect to purchase the equipment at the City’s sole expense if the JPB
agrees that the technology can remain in active use on JPB property.
5. To assume all responsibility, in coordination with the Technology Provider, for any
maintenance, repair, and upkeep of the pilot technology equipment.
6. The JPB will coordinate with the City, the timing of the vegetation removal and the
installation of new fencing in such a manner as to ensure installation of new fencing
follows vegetation removal as quickly as possible.
SECTION III
It is mutually agreed:
1. Project Details.
The scope of services, costs, and project schedule in the agreement constitute the entire
scope of work agreed upon by the JPB and City. The JPB makes no representations
that additional safety enhancements such as fencing in other locations other than the
east side scope described herein or the expansion of Pilot Technology Project to other
locations will be funded or completed. Any such additional work will be the subject of
separate discussions and agreements including the identification of any available non-
JPB funding for future work as well as a JPB prioritization of safety enhancements
throughout the entire rail corridor.
6
11469577.1
2. Payments and Accounting Process.
The JPB will issue all contracts to complete the scope of work for the vegetation and
substandard fencing removal, installation of new 8-foot welded wire fencing, and
installation of the anti-climbing winglet for all 8-foot welded wire fencing on the east side
of the right of way. The JPB will make all payments directly to the contractors used to
complete this scope of work.
Upon completion of the vegetation removal work, the JPB shall submit to the City an
invoice in the amount of $168,000 to be paid by City within 30 days or as soon thereafter
as practicable.
Upon completion of the fencing installation, including the completion of the anti-climbing
winglet to all existing and new east side 8 foot welded wire fencing, the JPB shall submit
to the City an invoice in the amount of $108,000 to paid by City within 30 days or as
soon thereafter as practicable.
The City will directly initiate and pay for any and all work associated with the installation
of the Pilot Technology Project including all City required utilities and back office
connections.
3. Related Staffing Costs.
Except as explicitly stated in this Agreement, the parties agree that neither shall charge
the other for costs of agency staff required to complete tasks under this Agreement.
4. Alterations to the Agreement.
No alteration or variation of the terms of this Funding Agreement shall be valid unless
made in writing and signed by both of the Parties hereto and no oral understanding or
agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either of the Parties hereto.
5. Indemnity.
A. The JPB shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers,
directors, representatives, agents, and employees from and against all claims,
injury, suits, demands, liability, losses, damages and expenses, whether direct or
7
11469577.1
indirect (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therewith),
incurred by reason of negligence or intentional misconduct of the JPB, its
officers, directors, employees, agents, or contractors or any of them in
connection with this Agreement.
B. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless JPB, its officers, directors,
representatives, agents, and employees from and against all claims, injury, suits,
demands, liability, losses, damages and expenses, whether direct or indirect
(including any and all costs and expenses in connection therewith), incurred by
reason of negligence or intentional misconduct of the City, its officers, directors,
employees, agents, or contractors or any of them in connection with this
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the dates set
forth below.
City of Palo Alto
By:_________________________________
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
By:_________________________________
James Keene
City Manager
Jim Hartnett
Executive Director
Date:_______________________________
Date:_______________________________
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
Attorney
1
6043/mb Revised June 29, 2015
Ordinance No. xxxx
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $390,400
FROM THE STANFORD MEDICAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FUND TO THE
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PROJECT SAFETY NET PROGRAM TO PROVIDE
FOR VEGETATION REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION FOR ANTI-CLIMB FENCING ALONG
THE CALTRAIN CORRIDOR IN PALO ALTO
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2015 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2016; and
B. In response to increased frequency of teen suicides, the City of Palo Alto through
its Project Safety Net program, is partnering with Caltrain to provide means restrictions through
vegetation removal and the installation of new fencing and anti-climb winglets along the
Caltrain corridor; and
C. The City of Palo Alto has agreed to fund vegetation removal along the entire east-
side of the Caltrain corridor (Alma Street) at a cost of $168,000; and
D. The City of Palo Alto has agreed to fund the installation of an 18 inch, three cable
anti-climb winglet along all of the fencing in the Caltrain corridor at a cost of $108,000 in
addition to temporary fencing at a cost of $50,000; and
E. Staff recommends testing a Suicide and Accident Intervention System (SAAIS) at a
cost of $14,400 for a 60-day trial period; and
F. A contingency is established in the amount of $50,000 for unforeseen expenses
during the implementation of the activities listed above.
SECTION 2. Therefore, the sum of Three Hundred Ninety Thousand Four Hundred
Dollars ($390,400) is hereby appropriated to the Community Services Department Project
Safety Net Program and the ending fund balance in the Stanford Medical Center Development
Agreement Fund is decreased by Three Hundred Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Dollars
($390,400).
SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this
ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
2
6043/mb Revised June 29, 2015
SECTION 4. The actions taken in this ordinance do not constitute a project requiring
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
____________________________
Director of Community Services
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2015 7:49 AM
Carnahan, David
From:Keene, James
Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2015 1:53 PM
To:brian susan anuskewicz
Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Hackmann, Richard; Passmore, Walter; Jensen, Peter
Subject:Re: Caltrain/COPA Safety Enhancement with photo below
thanks
James Keene | City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
E: james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org
Sent from my Macbook
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you
On Aug 11, 2015, at 1:31 PM, brian susan anuskewicz <basdesigns@icloud.com> wrote:
Greetings to James Keene, Richard Hackmann, Mayor Holman and Peter Jensen,
Thank you for your email responses with regards to my concerns. Communicating and updating goes a long way in bringing clarity.
I look forward to meeting with Peter Jensen this Thursday morning and listening to what the city has
developed thus far for the fencing/vegetation removal process.
I also would like to take James Keene’s offer up on a meeting in the near future where we can review the city’s process after there is a final agreement with Caltrain.
A good first step was Peter Jensen’s invitation to meet with me. Let’s begin here.
With best regards,
Brian
On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2015 7:49 AM
Brian,
Truly, we understand your concern. We are finalizing the agreement with CalTrain in the next few weeks. After that. we will have a 14 day period, with any trees to be removed
tagged in the field. We would be happy for you to drop by City Hall and Peter Jensen
(our landscape architect) and Richard Hackman (in my office) can go over the plans and
process for the section you mention.
Richard, please reach out.
[cid:ACE02DF9-E47A-431B-8814-CD0894895CD2@hsd1.ca.comcast.net.]
James Keene | City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
E: james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org<mailto:james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent from my Macbook
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you
On Aug 11, 2015, at 9:52 AM, brian susan anuskewicz
<basdesigns@icloud.com<mailto:basdesigns@icloud.com>> wrote:
Greetings to All,
The city is currently engaged as part of the safety enhancement in the placement of an 8
ft. height fence along the Caltrain r.o.w. throughout
the 4 miles of track in Palo Alto. In contacting city officials over the last few weeks I
have presented a question about this installation.
“ Where exactly will the fencing be placed on the East side of the Caltrain tracks in the
area between PA station and the
Embarcadero corridor and how are the existing trees/vegetation being affected?”
I inquired at random as I do not know even now who is leading this project and is responsible for addressing questions from residents. City officials thru the recent
community informational forum on July 27th had many other things to say, including
comments such as:
“ as well as the necessary vegetation removal to accommodate the new fencing”
“The city arborist is working closely with Caltrain to ensure as much as possible of the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2015 7:49 AM
vegetation screen is maintained.”
“The city Urban Forestry team will be conducting outreach to the residents who live
along Alma and may be impacted by the vegetation removal.”
The Vegetation & Brush Removal powerpoint illustrates this University/Embarcadero
corridor as green- Minimally Noticeable.
“At this point, our arborist has assured me that no trees would be removed- but there is no doubt that weedy shrubbery beneath the trees
could be removed if more extensive fencing is installed.” and “an extensive outreach to
folks along the Alma corridor and on the west side
of Caltrain will be essential. We will be sure to work with you.” James Keene's
correspondence with me on June 21,2015.
So why am I not feeling confident from multiple assurances that all is going to be well
along the Caltrain/Alma corridor?
Well, my initial question has yet to be answered and there has been no outreach to me [or other residents] beyond the forum
back on July 27th. Currently there is nowhere to direct questions to be better informed as
to the city’s process or offer input.
I have scheduled a meeting with Peter Jensen for Thursday morning to discuss my
concerns.
Most troublesome is that the city’s annual removal of vegetation along Alma/Caltrain
r.o.w. of past removes the ability to be assured.
Please reference photo below.
I want to see the best happen for all of the residents who will be effected. The city
seriously needs to protects the privacy and the
quality of those who live here. How is this going to happen without answers or dialogue?
With best regards,
Brian Anuskewicz
Alma Street
This photo of Public Works vegetation removal was sent to city council & officials on
July 07.2010- 900 block Alma St.<DSC00004.jpg>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2015 7:51 AM
ability to be assured.
Please reference photo below.
I want to see the best happen for all of the residents who will be effected. The city seriously needs to protects the
privacy and the
quality of those who live here. How is this going to happen without answers or dialogue?
With best regards,
Brian Anuskewicz
Alma Street
This photo of Public Works vegetation removal was sent to city council & officials on July 07.2010- 900 block Alma
St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/12/2015 7:49 AM
Carnahan, David
From:Hackmann, Richard
Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:22 AM
To:Keene, James; brian susan anuskewicz
Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Passmore, Walter; Jensen, Peter
Subject:RE: Caltrain/COPA Safety Enhancement with photo below
Thank you Jim…
Brian,
I saw in your email that you are meeting with Peter Jensen of our staff on Thursday. He can provide you with as much clarity as
we have at this time on the vegetation removal aspect of the project.
Is that meeting sufficient for you or are there other concerns you’d like addressed?
Regards,
Richard
From: Keene, James
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:18 AM
To: brian susan anuskewicz
Cc: Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Hackmann, Richard; Passmore, Walter; Jensen, Peter
Subject: Re: Caltrain/COPA Safety Enhancement with photo below
Brian,
Truly, we understand your concern. We are finalizing the agreement with CalTrain in the next few weeks. After that.
we will have a 14 day period, with any trees to be removed tagged in the field. We would be happy for you to drop by City Hall and Peter Jensen (our landscape architect) and Richard Hackman (in my office) can go over the plans and
process for the section you mention.
Richard, please reach out.
James Keene | City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
E: james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org
Sent from my Macbook
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
August 24, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance Implementing a Local
Minimum Wage Requirement of $11.00 by January 1, 2016 and
Discussion of Collaborating With Other Cities to Implement a
Regional Minimum Wage of $15.00 Per Hour by 2018
RECOMMENDATION
The Policy and Services Committee and Staff recommend that the City Council:
1. Adopt an Ordinance Adding Chapter 4.62 to Title 4 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Require the Payment of a City-Wide Minimum Wage (Attachment A), to take effect on
January 1, 2016;
2. Establish a base wage of $11.00 to commence of January 1, 2016;
3. Discuss collaborating with other cities to implement a regional minimum wage of $15.00
by 2018; and
4. Provide input on an outreach plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 9, 2015, the City Council considered a Colleagues memo recommending the
adoption of a city-wide minimum wage ordinance modeled after those recently adopted in
Mountain View and Sunnyvale. (Attachment B.) The Council voted to refer the matter to the
Policy and Services Committee for further consideration and for recommendation on a near-
term base wage, inflationary adjustments and long term goals. Council also requested the
Committee make a recommendation to Council regarding a strategy for outreach/education,
investigation and enforcement of violations.
On April 28, 2015, the Policy and Services Committee reviewed a draft ordinance modeled after
the cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale. The draft ordinance applies to all employees in Palo
Alto who work more than 2 hours per week. The Committee recommended that the base wage
be increased to $11.00, rather than the $10.30 currently in place in Mountain View and
Sunnyvale. The Committee reasoned that the $11.00 rate would ultimately align with
neighboring cities and provided an enhancement to State minimum wage which is scheduled to
increase to $10.00 in 2016. The ordinance also contains an annual adjustment based on the US
Department of Labor’s Regional Consumer Price Index. To provide regional consistency and to
reduce costs of enforcement it permits Palo Alto to contract with the City of San Jose for
complaint driven enforcement.
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Effective July 1, 2014, State law required a minimum wage of $9.00 per hour. The State law
minimum wage will increase to $10.00 per hour on January 1, 2016. The Federal minimum
wage for covered nonexempt employees has been $7.25 per hour since July 24, 2009. The
Federal minimum wage applies to States and cities without their own minimum wage
requirements.
Given the high cost of living in the Bay area, many northern California cities are beginning to
enact local wage ordinances. On November 6, 2012, City of San Jose voters approved a
minimum wage ordinance by ballot initiative. It required employers to pay their employees a
minimum wage of $10.00 per hour as of March 11, 2013 for work performed within the City of
San Jose and required the minimum wage to increase annually by the cost of living, beginning
on January 1, 2014. The current minimum wage under the San Jose ordinance is $10.30 per
hour, and it will increase by an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment every January 1.
The City of Berkeley adopted a minimum wage ordinance on June 27, 2014 of $10.00 per hour
effective October 1, 2014, and the City of Richmond adopted an ordinance on May 6, 2014 of
$9.60 per hour effective January 1, 2015. Most recently in October 2014, the City of Sunnyvale
adopted a minimum wage of $10.30 effective January 1, 2015 and Mountain View adopted a
$10.30 minimum wage effective July 1, 2015. Like San Jose’s ballot initiative, both Sunnyvale
and Mountain View’s ordinances included annual cost of living adjustments. In addition, the
Mountain View Council directed staff to come back with a plan to raise the minimum wage to
$15.00 by 2018 (coining the phrase “15 by 18”). Attachment C summarizes cities that have
recently adopted a local minimum wage ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Legal Framework of Ordinance
As directed by Council, the framework of the proposed minimum wage ordinance follows the
Sunnyvale and Mountain View model. It is also similar to San Jose’s ordinance and the
ordinance that Santa Clara is considering. Because San Jose’s ordinance was adopted by
initiative, the San Jose Council may not amend it in any substantive manner without voter
approval. As Mountain View and Sunnyvale were not constrained by voter initiative governing
San Jose, they added helpful clarifications such as defining organizations that are exempt
because of sovereign immunity, which include State, Federal, and County agencies, as well as
school districts. The proposed Palo Alto ordinance includes similar legally required exemptions
and also authorizes the City to adopt administrative guidelines to retain flexibility in developing
implementation and enforcement procedures and responding to specific instances.
As drafted, the ordinance requires covered employers who are either subject to the City’s
business registry requirements, conduct business in Palo Alto1 or maintain a business facility in
1 This phrase was inserted into Palo Alto’s draft following the Policy & Services Committee meeting to capture
employees who worked for a business not having an office in Palo Alto. Since Palo Alto’s business registry only
Page 3
the City to pay the minimum wage to covered employees. Covered employees are those who
perform at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of
the City. For ease of administration, like neighboring cities, Palo Alto’s draft incorporates State
minimum wage law exemptions. These exemptions include independent contractors as well as
other employees exempt by statute or wage order (for example minor babysitters who are
babysitting in an employer’s home). The ordinance, as drafted, would go into effect on January
1, 2016 as directed by the Policy and Services Committee, although that date could easily be
changed if the Council desired additional outreach. The City’s minimum wage would be slightly
higher than Sunnyvale, Mountain View and San Jose’s 2015 rate of $10.30 per hour and
likewise would be adjusted by the US Department of Labor’s Regional Consumer Price Index
annually thereafter on January 1 of each year.
In addition to the payment of the minimum wage, other significant terms of the ordinance
require covered employers to:
• Post a notice at the workplace of the current and prospective minimum wage rates and
the employees’ rights under the local law;
• Maintain payroll records for a period of four years; and
• Provide the employer’s name, address, and telephone number in writing to each
employee at the time of hire.
The ordinance also prohibits retaliation or discrimination against any person seeking to enforce
its terms. The enforcement provisions of the ordinance include the right for employees to
pursue a civil action to recover back wages and to seek reinstatement. The ordinance also
authorizes the City to issue administrative citations and monetary fines, conduct administrative
hearings, and seek injunctive relief against noncompliant employers.
Compliance and Enforcement
If Palo Alto adopts an ordinance substantially the same as San Jose’s, compliance and
enforcement under the ordinance could be a coordinated effort with the City of San Jose Office
of Equality Assurance (OEA). Staff recommends that, at least initially, certain functions be
performed by the OEA because: (1) the OEA has dedicated staff who are well-versed in the
workings of the ordinance which would offer efficient enforcement for the City; and (2) through
initial assistance from the OEA, the City will learn from San Jose’s experience in administering
the ordinance.
Legal staff has had preliminary discussions with OEA staff who indicated they are willing to
contract with the City to handle early enforcement functions such as initial complaint intake
requires businesses having a physical office in Palo Alto to register, this additional language is needed to protect
transitory employees working in Palo Alto. For instance, the ordinance would apply to a gardening service having a
home office in Los Altos, and employing gardeners who perform work in Palo Alto. The ordinance, of course, would
only apply to the hours worked by such employees in Palo Alto.
Page 4
and investigation, and informal resolution of complaints. This arrangement would be
memorialized by contract between the City and OEA, with fees likely to be set as flat fees per
task. Based on the relatively low number of enforcement cases handled by San Jose to date,
staff estimates the annual cost of OEA enforcement assistance to be low, not exceeding several
thousand dollars annually. Both Sunnyvale and Mountain View have similar contracts with OEA.
Update on Regional Efforts
The Cities Association has formed a subcommittee on minimum wage. On June 6, 2015, the
subcommittee issued a report recognizing Silicon Valley’s particularly high cost of living and
urging cities to prioritize a regional approach to the minimum wage. (See Attachment F.) Also,
following the Policy and Services Committee meeting, the Mayors of Sunnyvale and Mountain
View sent a letter to Palo Alto requesting collaboration on a regional approach to raise the
minimum wage to $15.00 by 2018. The letter suggested the following potential phasing
schedule:
The letter and related press release are attached as Exhibits G and H. Staff requests the Council
to provide input on this request. Implementation of a regional program or an additional
increase in minimum wage in Palo Alto would require an ordinance and would remain within
the authority of Council to determine at a future time.
Public Outreach and Input
Most cities who adopted minimum wage ordinances conducted some form of outreach prior to
their council’s formal consideration of the ordinance. The most common forms of outreach
were community input meetings and online surveys.
On March 25, 2015, the City posted the question, “Should the City of Palo Alto adopt an
ordinance setting a local minimum wage that is higher than the State minimum wage?” on
Open City Hall (an online engagement tool).
Page 5
A total of 197 individuals visited the topic on Open City Hall with 52 posting responses to the
question. Approximately two-thirds of those responding indicated they were in support of
raising the local minimum wage to a level higher than California’s. For those who indicated
they were opposed, there were a number of similar reasons including: minimum wage jobs are
not designed to support a family but are designed to pay unskilled workers; minimum wage
should be used for entry level jobs for teenagers; minimum wage hike will impact local small
businesses; federal and state should set regulations; those needing hike in minimum wage
cannot afford to live in Palo Alto; the cost of labor should be consistent with the task not the
location.
Those in support of raising the local minimum wage above California’s noted the high cost of
living in Palo Alto, and in some cases, indicated that even raising the minimum wage level
would not help people to live in Palo Alto. However, a number of posters suggested that raising
the minimum wage was a good idea to help with living expenses, and also to align with similar
actions in nearby cities.
Staff has conducted additional outreach to the business and greater community by utilizing a
variety of methods including Survey Monkey (an online survey tool), Nextdoor and Facebook
(social media) and by attending meetings with various business groups including the Chamber
of Commerce, the Downtown Business & Professional Association, and the California Avenue
Area Business Association/ Merchants of California Avenue. Additionally, staff attended a forum
hosted by the Chamber that included several Council Members. Input from Open City Hall,
Nextdoor, and Facebook is included as Attachment D and E, respectively.
General feedback through the variety of channels outlined above was mixed, with many in
support of raising the minimum wage, including the regional approach of $15 by 2018.
Some concerns expressed included the unknown economic impacts that a $15 minimum wage
by 2018 could cause, whether student job opportunities might be harmed, and the impacts to
non-profits. Restaurant owners/ managers generally opposed the idea of including tipped
employees within the ordinance. The reasoning noted was that effect of not excluding tipped
employees who often make $30/hr or more would have the effect of increasing their wage
while taking limited funds away from kitchen and janitorial staff who live off minimum wage.
Other concerns had to do with questions about which businesses were covered, as well as the
connection between those subject to the Business Registry and to the Minimum Wage
Ordinance. Staff has attempted to clarify these questions within the attached ordinance.
Currently, there are two active surveys to gauge opinions, especially as they relate to the
potential of a regional effort, from business owners, employees, and the greater community.
The surveys are available at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F9T56B5 and
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FNMKX72. Results are anticipated to be included in further
discussion at subsequent Policy & Services and/or Council meetings.
Page 6
Potential Business and Economic Impact
Although Council did not direct staff to perform a detailed economic analysis of the potential
impacts of a minimum wage increase in Palo Alto, the results of local surveys and studies were
gathered in order to provide a general overview. Two predominant viewpoints on the impact of
a minimum wage increase are whether an increase would stimulate the economy, boost
spending, and reduce employee turnover versus whether it would create increased business
costs, higher prices on goods and services, and job losses.
In 2012, during the City of San Jose minimum wage deliberations, a study was released by
Beacon Economics on behalf of the California Restaurant Association, which concluded that
minimum wage ordinances have a large impact on the restaurant industry, where profit
margins are generally slim. The report suggested that San Jose’s minimum wage ordinance
would lead to a loss of 900 to 3,100 jobs, and would cost San Jose employers $88 million to $96
million in increased wages and payroll expenses, which would be partially offset from increased
spending by workers of $26 million to $28 million.
A subsequent report issued by the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the
University of California, Berkeley, differed from the Beacon Economics findings. In contrast,
Berkeley economists found that increasing the minimum wage would increase business
operating costs by an “average of less than 2.5 percent,” and would create cost savings due to
lower employee turnover rates and higher worker productivity. Further, with more income,
minimum wage workers would have more spending power and inject more money into the
local economy, which would benefit both businesses through increased sales and the
government through increased sales tax revenue. Finally, the report asserts that gainful
employment of low-wage workers does not change after a minimum wage increase, and any
negative outcomes typically affect teens, not adults.
Since the San Jose minimum wage increase took effect on January 1, 2014, the Institute for
Research on Labor and Employment estimates that operating costs for restaurants rose by
approximately 0.25 percent to 1.0 percent over the past year and prices for customers rose less
than 1.0 percent on average. These cost increases coincided with a booming economy and
increased consumer spending throughout Silicon Valley.
Employers also reported experienced employees staying longer at their jobs. Overall, minimum
wage ordinances may create tangible impacts to the business community and consumers. The
magnitude of these impacts is difficult to assess and would likely vary by city.
Page 7
FISCAL IMPACT
The adoption of a minimum wage ordinance is anticipated to have a minimal fiscal impact on
the City in terms of both wages paid by the City and anticipated enforcement costs. The City
currently pays the State minimum wage of $9.00 per hour or above to all City employees. No
employee is currently paid at minimum wage. The lowest City hourly wage paid is $9.89. Based
on a payroll census from August, 64 hourly positions are paid below $11.00 per hour. If Council
adopts an hourly wage of $11.00 the ongoing increased cost to the General Fund would be
approximately $7,000 annually. Seven classifications: Instructor Aide, Recreation Aide,
Recreation Leader, Arts & Sciences Aide, General Laborer, Staff Specialist and Journey Level
Laborer all have their beginning rate below the $11.00 hourly rate. All of these classifications
are in the Limited Hourly or SEIU Hourly groups. If Council chooses to increase the minimum
wage, staff will return to Council with a recommendation for existing positions and the detailed
fiscal impact to the General Fund.
The State minimum wage will increase to $10.00 per hour on January 1, 2016, and the City
would similarly pay that wage rate if it does not adopt it’s own minimum wage ordinance. In
addition, all City contractors are also required to pay their employees the State minimum wage.
If adopted, the City minimum wage would be $11.00 per hour on January 1, 2016, adjusted
annually thereafter by CPI increases on January 1 of each following year.
In terms of enforcement costs, the ordinance as drafted allows delegation of preliminary
investigation and informal resolution tasks to the San Jose OEA, which staff recommends. Based
upon a relatively low volume of complaints received in San Jose since the adoption of its
ordinance, the cost for this delegated work is estimated to not exceed several thousand dollars
per year. The Administrative Services Department (ASD) would take a lead on minimum wage
issues for the City and oversee the agreement with the City of San Jose. ASD staff will monitor
the level of activity and budget accordingly in future years.
If a complaint advances to the formal administrative hearing stage, the ordinance provides that
the City will handle such proceedings in accordance with already established procedures in the
City Code. Based on San Jose’s experience to date, staff anticipates that few formal
administrative proceedings will be needed, and therefore City costs for formal enforcement are
likely to be nominal. If formal proceedings are required, however, City costs could be
considerable. In that case, depending on the other demands for legal work of this nature, it may
be necessary to return to Council for additional funding.
Depending on the date of the ordinance becoming effective, if approved by City Council, staff
may bring forward an amendment to the General Fund budget to cover the costs of
enforcement.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Adoption of an ordinance to increase the minimum wage City-wide is exempt from CEQA per
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility
that the action may have a significant effect on the environment.
Page 8
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Citywide Minimum Wage Ordinance (PDF)
B: Colleagues Memo to City Council re Citywide Minimum Wage (PDF)
C: Minimum Wage Comparison City Chart (PDF)
D: Community Feedback from Open City Hall (PDF)
E: Community Feedback from Nextdoor and Facebook (PDF)
F: Cities Association Recommendation on Minimum Wage (PDF)
G: 2015 Regional Letter Minimum Wage Palo Alto (PDF)
H: Joint News Release Mtn View and Sunnyvale Community Feedback (PDF)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Page 9
Not Yet Approved
Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 4.62 to Title 4
(Business Licenses and Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt a
Citywide Minimum Wage for Palo Alto Employees
RECITALS
1. The Bay area in general and Palo Alto in particular are becoming increasingly
expensive places to live and work.
2. Payment of a minimum wage advances the interests of the City as a whole,
by creating jobs that keep workers and their families out of poverty.
3. A minimum wage will enable a worker to meet basic needs and avoid economic
hardship.
4. This ordinance is intended to improve the quality of services provided in the
City to the public by reducing high turnover, absenteeism, and instability in the workplace.
5. Prompt and efficient enforcement of this Chapter will provide workers with
economic security and assurance that their rights will be respected.
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
added to read as follows:
CHAPTER 4.62
CITYWIDE MINIMUM WAGE
Sections:
4.62.010 Purpose.
4.62.020 Definitions.
4.62.030 Minimum Wage.
4.62.040 Exempt organizations.
4.62.050 Waiver through collective bargaining.
4.62.060 Notice, posting and payroll records.
4.62.070 Retaliation prohibited.
4.62.080 Implementation.
150311 jb 0131322 1 Rev. August 10, 2015
Not Yet Approved
4.62.090 Enforcement.
4.62.100 Relationship to other requirements.
4.62.010 Purpose.
This ordinance shall be known as the “Minimum Wage Ordinance.”
4.62.020 Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings
set forth in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
a. “City” shall mean City of Palo Alto or any agency designated by the City of Palo
Alto to perform various investigative, enforcement and informal resolution functions pursuant
to this article.
b. “Employee” shall mean any person who:
1. In a calendar week performs at least two (2) hours of work for an employer as
defined below; and
2. Qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any
employer under the California minimum wage law, as provided under Sec. 1197 of the
California Labor Code and wage orders published by the California Industrial Welfare
Commission, or is a participant in a welfare-to-work program.
c. “Employer” shall mean any person, including corporate officers or executives, as
defined in Sec. 18 of the California Labor Code, who directly or indirectly through any other
person, including through the services of a temporary employment agency, staffing agency, or
similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of
any employee and who is either subject to the city’s business registrylicense requirements,
conducts business in Palo Alto or maintains a business facility in the city.
d. “Minimum wage” shall have the meaning set forth in Sec. 4.62.030 of this article.
e. “Welfare-to-Work Program” shall mean the CalWORKs program, and the Santa
Clara County Works Program (SCC Works) employment assistance program, and any successor
programs that are substantially similar to them.
4.62.030 Minimum wage.
a. Employers shall pay employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in this
section for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto.
150311 jb 0131322 2 Rev. August 10, 2015
Not Yet Approved
b. The minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of $10.30 $11.00. To prevent inflation
from eroding its value, beginning on January 1, 2016, and each year thereafter, the
minimum wage shall increase by an amount corresponding to the prior year’s increase, if any,
in the cost of living. The prior year’s increase in the cost of living shall be measured by the
percentage increase, if any, as of August of the immediately preceding year over the level as
of August of the previous year of the Consumer Price Index (Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers, U.S. City Average for All Items) or its successor index as published by the
U.S. Department of Labor or its successor agency, with the amount of the minimum wage
increase rounded to the nearest multiple of five (5) cents. The adjusted minimum wage shall
be announced by October 1 of each year and shall become effective as the new minimum
wage on January 1 of each year.
c. A violation for unlawfully failing to pay the minimum wage shall be deemed to
continue from the date immediately following the date that the wages were due and payable
as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Sec. 200) of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, to
the date immediately preceding the date the wages are paid in full.
4.62.040. Exempt organizations.
State, federal and county agencies, including school districts, shall not be required to pay
minimum wage when the work performed is related to their governmental function.
However, for work that is not related to their governmental function, including, but not
limited to: booster or gift shops, non-K-12 cafeterias, on-site concessions and similar
operations, minimum wage shall be required to be paid. Minimum wage shall also be
required to be paid by lessees or renters of facilities or space from an exempt organization.
Any organization claiming “auxiliary organization” status under California Education
Code Sec. 89901 or Sec. 72670(c) shall not be required to pay minimum wage. The
organization, upon request of the city, shall provide documentary proof of its auxiliary
organization status.
4.62.050. Waiver through collective bargaining.
To the extent required by federal law, all or any portion of the applicable requirements
of this article may be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement, provided that
such waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and unambiguous terms.
4.62.060. Notice, posting and payroll records.
a. By December 1 of each year, the city shall publish and make available to
employers a bulletin announcing the adjusted minimum wage rate for the upcoming year,
which shall take effect on January 1 of each year. In conjunction with this bulletin, the city shall,
by December 1 of each year, publish and make available to employers, in all languages spoken
by more than five (5) percent of the work force in the City, a notice suitable for posting by
150311 jb 0131322 3 Rev. August 10, 2015
Not Yet Approved
employers in the workplace informing employees of the current minimum wage rate and of
their rights under this article.
b. Every employer shall post in a conspicuous place at any workplace or job site where
any employee works the notice published each year by the city informing employees of the
current minimum wage rate and of their rights under this article. Every employer shall
post such notices in any language spoken by at least five (5) percent of the employees at
the workplace or job site. Every employer shall also provide each employee at the time
of hire with the employer’s name, address and telephone number in writing.
c. Employers shall retain payroll records pertaining to employees for a period of four
(4) years, and shall allow the city access to such records, with appropriate notice and at a
mutually agreeable time, to monitor compliance with the requirements of this article. Where
an employer does not maintain or retain adequate records documenting wages paid or does
not allow the city reasonable access to such records, the employee’s account of how much he
or she was paid shall be presumed to be accurate, absent clear and convincing evidence
otherwise.
4.62.070. Retaliation prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for an employer or any other party to discriminate in any
manner or take adverse action against any person in retaliation for exercising rights
protected under this article. Rights protected under this article include, but are not limited
to: the right to file a complaint or inform any person about any party’s alleged noncompliance
with this article; and the right to inform any person of his or her potential rights under this
article and to assist him or her in asserting such rights. Protections of this article shall
apply to any person who mistakenly, but in good faith, alleges noncompliance with this article.
Taking adverse action against a person within ninety (90) days of the person’s
exercise of rights protected under this article shall raise a rebuttable presumption of having
done so in retaliation for the exercise of such rights.
4.62.080. Implementation.
a. Guidelines. The city manager or designee shall be authorized to coordinate
implementation and enforcement of this article and may promulgate appropriate guidelines
or rules for such purposes. Any guidelines or rules promulgated by the city shall have the force
and effect of law and may be relied on by employers, employees and other parties to
determine their rights and responsibilities under this article. Any guidelines or rules may
establish procedures for ensuring fair, efficient and cost effective implementation of this
article, including supplementary procedures for helping to inform employees of their rights
under this article, for monitoring employer compliance with this article and for providing
administrative hearings to determine whether an employer or other person has violated the
requirements of this article.
150311 jb 0131322 4 Rev. August 10, 2015
Not Yet Approved
b. Reporting Violations. An employee or any other person may report to the city in
writing any suspected violation of this article. The city shall encourage reporting pursuant to
this subsection by keeping confidential, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable laws,
the name and other identifying information of the employee or person reporting the
violation, provided, however, that with the authorization of such person, the city may disclose
his or her name and identifying information as necessary to enforce this article or other
employee protection laws. In order to further encourage reporting by employees, if the city
notifies an employer that the city is investigating a complaint, the city shall require the
employer to post or otherwise notify its employees that the city is conducting an investigation,
using a form provided by the city.
c. Investigation. The city shall be responsible for investigating any possible
violations of this article by an employer or other person. The city shall have the
authority to inspect workplaces, interview persons and request the city attorney to
subpoena books, papers, records or other items relevant to the enforcement of this
article.
d. Informal Resolution. The city shall make every effort to resolve complaints
informally, in a timely manner, and shall have a policy that the city shall take no more than
one (1) year to resolve any matter before initiating an enforcement action. The failure of
the city to meet these time lines within one (1) year shall not be grounds for closure or
dismissal of the complaint.
SEC. 4.62.090. Enforcement.
a. Where prompt compliance is not forthcoming, the city shall take any appropriate
enforcement action to secure compliance. In addition to all other civil remedies, the city
may enforce this ordinance pursuant to Title 1 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. To secure
compliance, the city may use the following enforcement measures:
1. The city may issue an administrative citation with a daily fine for each day
or portion thereof and for each employee or person as to whom the
violation occurred or continued.
2. The city may issue an administrative compliance order.
3. The city may initiate a civil action for injunctive relief and damages and civil
penalties in a court of competent jurisdiction.
b. Any person aggrieved by a violation of this article, any entity a member of which
is aggrieved by a violation of this article or any other person or entity acting on behalf of the
public as provided for under applicable state law may bring a civil action in a court of
competent jurisdiction against the employer or other person violating this article and, upon
prevailing, shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and shall be entitled to such
legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation including, without
150311 jb 0131322 5 Rev. August 10, 2015
Not Yet Approved
limitation, the payment of any back wages unlawfully withheld, the payment of an
additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) to each employee or
person whose rights under this article were violated for each day that the violation occurred
or continued, reinstatement in employment and/or injunctive relief; provided, however, that
any person or entity enforcing this article on behalf of the public as provided for under
applicable state law shall, upon prevailing, be entitled only to equitable, injunctive or
restitutionary relief to employees, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
c. This section shall not be construed to limit an employee’s right to bring legal action
for a violation of any other laws concerning wages, hours or other standards or rights, nor shall
exhaustion of remedies under this article be a prerequisite to the assertion of any right.
d. Except where prohibited by state or federal law, city agencies or departments may
revoke or suspend any registration certificates, permits or licenses held or requested by the
employer until such time as the violation is remedied.
e. Relief. The remedies for violation of this article include, but are not limited to:
1. Reinstatement, and the payment of back wages unlawfully withheld, and
the payment of an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) to
each employee or person whose rights under this article were violated for each day or portion
thereof that the violation occurred or continued, and fines imposed pursuant to other
provisions of this code or State law.
2. Interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in
subdivision (b) of Sec. 3289 of the California Civil Code, which shall accrue from the date
that the wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Sec. 200) of
Division 2 of the California Labor Code, to the date the wages are paid in full.
3. Reimbursement of the city’s administrative costs of enforcement and
reasonable attorney’s fees.
f. Posted Notice. If a repeated violation of this article has been finally determined,
the city may require the employer to post public notice of the employer’s failure to comply in
a form determined by the city.
4.62.100. Relationship to other requirements.
This article provides for payment of a local minimum wage and shall not be
construed to preempt or otherwise limit or affect the applicability of any other law,
regulation, requirement, policy or standard that provides for payment of higher or
supplemental wages or benefits, or that extends other protections.
SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the
150311 jb 0131322 6 Rev. August 10, 2015
Not Yet Approved
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there
is no possibility of significant environmental effects occurring as a result of the adoption of this
ordinance.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision or clause of this chapter is held to be
unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall
not affect other provisions of this chapter, and clauses of this chapter are declared to be
severable.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on January 1,
2016.upon the commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. [Or delayed
implementation per City Council direction.]
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
150311 jb 0131322 7 Rev. August 10, 2015
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
February 9, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Colleagues Memo from Council Members Berman, Burt, DuBois, and
Wolbach Regarding a City-Wide Minimum Wage Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION
We ask our Council Colleagues to refer this colleague’s memo to the Policy and Services
Committee, supported by appropriate staff as determined by the City Manager, to analyze and
make recommendations to the City Council on a City-Wide Minimum Wage Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
State law currently requires a minimum wage for all industries of not less than $9.00 per hour,
which will increase to $10.00 per hour after January 1, 2016. In response to our higher regional
cost of living and growing gap between minimum wages and the cost of living in Silicon Valley,
the cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale and San Jose have recently adopted local minimum
wage ordinances. If minimum wages were adjusted based on local costs of living, they would be
considerably higher in Palo Alto and the peninsula than most elsewhere in the state. Recently,
the Santa Clara County Cities Association made minimum wage issues one of their 2015
priorities. Despite our general affluence, along with high costs of living and working in Palo Alto,
we currently have the same minimum wage as low cost regions of California and lower
minimum wages than some neighboring cities.
PURPOSE
Our lowest wage workers perform valued services in Palo Alto and often have to work multiple
jobs with long commutes to barely make ends meet. A local minimum wage would be a modest
step in supporting these workers who are vital to maintaining the services we value and that
are essential to our local economy. In addition, the strength of our community and society
relies on maintaining a level of economic fairness and opportunity for all. This measure will be a
modest but constructive step towards providing adequate income for all workers.
PROPOSAL
The Council is being asked to:
1) Refer the matter to the Policy and Services Committee. Direct the City Manager and City
Attorney to provide adequate staff support for the analysis and recommendations,
modeled after ordinances in Sunnyvale and Mountain View.
2) Request the Policy and Services Committee to recommend to the City Council terms of a
local minimum wage ordinance that would set a near term base wage, inflationary
adjustments and long term goals.
Page 2
3) Request the Policy and Services Committee to explore with the City Manager and City
Attorney and make recommendations to Council regarding a strategy for
outreach/education, investigation and enforcement of violations.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Staff impacts to develop an ordinance are anticipated to be low based upon reliance on similar
ordinances in Mountain View and Sunnyvale as models. If Council adopts an ordinance,
resources will be required to educate businesses and workers, investigate complaints and bring
enforcement actions. Resources and strategies should be explored by the Policy and Services
Committee, with recommendations to Council.
Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Rock <rockjs@sbcglobal.net>
Monday, January 26, 2015 12:42 PM
Council, City
Minimum Wage Increase
CITY OF PALO ALTO. GA GITY CLERK'S OFJiHjE
15 JAN 26 PM 3: 97
I urge you to vote for a minimum wage in Palo Alto significantly higher than the state minimum wage.
1) The cost of living in Palo Alto is much higher than the state average
2) The state minimum wage has not kept up with inflation.
3) People who work should be able to live on their wages and not need govt. subsidies
4) The increased costs to employers is very small. $1/hr is 1.6 cents/minute. A 6 minutes of service would
thus cost about 10 cents more. This is a trivial amount in Palo Alto. Who would go to a neighboring city,
with all the time and expenses of travel to "save" a few cents?
5) It is the just and moral thing to have more equality in our society.
-Steve
Stephen Rock
3872 Nathan Way
Palo Alto CA 94303
ser84@columbia.edu
MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCES (Updated 08-6-15)
City/
County/
State
Ordinance
Adoption Date
Current Minimum
Wage/Hr. All
Cities Future
Increases Tied to
CPI
Notable Aspects
San Jose 3/11/13 $10.00 on 3/11/13
$10.15 on 1/1/14
$10.30 on 1/1/15
Voter-initiated ordinance. Annual
increase tied to CPI. Applies to any
worker who works 2 or more hours per
week.
San Francisco 11/4/14 $12.25 on 5/1/15
$13.00 on 7/1/16 $14.00 on 7/1/17
$15.00 on 7/1/18
Voters approved City initiated ballot
measure on November 4, 2014 which
raises minimum hourly wage to $15.00 in
2018. Following 2018, annual increase tied
to CPI.
Sunnyvale 10/28/14 $10.30 on 1/1/15 Annual increase tied to CPI.
Santa Clara Pending $11.00 on 1/1/16 Annual increase tied to CPI. Council meeting scheduled for
August 18, 2015/
Mountain View 10/9/14 $10.30 on 7/1/15 Annual increase tied to CPI.
Berkeley 6/27/14 $10.00 on 10/1/14 $11.00 on 10/1/15
$12.53 on 10/1/16
Richmond 5/6/14 $9.60 on 1/1/15 $11.52 on 1/1/16
$12.30 on 1/1/17 $13.00 on 1/1/18
Several exemptions negotiated late in
the adoption process. Small business
employers who pay less than 800 hours
of employee wages over a two-week
period are exempt. Employers who
derive more than 50 percent of their
income where the point of sale is outside
the city must pay intermediate wage
halfway between the city and state
minimum wage. Deduction for
medical benefits is included. Increases
after 2018 will be based on CPI.
Oakland 11/4/14 $12.25 on 3/2/15 Voter-initiated ordinance. Voters
approved ballot measure on
November 4, 2014 increasing the
minimum wage to $12.25. Annual
increase tied to CPI. Hospitality workers
to keep all wages and tips. Five or nine
days of sick leave are required based
upon the size of the employer.
San Diego 7/28/14 $9.75 on 1/1/15
$10.50 on 1/1/16
$11.50 on 1/1/17 Wage tied to
inflation after 1/1/19
.
Mayor vetoed minimum wage increase
on 8/8/14. Council overrode Mayor’s veto on 8/19/14. Ordinance stayed
pending referendum vote in June 2016 election. Includes 10 days of paid leave
and 10 days of unpaid leave for workers per year.
Los Angeles 06/13/15
$9.00 on 7/1/15
$10.50 on 7/1/16 $12.00 on 7/1/17
$13.25 on 7/1/18 $14.25 on 7/1/19
$15.00 on 7/1/20
Applies to all businesses, but grants an additional year for small businesses to
comply. Once both small and large
businesses reach $15 in 2022, CPI adjustments will be used.
San Leandro 9/1/07 $13.07 on 7/1/14
w/benefits $14.57 on 7/1/14
w/o benefits
Benefit contribution must equal $1.50 or
more to count. Provides 12 days paid leave and 10 days unpaid leave. CPI adjustments
on July 1.
State of California 1/1/14
_______________
Pending
Currently $9 on 7/1/14
$10 on 1/1/16 _________________
Proposed SB 3
$11 on 1/1/16 $13 on 7/1/17
__________________________________
Under Proposed SB 3, on 7/1/18 CPI
adjustment and annually thereafter.
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 15, 2015, 9:31 AM
As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily
representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 15, 2015, 9:31 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2596
Local Minimum Wage
Should the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance setting a local minimum wage that is higher than the State
minimum wage?
As of April 15, 2015, 9:31 AM, this forum had:
Attendees:189
All Statements:52
Hours of Public Comment:2.6
This topic started on March 25, 2015, 4:48 PM.
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 15, 2015, 9:31 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2596 Page 2 of 12
Local Minimum Wage
Should the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance setting a local minimum wage that is higher than the State
minimum wage?
Name not available (unclaimed)April 12, 2015, 9:08 PM
No, I don't believe the minimum wage should be raised. Minimum wage jobs are not designed to support a
family or provide adequate income to live in Palo Alto (or anywhere in the Bay Area), they are designed to pay
unskilled workers who then gain experience and move up. They are also designed to provide work experience
and spending money for teens living at home and some college students. I think we should protect small
business owners who are being run out of town much too often because of the high costs of doing business in
Palo Alto. Raising the minimum wage will only exacerbate the problem.
Name not shown in Palo Verde (on forum)April 12, 2015, 4:44 PM
No, I don't support an increased local min wage.
Many people have already provided very good arguments against. Min wage jobs do not have to be "living
wage" jobs. They can and should be "starter" positions.
Name not shown in Crescent Park (on forum)April 10, 2015, 7:48 PM
Minimum wage laws are immoral. These laws mandate that if a prospective employee is not worth a certain
amount, it is illegal to hire them.
The arguments in favor of a minimum wage are all nonsense - for one thing, if it made good business sense to
pay least-skilled workers more, you could make a fortune doing it yourself rather than getting a politician to
order someone else to do it. If there was a benefit in morale, productivity, or retention, then savvy employers
would catch on fast and do it without being told.
Entry level jobs give teenagers their introduction to the adult world. Such jobs provide essential training and
social skills. High minimum wages destroy those job opportunities. The Affordable Care Act has already
turned many low-wage jobs into part-time gigs. Don't eliminate even those small, crucial opportunities by
pricing those workers out of the market.
Recent careful studies of increases in the minimum wage demonstrate that they reduce employment - see
Clemens and Wither, NBER Dec.2014; and Hanson and Hawley, Journal of Labor Research, Dec.2014.
European countries with no minimum wage laws have half the unemployment of countries with the highest
minimum wage laws (Trading Economics, "Youth Unemployment Rate - Countries - List. 4/11/2015"). With
teenage unemployment in the US well over 20%, the last thing we need to do is to saw off the bottom rungs on
the career ladder.
It is no coincidence that while a round of minimum wage boosts takes shape, McDonald's has announced a
rollout of robotic order-taking devices, and White Castle, Chili's, and Applebees are all testing ordering kiosks to
reduce labor costs.
Local Minimum Wage
Should the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance setting a local minimum wage that is higher than the State minimum wage?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 15, 2015, 9:31 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2596 Page 3 of 12
A decent job at any wage is better than no job. You might even know someone - an "intern" - who offered to
help out for free just to learn a trade. Minimum wage laws generally make that arrangement illegal.
Palo Alto should eliminate any minimum wage requirement, and be proud to offer job opportunities to the least
skilled - those most in need of jobs.
1 Supporter
Name not shown in Greenmeadow (on forum)April 9, 2015, 11:06 PM
I support raising the minimum wage to $15. It's not about paying people enough to live in Palo Alto. It's about
paying a living wage. It's the right thing to do.
Some say that businesses will have to lay off people or go out of business. If the wage was increased $2/hour
immediately, that would increase expenses by $16 per employee per day. Is that really going to force a business
to close? Are you even going to notice the price increase needed to cover that?
Name not available (unclaimed)April 9, 2015, 11:00 PM
It won't matter. No matter what the minimum wage is, it is definitely not enough to live in Palo Alto. I have a
family member who works in Palo Alto making almost $50/hr who is married with children and is renting a tiny 2
bedroom/1 bath piece of crap house in Palo Alto for almost $4,000. After paying for rent, utilities, bills, and other
necessities every month, there is no money left to put away for savings. Even though their family has no debt
and are very thrifty, they are having a very hard time living in this area. Every year their rent goes up a lot, but
his income stays the same. Even though it seems like he makes a lot, just remember that taxes takes a huge
chunk of his paycheck. Palo Alto is not meant for low wage workers, let alone the hard working middle class.
Name not shown in Charleston Terrace (on forum)April 9, 2015, 10:58 PM
No, i do not agree with increasing the minimum wage, i support the local business owners. PA does not have
very many small businesses, I do not want to see them disappear.
June Loy in Palo Verde (on forum)April 9, 2015, 8:18 PM
I am not at all sure that mandating a higher minimum wage than the federal standard will have the beneficial
effect that people are assuming. However, I would support programs that provide businesses in Palo Alto
incentives (such as tax credits) if they provide a higher standard of employee benefits, which might include
payment above the minimum for jobs that would otherwise qualify as minimum wage, as well as better health
insurance or paid medical leave. This could be attractive to businesses and to employees.
Dedra Hauser in Evergreen Park (on forum)April 9, 2015, 3:45 PM
Local Minimum Wage
Should the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance setting a local minimum wage that is higher than the State minimum wage?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 15, 2015, 9:31 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2596 Page 4 of 12
I think we should. The minimum wage costs the government billions of dollars for food stamps and other
programs for the poor. Businesses should bear these costs, not the taxpayer. And local areas with high living
costs, such as us, should set a minimum living wage for people who work here.
2 Supporters
Name not available (unclaimed)April 9, 2015, 2:34 PM
No - let Fed/State governments set regulations.
Elliott Bloom in Midtown/ Midtown West (on forum)April 9, 2015, 1:03 PM
I believe this would be a good way of lowering traffic in Palo Alto by discouraging businesses to locate in Palo
Alto. Better yet, make it $15/hr.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 9, 2015, 12:52 PM
Palo Alto should not further raise the minimum wage. It would prevent some businesses from being competitive,
and many customers would take their business elsewhere.
A raise would also make the cost of living in Palo Alto higher, and it may push out the already struggling lower
earning families in Palo Alto.
People who work for minimum wage cannot live in Palo Alto anyway, so higher minimum wage would not benefit
Palo Alto residents.
If business owners believe that higher pay would help them retain top talent, they could always pay them over
the minimum wage.
Name not shown in Palo Verde (on forum)April 3, 2015, 10:52 AM
I'm against a local minimum. People supporting this argue the high living cost. What percentage of employees
on minimum wage can afford living in the city by themselves anyway? They are either working class from
remote less expensive area or part-time youth from local wealthy families. Even doubling the hourly rate
wouldn't change the situation much. It'd only penalize the small business owners.
2 Supporters
Becky Brewer in Duveneck/ St Francis (on forum)April 3, 2015, 9:27 AM
Yes. The cost of living in Palo Alto is exceedingly high and is making this community unaffordable for many
families.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 3, 2015, 3:19 AM
Local Minimum Wage
Should the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance setting a local minimum wage that is higher than the State minimum wage?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 15, 2015, 9:31 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2596 Page 5 of 12
No. Absolutely not.
Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (on forum)April 2, 2015, 10:40 PM
An increase in the Palo Alto minimum wage is not going to help minimum wage workers live in Palo Alto. A $20
per hour minimum wage translates into $3600 per month. It is hard to afford housing in Palo Alto for $3600 (pre
tax) a month.
In these cases, higher minimum wages usually benefit the teenagers of Palo Alto and those of nearby
communities. Many (if not most) of these teenagers are from very wealthy families. It's not clear why we need a
policy that transfers wealth from small business owners (many of which do not live in Palo Alto) to children of
wealthy families.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 2, 2015, 10:33 PM
Yes! $15. It costs way more to live here than other parts of the state.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 2, 2015, 8:16 PM
if the minimum wage only applied to residents of Palo Alto I could be part of that discussion.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 2, 2015, 5:16 PM
Yes it should be higher, even double the minimum would not be living wages.
Name not shown in Southgate (on forum)April 2, 2015, 4:48 PM
I strongly support an increase to the minimum wage. The minimum wage hike to $10/hour in 2016 will lead to
an income of roughly $1600/month. It would be very difficult or impossible for someone in our city to pay for
rent, food, and other necessities on that, especially if they have children.
Name not shown in College Terrace (on forum)April 2, 2015, 4:08 PM
Yes 15.00 dollars !!
1 Supporter
Name not available (unclaimed)April 2, 2015, 4:03 PM
Local Minimum Wage
Should the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance setting a local minimum wage that is higher than the State minimum wage?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 15, 2015, 9:31 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2596 Page 6 of 12
Higher than the state minimum wage !!
Erin H in Palo Verde (on forum)April 2, 2015, 3:56 PM
Yes. According to the department of labor, the notion that increasing the minimum wage costs jobs is a myth:
http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm Their statistics also show that most small businesses support
increasing minimum wage because of its benefits on consumer spending power and employee retention. The
argument that it "costs jobs" is a bullying tactic used by larger businesses who want to optimize large
workforces. Minimum wage has lagged behind for too long, and communities like Oakland (which voted to raise
its minimum wage to $12.25) are growing for a reason: they're smart and staying ahead of the curve in a
society increasingly concerned with income inequality. Palo Alto following suit would send a powerful message
that might even help salve its reputation as one of the most inequitable places in the country. It's a step in the
right direction.
2 Supporters
Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (on forum)April 2, 2015, 3:32 PM
No, the cost of labor should be consistent with the task performed, not location. Families are struggling to live in
this already very expensive city, not to mention the Peninsula.
Alexandra Acker-Lyons in Palo Verde (on forum)April 2, 2015, 3:11 PM
YES! $15 minimum. Living in PA or anywhere near is prohibitively expensive. Transportation to/from is
expensive. Parking is expensive. Food is expensive. PA should tie minimum wage to cost of living.
1 Supporter
Cedric Chin in Palo Verde (on forum)April 2, 2015, 2:52 PM
No. I'd rather have the cost of living -- particularly utilities -- in Palo Alto go down.
4 Supporters
Name not shown in Community Center (on forum)April 2, 2015, 2:50 PM
I agree with one posting that we can't raise minimum wage enough to really support living in Palo Alto because
of the super high rents. We can't make it so difficult for small businesses that more will choose surrounding
cities like RC. This would leave our city with even less retail and locally owned businesses.it should do it more
often (yearly) by small increments to accommodate inflation plus a little extra. But I think minimum wage above
the State levels should not apply to people under age 18. This helps high school students to get jobs. Minimum
wages could be raised to be similar to nearby communities.
Local Minimum Wage
Should the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance setting a local minimum wage that is higher than the State minimum wage?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 15, 2015, 9:31 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2596 Page 7 of 12
3 Supporters
Name not available (unclaimed)April 2, 2015, 2:32 PM
Absolutely not. People don't realize that raising the minimum wage will only increase costs broadly and
increase inflation. This will make the effective cost of living the same or worse, particularly for those on a fixed
income.
Name not shown in Charleston Meadows (on forum)April 2, 2015, 2:30 PM
Yes. Of course they should. With the amount of money in Palo Alto, so what if it costs an extra nickle to buy a
latte.
1 Supporter
Name not shown in Midtown/ Midtown West (on forum)April 2, 2015, 1:35 PM
Palo Alto is an amazing place to live and one of the most beautiful towns in the bay area, however, as most
know, the cost of living in the bay is higher than the rest of the state. On top of that the cost of living in Palo Alto
is higher than the rest of the bay. The minimum wage should definitely be more than the rest of the state for the
very reason that it costs more to do the same things here.
3 Supporters
Name not available (unclaimed)April 2, 2015, 1:31 PM
No. There is no need. If a business wants to reduce turnover or compete with other employers it can certainly
pay its employees more after they've worked there a while. There is no need to mandate this from the
government! This will simply limit the ability of first time employees to gain work experience. Most longer term
employees get periodic raises if they work well--there are positive incentives to work hard and not leave your
job as your salary doesn't stay at minimum wage if your work ethic is good, even at fast food establishments
and other restaurants.
Name not shown in College Terrace (on forum)April 2, 2015, 1:00 PM
YES. Occupations like house cleaners, nannies, gardeners already command $20 or more per hour. You don't
see people firing these workers - they are more in demand than ever. Paying people in other low-skilled jobs -
groundskeepers at Stanford, Starbucks and retail workers, etc. - helps everyone by raising incomes at the low-
end, not just the high end.
2 Supporters
Shelton Ehrlich in Leland Manor/ Garland (on forum)April 2, 2015, 12:56 PM
Local Minimum Wage
Should the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance setting a local minimum wage that is higher than the State minimum wage?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 15, 2015, 9:31 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2596 Page 8 of 12
No. Experience in other towns shows it costs jobs.
3 Supporters
jean Roth outside Palo Alto (on forum)March 31, 2015, 12:56 PM
I think Palo Alto should definitely raise the local minimum wage. Over half of minimum wage workers are
working full time. Many of them have families. Looking at San Jose, we can see that raising the minimum wage
did not affect the employment statistics. Many small businesses recognize that it helps to prevent turnover. It is
also clear that the more money in circulation, the more people spend, and the more the economy grows.
3 Supporters
Megan Fogarty in Midtown/ Midtown West (on forum)March 30, 2015, 8:02 PM
Follow our local cities who have already made this commitment and commit to a more just community in our
wage practices. Thanks!
3 Supporters
Darryl Fenwick in Downtown North (on forum)March 30, 2015, 11:16 AM
I'm sure most people in Palo Alto would like to find ways to help the low-skilled worker who cannot command
high wages live in such a high priced area as Palo Alto. I am certainly one of them. However, recent studies
show that raising the minimum wage hurts many of the same low-skilled workers it aims to help, by either
denying them employment opportunities, reducing work hours, or being dismissed from employment (see works
by MaCurdy, Stanford University, Meer & West, Texas A&M and MIT, and Clemens & Wither, UCSD). The main
conclusion is that although raising minimum wage may help some, it will hurt others. And really, these
conclusions make common sense - employers react to price signals. In essence, they see a raise in minimum
wage as equivalent to a tax on low-skilled workers.
I am not willing to help some to the detriment of others, especially since the others are suffering the same plight
as those we are trying to help. Fortunately, there are other solutions other than the overly-simplistic solution of
raising the minimum wage. For example, increasing the EITC is one. On a local level, I'm sure that Palo Alto
can come up with clever solutions to help those low-skilled workers we are trying to help. Why not subsidize
their salaries with city money? This has no impact on employment, yet the result is the same. If we can spend
$8 million for Buena Vista, we certainly can spend some $$ to help those in need.
3 Supporters
Name not shown in Charleston Meadows (on forum)March 28, 2015, 5:09 PM
Yes
Local Minimum Wage
Should the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance setting a local minimum wage that is higher than the State minimum wage?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 15, 2015, 9:31 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2596 Page 9 of 12
2 Supporters
Name not available (unclaimed)March 28, 2015, 10:02 AM
Yes, of course we should adopt an ordinance setting a higher minimum wage than that of the state. It is terribly
expensive to live here. And it is the right thing to do.
Name not shown in Palo Verde (on forum)March 27, 2015, 4:13 PM
Small businesses have choices - Increase prices. Reduce worker hours. Reduce the wages of higher paid
workers including owners. Relocate. At a higher wage, a worker with fewer hours may still be earning more.
Even with a $15 minimum wage, it will take a lot of roommates and overtime to live in Palo Alto or anywhere on
the peninsula. While I'm sure there are consequences I am not imagining, both good and bad, I am confident
that far more lives will be improved rather than hurt by raising our city minimum wage to $15.
3 Supporters
Name not shown in Duveneck/ St Francis (on forum)March 27, 2015, 4:04 PM
Yes, we should. San Jose has raised theirs and has not experienced problems with losing jobs.
1 Supporter
Name not shown in Evergreen Park (on forum)March 27, 2015, 10:45 AM
As the Operations Manager of a small Business in Palo Alto I’ve struggled greatly with my thoughts on
increasing Minimum Wage. Philosophically I support this idea, people should be paid enough to live near where
they work.
However, I do know that if these increases raises to minimum wage happen too fast I will be forced to lay-off
employees, it is difficult to deal with rapidly increased cost when your sales are flat or in a decline (perhaps
because of an unwanted streetscape construction project). As I look at our budget and wonder where this
money to pay for this increase will come from. We have already cut every other cost. I’m left with reducing labor
and jobs to find the money.
Let our small business deal with the increases we already have to deal with from the state. Then if the state
does not continue to raise the minimum wage then Palo Alto should consider raising the City’s minimum.
Jumping my expenses suddenly by a huge percentage would most likely result in us going out of business. I
can’t believe that we are alone in this.
4 Supporters
Name not shown in Old Palo Alto (on forum)March 27, 2015, 10:20 AM
Local Minimum Wage
Should the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance setting a local minimum wage that is higher than the State minimum wage?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 15, 2015, 9:31 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2596 Page 10 of 12
As a small business owner, the minimum wage does not affect my employees who all make more than
mandated levels. The law prevents businesses from hiring our kids as part time workers and seems to result in
lower employment. If this is the case, the minimum wage actually hurts those people rather than helping them.
You cannot create a minimum wage high enough that these people will suddenly be able to afford housing in
Palo Alto, so I would not support an additional minimum wage ordinance in Palo Alto for something that is
already covered by other ordinances. Spend your time on more important issues, such as business zoning and
parking, providing space for more small businesses and hiring in our town.
4 Supporters
Name not shown outside Palo Alto (on forum)March 27, 2015, 8:07 AM
On the surface raising the minimum wage looks like a good idea, but it is extremely hard on small business
owners.
3 Supporters
Randy Mont-Reynaud in Greenmeadow (on forum)March 27, 2015, 7:57 AM
Yes, and it should be $15.00 hour. The people who work here should be able to commute and park here!
1 Supporter
Name not available (unclaimed)March 26, 2015, 10:05 PM
Palo Alto is an expensive place to live, so very few lower income people do live here. However they still need
income to enable them to work here and provide services and commercial support that we need, so they should
be paid fairly. I would suggest a minimum wage of $11.50/hour, increasing each year by the Cost Of Living
Index.
Paul Heft in Midtown/ Midtown West (on forum)March 26, 2015, 9:04 PM
Yes, a higher minimum wage makes sense, given the unaffordability of the Bay Area. But we know that many
businesses will minimize costs by eliminating positions or cutting benefits (e.g., through reducing full-time
work). What we really need is a federally-funded guaranteed income, especially since there are not enough
good jobs to go around--and automation and globalization make the situation worse and worse.
1 Supporter
gary fine in College Terrace (on forum)March 26, 2015, 1:03 PM
absolutely; its so hard to live in PA, so the higher it is the better chance we have of keeping "normal" people in
PA
Local Minimum Wage
Should the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance setting a local minimum wage that is higher than the State minimum wage?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 15, 2015, 9:31 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2596 Page 11 of 12
2 Supporters
Name not available (unclaimed)March 26, 2015, 11:54 AM
Richard Placone
Barron Park
I will support an increase to $15 per hour minimum wage. This won't help workers to live in high priced PA, but
it may make it easier for workers to support themselves where ever they live.
Joel Davidson in Barron Park (on forum)March 26, 2015, 11:27 AM
I strongly believe that at least a $15 wage is necessary especially in this area of opulence and high rents and
prices.
3 Supporters
Name not available (unclaimed)March 26, 2015, 9:23 AM
Absolutely. This is an extremely expensive area in which to live.
Name not shown in Crescent Park (on forum)March 26, 2015, 9:06 AM
I do not think we should adopt a higher minimum wage than the state, but do favor increasing wages as
appropriate to the work provided at any wage level.
Name not shown in University South (on forum)March 26, 2015, 8:37 AM
I believe the minimum wage itself is misguided and results in marginally (depending of the minimum wage level)
lower overall employment. If this is the case, the minimum wage actually hurts those people with the lowest
marginal productivity rather than helping them. So, I would not support a minimum wage ordinance in Palo Alto.
2 Supporters
Judith Wasserman in Leland Manor/ Garland (on forum)March 26, 2015, 7:50 AM
Yes, we should. Palo Alto is a very expensive place to live, and the people who work here should be able to live
here.
2 Supporters
Local Minimum Wage
Should the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance setting a local minimum wage that is higher than the State minimum wage?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 15, 2015, 9:31 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2596 Page 12 of 12
Network Response Person Date
NextDoor No. See what happened in Seattle.Frank N. from Midtown 4/2
NextDoor Yes. Palo Alto is way pricier than average CA, and the minimum wage should be aligned. Otherwise, it's a de facto
exclusion of minimum wage workers from our economic community.Alex L. from Crescent Park 4/2
NextDoor
Bill M Walnut Grove
NO NO NO. Think of our seniors on fixed income. Minimum wage goes up, their
quality of life goes down. Simple economics .. wages go up-prices go up.
William M. from Walnut Grove 4/2
NextDoor
I agree.The minimum wages needs to be up anyways. If somebody can afford to live in Palo Alto, scrape by even, then it is ok to pay more than the minimum wages. And if we can afford to buy Organic Orange juice for $8 for 8oz, then we
should we generous enough to pay our workers more than the cost of orange juice. We need more economic diversity in
Palo Alto, to raise our children in an empathetic community, that knows how to share their wealth.
Moitreyee C. from Midtown 4/2
NextDoor
Absolutely not. Palo Alto has more than enough regulations and taxes. Why make it more difficult for low income workers
to find jobs (and there will be fewer low income-entry level jobs with a higher minimum wage than the state requires)--not to mention letting our privileged kids get real world work experience. I bet very few PA workers actually are at minimum
wage today!!
Bruce C. from Crescent Park 4/2
NextDoor
the de facto minimum wage in Palo Alto is already higher. PA Businesses paying the state minimum aren't retaining
workers. Knowing the city of palo alto you will probably spend a ton of money consultants and lots of CPA workers time
studying this 'problem'. The problem is bigger than the city can solve and this small city has no business addressing it. Leave the social engineering to the state and feds. Please do not spend city tax dollars studying this problem and please
do not hire over priced outside consultants.
Greg G. from Ventura 4/2
NextDoor Majority of the workers are not from rich families and yes we should pay living wage for the individuals who travel to Palo Alto to support their families.Samina S. from Evergreen Park 4/2
NextDoor I would like to see a higher minimum wage.Hamilton H. from Duveneck - St. Francis 4/2
NextDoor Don't mess with the free market.Richard C. from Duveneck - St. Francis 4/4
NextDoor
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz says $15/hour minimum wage will hurt business but he rakes in $9,600/hour.
http://read.bi/1bvYCL2
It is criminal that is all I can say. Have you heard his latest plans? how he is planing to make Starbucks even in poor
areas. He does not care about them, only he wants share of that market too so he can make $12,000 an hour.
Samina S. from Evergreen Park 4/4
Post Question: Should Palo Alto adopt a higher local minimum wage than the State's minimum wage? Share your thoughts with city officials here: http://bit.ly/copa_opencityhall Post
Link: https://nextdoor.com/city/feed/?post=10412799
NextDoor
How would we know if raising minimum wage is better or worse? There have been some studies that show that there's short term negative side effects but long term positives. Free market is great for many things but not perfect. Having
higher minimum wage could mean SMBs shed workers (since they run unsustainable, 5% margin businesses often) and
cause larger companies to hire more contractors. But it really depends on the industry, size of company, etc.
The city should release numbers on which groups of people, sectors, etc raising the minimum wage helps and those that
it hurts. Without data how on earth could we make this decision, city govt?
Srini K. from Professorville 4/6
NextDoor
Minimum wage laws are immoral. These laws mandate that if a prospective employee is not worth a certain amount, it is
illegal to hire them. The arguments in favor of a minimum wage are all nonsense - for one thing, if it made good business sense to pay least-skilled workers more, you could make a fortune doing it yourself rather than getting a politician to order
someone else to do it. If there was a benefit in morale, productivity, or retention, then employers would do it anyway.
Better a minimum wage job than no job at all. There is unequivocal, indisputable evidence that increasing the minimum wage reduces employment among the least skills, those most in need of taking the first step on the employment ladder.
Don Boudreax at cafehayek.com has extensive resources on the evils of the minimum wage. Palo Alto should eliminate
any minimum wage requirement, and be proud to offer job opportunities to the least skilled - those most in need of jobs.
Jonathan S. from Fulton Street 4/6
NextDoor Can you post the minimums of the neighboring cities? Fred K. from University South 4/6
NextDoor
Jonathan, thank you for your response. Finally, a comment based on logic rather than irrational and ridiculous arguments.
Proponents of minimum wage laws hurt those people most in need of a job -- namely the unskilled who can obtain new
skills by holding a job and working their way up through a career. The only people that benefit from minimum wage laws are union members whose wages are tied to increases in minimum wages and who are the biggest supporters of
politicians that create and enforce minimum wage laws.
Furthermore, it is immoral to force business owners to pay someone more than they feel their employees' skills are worth. Both employers and employees have the right to seek work at the rate they feel is fair.
Seavan S. from Midtown 4/6
NextDoor I literally see 0 numbers or real data in any of these comments. It's just hard to have an objective discussion honestly Srini K. from Professorville 4/6
NextDoor
There are ample sources of data. Unfortunately, because we have had minimum wage laws in place in the US for many
years, all that can be measured are the effects of small increases in the minimum employable skill level. These effects
are dominated by the fact that the least employable are already priced out of the market.
Jonathan S. from Fulton Street 4/6
NextDoor
Starbucks and Howard Schultz are one of the few companies that do seem to care about their workers. They have always
provided health care coverage for all their workers and family if employed 20 or more hours a week. I believe it is the
major cost of a cup of coffee. If he gave up his salary it would mean each employee would get around a few cents cents/hour more. I suspect the figure is "realized" pay for last year, which in his case is from old stock options stretching
back 12 years. Starbucks is one of the few companies where shareholders can vote on pay. The fellow started a company
40 years ago that now employs 150,000. Even at this rate of pay it is similar to what the new CFO of Google is getting
and she has not created a job for anyone. Our government has all sorts of schemes to create jobs I doubt any come close
to the number created by an $100 million annual cost. If anyone thinks they can do better than Howard please go ahead. I won't begrudge you your salary. I certainly will not think it criminal.
I don't own Starbucks stock and have been in a Starbucks very rarely and only when someone else wants to go.
Walter M. from Adobe Meadow 4/6
Here is the Washington Post, looking at a number of studies that ask whether minimum wages reduce poverty:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...
It looks like the answer is yes. I guess wages going up affects prices less than expected. I admit to being a bit surprised: I
thought that some of these jobs would end up moving to other places. Maybe some already have, such as manufacturing
jobs, which are now being done mostly in Asia. But service jobs are here to stay. For now, anyway. (Until robots take over?)
I suppose a small number of people might decide they want to clean their own house instead of paying more to have it
done, but maybe not that many. Similarly for other service jobs: who is going to drive to another town to get their fix of fast food? Or to save a couple of bucks on a haircut? If you're making a decent salary, a couple of extra bucks is no biggie,
you just pay it and get on with life.
Personally, I don't find it immoral to force businesses to pay people enough that they can feed themselves and keep a roof over their heads. In fact, I consider it akin to theft to offer people less than a living wage.
Lottie P. from Charleston Meadows 4/6
NextDoor
It's immoral for government to tell someone that they can't hire someone whose productivity is less than some threshold.
As for robots taking over, McDonald's recently announced a rollout of robotic order-taking devices, replacing part of their
workforce with tablets.
The Washington Post article cited by Lottie P looks at minimum wage changes and poverty effects in 21-44 year old family heads and individuals, rather than employment effects among teenagers. There are relatively few minimum wage
workers in this age range, and their poverty status is affected by AFDC, food stamps, Section 8 housing vouchers, ACA
health care subsidies or Medicaid, direct welfare, and other payments - such that they may be better off staying home
than getting a minimum wage job. By selecting for cases like this, the authors might have biased their study to favor fewerjobs at a higher minimum wage. That's just one of the problems with that report.
A decent job at any wage is better than no job. You might even know someone - an "intern" - who offered to help out for
free just to learn a trade. Minimum wage laws generally make that arrangement illegal.
Jonathan S. from Fulton Street 4/6
NextDoor
I add my strong endorsement for a higher minimum wage statute. This will stimulate business through consumer
spending and send a clear signal that our community cares for the well-being and sustainability of local employment and
employees.
Roland H. from South of Midtown 4/7
NextDoor
Three more careful studies showing that boosts in the minimum wage reduce employment:
- Clemens and Wither, National Bureau of Economic Research Dec.2014
- Hanson and Hawley, Journal of Labor Research, Dec.2014- European countries with no minimum wage laws have half the unemployment of countries with the highest minimum wage laws (Trading Economics, "Youth Unemployment Rate - Countries - List. 4/11/2015").
Jonathan S. from Fulton Street 4/7
NextDoor
I absolutely think Palo Alto should adopt a higher minimum wage. The cost of living here is much greater than in other
areas as you know. With the number of individuals who are working at minimum wage, there is no way they can afford what is considered affordable housing here. It seems to be an obvious thing to do to increase the quality of life for them.Dianna Z. from South of Midtown 4/10
NextDoor
I think a study needs to be done on how a higher minimum wage will affect small businesses. Anyone who is making
minimum wage in Palo Alto will NEVER be able to afford housing in the city. Unless your planning on making the
Minimum wage over $20.00 an hour and/or are living in subsidized housing. They commute into Palo Alto. You know whatwould be a great idea, is minimum wage employees who work in Palo Alto, offer them free train/bus passes. Not only
would that offer immediate Financial relief, it might actually help with the parking problem DT.
Deanne D. from Stanford University 4/10
NextDoor Yes but a higher minimum should be adopted in cooperation with our neighboring communities Stephen L. from University South 4/10
(2nd Post - same wording) Post Link: https://nextdoor.com/city/feed/?post=10599697
NextDoor Bill C. South P..Any auch rule must consider where worker lives and where he works.Smokey C. from Palo Verde 4/10
NextDoor Higher wages transfers the burden of living to employers, and doesn't fix the original issue of the cost of living. Cedric C. from Palo Verde 4/10
NextDoor
Yes. it has to be higher. Every body deserves living wages. Palo Alto takes the lead in many places in our society in terms
of education, communities, entrepreneurship, then why not this? We can only hope that the rest of the state would follow up then. We must help our neighboring cities, from where the minimum wage workers are coming to Palo Alto, develop,
grow and flourish. If a single mother can actually come back home at a decent time, because she can live with one wage,
then her children will have better chances of becoming a productive member of the society. This will in the end, add on to
the value of PAlo Alto, its houses, its schools. There is nothing to lose in the long term.
Moitreyee C. from Midtown 4/10
NextDoor I am in favor of allowing market forces determine the minimum wage. Alan B. (inbox) 4/10
Facebook Yes Juliefe Rosete 4/1
Facebook (thumbs up) Maria Osorio 4/1
Facebook Post (same wording) Post Link: http://bit.ly/paminwagefb
To:
Cities
Association
Board
of
Directors
From:
Cities
Association
Subcommittee
on
Minimum
Wage:
Jim
Griffith,
Rod
Sinks,
John
McAlister
Re:
Report/Recommendation
on
the
Minimum
Wage
Date:
June
7,
2015
Introduction
Income
inequality
in
America
is
an
increasing
problem
that
is
encouraging
elected
officials
to
take
a
hard
look
at
the
minimum
wage
as
one
tool
to
bring
relief
to
the
problem.
With
Congress
currently
unwilling
to
examine
the
issue
at
the
federal
level,
many
states
and
local
jurisdictions
have
already
approved
or
are
considering
local
minimum
wage
increases.
In
August
2014,
the
US
Conference
of
Mayors’
“Cities
of
Opportunity
Task
Force”
endorsed
higher
minimum
wages
as
a
key
tool
for
addressing
income
inequality.
Santa
Clara
County
is
no
exception
to
the
challenges
of
income
inequality,
with
the
San
Jose-‐Sunnyvale-‐Santa
Clara
metropolitan
area
having
the
second
highest
cost
of
living
index
in
the
state
of
California.
Already,
the
cities
of
San
Jose,
Sunnyvale,
and
Mountain
View
have
approved
minimum
wage
increases.
The
cities
of
Palo
Alto,
Santa
Clara,
Morgan
Hill,
and
Campbell
are
additionally
considering
a
minimum
wage
increase.
The
legal
and
policy
issues
with
a
minimum
wage
increase
are
lengthy.
Rather
than
repeating
those
issues
in
its
report,
the
subcommittee
provides
the
Sunnyvale
Report
To
Council
(RTC)
on
the
topic
as
an
overview.
The
state
is
considering
the
issue,
and
CA
Senate
Bill
3
(Leno)
proposes
an
increase
to
$11/hour
in
2016
and
$13
in
2017,
with
CPI
adjustments
starting
in
2019.
San
Jose
and
Sunnyvale
have
already
established
a
$10.30/hour
minimum
wage
with
annual
CPI
adjustments.
Mountain
View
has
adopted
an
identical
ordinance
that
takes
effect
July
1,
2015.
Mountain
View
and
Sunnyvale
have
additionally
established
a
policy
goal
of
a
$15/hour
minimum
wage
by
2018.
Mountain
View
is
currently
discussing
a
possible
phased
increase
to
$15
by
2018,
and
Sunnyvale
is
monitoring
Mountain
View’s
efforts
with
an
expressed
interest
in
adopting
Mountain
View’s
schedule.
However,
Palo
Alto
is
now
proposing
a
minimum
wage
that
matches
none
of
the
other
three
increases
initially,
although
it
is
likewise
targeting
$15
by
2018.
Santa
Clara
has
proposed
a
minimum
wage
increases
that
matches
the
other
three
jurisdictions
with
$10.30
and
a
CPI -‐based
increase,
but
Santa
Clara
has
not
yet
expressed
an
opinion
regarding
the
$15
by
2018
goal.
In
light
of
this,
Mountain
View
and
Sunnyvale
have
sent
a
joint
letter
to
the
other
cities
in
Santa
Clara
County
encouraging
regional
consistency
in
any
schedules
and
degrees
of
a
minimum
wage
increase.
Priority
Consideration
In
looking
at
this
issue,
the
subcommittee
asserts
that
regional
consistency
is
a
paramount
consideration
for
jurisdictions
that
are
considering
adopting
a
higher
minimum
wage.
A
lack
of
regional
consistency
in
minimum
wage
rates
creates
serious
problems
for
jurisdictions,
locations,
and
employers.
A
parallel
can
be
drawn
with
local
jurisdictions’
efforts
to
adopt
single -‐use
bag
policies,
and
the
confusion
and
competitiveness
issues
caused
when
jurisdictions’
requirements
vary.
Jurisdictions
suffer
from
a
lack
of
consistency,
in
that
differences
in
minimum
wage
requirements
can
affect
a
city’s
economic
competitiveness.
Additionally,
jurisdictions
have
already
received
reports
from
employers
in
Santa
Clara
County
stating
that
cities
without
an
increased
minimum
wage
are
losing
quality
employees
to
opportunities
in
cities
with
higher
minimum
wages.
A
lack
of
consistency
can
even
impact
specific
locations
that
span
jurisdictions,
such
as
Valley
Fair.
A
business
in
the
lower -‐wage
portion
of
the
location
has
a
competitive
advantage
over
a
related
business
in
the
higher-‐wage
portion
of
the
location.
Similar
behavior
was
observed
in
Valley
Fair
when
San
Jose
adopted
a
plastic
bag
ban
well
in
advance
of
any
effort
by
Santa
Clara
to
do
the
same.
Employers
who
operate
locations
in
different
jurisdictions
encounter
payroll
and
employment
challenges
when
the
locations
have
different
minimum
wage
rates.
The
issue
of
regional
consistency
argues
strongly
for
either
a
national
or
state
minimum
wage
increase.
While
Congress
has
demonstrated
no
willingness
to
examine
this
issue,
CA
Senate
Bill
3
(Leno)
proposes
an
increase
to
$11/hour
in
2016
and
$13
in
2017,
with
CPI
adjustments
starting
in
2019.
The
subcommittee
considered
this
but
instead
suggests
the
Sunnyvale-‐Mountain
View
goals
as
a
starting
point
for
discussion,
since
they
surpass
SB
3
in
timing
and
degree.
The
considerably
higher
cost
of
living
in
Silicon
Valley
was
an
additional
factor
in
recommending
efforts
beyond
those
that
might
be
achieved
by
SB
3,
should
it
eventually
be
approved.
In
general,
significant
differences
in
regional
economies
argue
for
minimum
wages
based
on
regions
smaller
than
the
State
of
California.
At
the
last
Silicon
Valley
Leadership
CEO
Economic
Outlook
Conference,
the
attendees
were
asked
“would
you
support
a
minimum
wage
of
$15/hour,
phased
in
through
2020”
85%
of
respondents
answered
in
the
affirmative.
Accordingly,
the
subcommittee
recommends
that
the
Cities
Association
encourage
jurisdictions
to
place
particular
emphasis
and
value
on
establishing
minimum
wage
ordinances
that
promote
regional
consistency
within
Silicon
Valley.
While
not
willing
to
endorse
a
specific
minimum
wage
requirement
or
timeline,
the
subcommittee
points
to
the
Sunnyvale/Mountain
View
efforts
as
the
only
existing
effort
towards
regional
consistency,
and
the
subcommittee
encourages
jurisdictions
to
take
a
close
look
at
these
efforts.
Issues
The
subcommittee
identified
three
specific
issues
that
jurisdictions
should
consider
in
their
discussion
of
a
minimum
wage
increase,
namely
possible
exemptions
for
youths,
for
restaurant
wait
staff,
and
for
non-‐profit
organizations.
Exemption
for
Youths
One
frequent
concern
is
the
impact
on
youth
hiring,
particularly
as
it
affects
summer
and
holiday
hiring.
When
contemplating
a
minimum
wage
increase,
jurisdictions
often
consider
making
an
exception
for
youth
hiring.
The
argument
in
favor
of
such
an
exemption
asserts
that
without
such
an
exemption,
employers
tend
to
reduce
youth
hiring.
Early
employment
opportunities
can
have
a
significant
impact
on
future
job
prospects,
so
cities
are
strongly
motivated
to
encourage
youth
employment.
The
argument
against
such
an
exemption
asserts
that
such
an
exception
encourages
employers
to
hire
younger
workers
at
the
expense
of
older
workers.
All
three
County
jurisdictions
that
have
adopted
a
higher
minimum
wage
considered
this
issue,
and
none
of
the
jurisdictions
have
adopted
a
youth
exemption.
It
is
the
opinion
of
the
subcommittee
that
a
youth
exemption
has
no
regional
impact,
since
youths
are
most
likely
to
work
in
close
to
home
regardless
of
employment
conditions.
Such
an
exemption
is
unlikely
to
create
issues
of
regional
competitiveness.
Therefore,
the
subcommittee
makes
no
recommendation
about
a
youth
exemption
other
than
to
encourage
the
general
concept
of
regional
consistency.
Exemption
for
Restaurant
Wait
Staff
One
concern
is
the
disparity
that
exists
when
a
minimum
wage
is
applied
to
both
wait
staff
and
behind-‐the-‐counter
employees
in
restaurants,
since
wait
staff
can
receive
tips
and
other
restaurant
employees
do
not.
Restaurant
employers
argue
that
minimum
wage
wait
staff
receives
considerably
more
than
minimum
wage
once
tip
income
is
taken
into
account.
They
further
assert
that
applying
a
minimum
wage
increase
to
California
state
law
prohibits
employers
from
crediting
tip
income
towards
an
employer’s
minimum
wage
requirements.
All
three
County
jurisdictions
that
have
adopted
a
higher
minimum
wage
considered
this
issue,
and
none
of
the
jurisdictions
have
adopted
a
wait
staff
exemption.
It
is
the
opinion
of
the
subcommittee
that
a
wait
staff
exemption
would
have
significant
and
direct
regional
impact,
given
the
multiple
existing
ordinances
that
do
not
make
such
an
exemption.
When
minimum
wages
vary
from
jurisdiction
to
jurisdiction,
employees
and
customers
are
willing
to
look
to
restaurants
in
other
jurisdictions
when
employment
terms
or
prices
differ.
Maintaining
an
environment
where
Silicon
Valley
restaurants
are
equally
attractive
to
potential
employees
and
customers
regardless
of
jurisdiction
is
of
significant
value.
Additionally,
wait
staff
is
often
required
to
work
during
hours
when
little
or
no
income
from
tips
can
be
realized.
The
State
of
California
does
not
permit
employers
to
credit
tips
towards
the
state
legal
minimum
wage
requirement.
It
is
difficult
to
justify
a
wait
staff
exemption
for
local
minimum
wage
requirements
when
state
minimum
wage
requirements
make
no
such
distinction.
Therefore,
the
subcommittee
recommends
against
cities
creating
an
exception
for
restaurant
wait
staff.
Exemption
for
non-‐profit
employees
Concerns
have
been
raised
about
applying
an
increased
minimum
wage
to
non-‐
profits
and
to
organizations
reimbursed
by
the
state,
since
such
entities
tend
to
provide
services
for
the
most
at-‐risk
community
members.
A
higher
minimum
wage
may
decrease
a
non-‐profit’s
ability
to
provide
those
services.
All
three
County
jurisdictions
that
have
adopted
a
higher
minimum
wage
considered
this
issue,
and
none
of
the
jurisdictions
have
adopted
a
non-‐profit
exemption.
It
is
the
opinion
of
the
subcommittee
that
a
non-‐profit
exemption
has
no
regional
impact,
since
non-‐profits
tend
not
to
suffer
from
issues
of
regional
competitiveness.
Therefore,
the
subcommittee
makes
no
recommendation
about
a
non-‐profit
exemption
other
than
to
encourage
the
general
concept
of
regional
consistency.
Other
Issues
The
subcommittee
discussed
the
pros
and
cons
of
a
total
compensation
approach
rather
than
a
minimum
wage
specific
approach.
As
a
matter
of
best
practices,
there
is
considerable
merit
to
a
total
compensation
approach.
Terms
of
employment
vary
from
profession
to
profession,
with
some
professions
placing
greater
value
on
considerations
such
as
leave
or
medical
benefits
than
others.
A
total
compensation
approach
may
provide
more
robust
and
equitable
requirements
for
both
employers
and
employees,
and
such
an
approach
may
be
a
more
effective
way
to
address
issues
of
income
inequality.
However,
existing
state
and
local
laws
invariably
deal
with
compensation
issues
on
a
benefit-‐by-‐benefit
basis,
with
one
law
addressing
health
insurance,
another
addressing
wages,
a
third
addressing
sick
leave,
and
so
on.
Given
existing
legislation
addressing
specific
benefits,
applying
an
additional
total
compensation
requirement
is
unlikely
to
achieve
the
desired
level
of
flexibility
or
effectiveness.
The
subcommittee
is
additionally
unaware
of
any
jurisdictions
taking
a
total
compensation
approach
to
this
issue.
Attachments:
1. Sunnyvale
Report
to
Council
of
5/20/2014
2. Sunnyvale
Report
to
Council
of
10/14/2014
3. Campbell
Staff
Report
on
Minimum
Wage
Study
Session
of
05/19/15
4. Campbell
Staff
Report
Attachments:
Cost
of
Living
and
Demographic
Charts,
Campbell
Minimum
Wage
Survey,
Campbell
Minimum
Wage
Survey
Results,
Addendum
to
Staff
Memo
5. California
Restaurant
Association
Letter
to
Campbell
City
Council
re:
Minimum
Wage
Study
Session
6. Sunnyvale/Mountain
View
Letter
to
Mayor
Cristina
of
Campbell
(and
all
Mayors
in
Santa
Clara
County)
re:
minimum
wage
increase
approach
City of Sunnyvale
Agenda Item
14-0280 Agenda Date:5/20/2014
REPORT TO COUNCIL (REPUBLISHED 5/21/2014)
SUBJECT
Establish a City Advocacy Position on Minimum Wage, and Provide Further Input Regarding Creation
of a Local Minimum Wage Ordinance, Including Enforcement and Implementation of Such Ordinance
(Study Issue)
BACKGROUND
In June 2013, Council sponsored Study Issue OCM-14-01,Consider Adopting a Local Minimum
Wage Ordinance Modeled on the City of San Jose Initiative (Attachment 1). At that time, the City
Manager made no recommendation on the study issue paper. In the fall of 2013, Governor Jerry
Brown signed legislation that would increase the state’s minimum wage rate to $9.00 per hour on
July 1, 2014 and $10.00 per hour on January 1, 2016. Staff updated the study issue paper to include
information on the new California law and the City Manager updated the staff recommendation from
no recommendation to drop, citing the new law as the basis for no longer needing a local ordinance.
At the 2014 Study/Budget Issues Workshop, however, Council directed staff to study a local
minimum wage ordinance similar to the one recently enacted in the City of San Jose that would adopt
a $10 per hour minimum wage with an annual adjustment tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
The City of San Jose’s ordinance is presented as Attachment 6.
Staff has been researching and evaluating the requirements, including both programmatic and
community consequences, for adopting a minimum wage ordinance similar to the initiative passed by
San Jose voters in 2012. That initiative increased San Jose’s minimum wage from $8.00 per hour to
$10.00 per hour effective March 11, 2013. Beginning on January 1, 2014, the minimum wage was to
be adjusted annually by the amount corresponding to the prior year’s August Consumer Price Index
(Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, U.S. City Average for All Items) as published by the U.S.
Department of Labor. Employers in Sunnyvale are governed by the state’s minimum wage
requirement, which is currently $8.00 per hour, and which is set to increase to $9.00 per hour on July
1, 2014 and $10.00 per hour on January 1, 2016. In San Jose, the current minimum wage is $10.15
per hour. The State’s minimum wage law does not preempt local ordinances from requiring payment
of a higher minimum wage.
Meanwhile, pending legislative efforts at both the state and federal level have presented
opportunities to advocate for increased minimum wage rates that staff has been unable to respond to
because the City has not adopted a policy position on minimum wage. This report presents a draft
Legislative Advocacy Position for Council’s consideration, which would enable City advocacy on this
topic.
In addition, the report provides information about the typical provisions which make up local minimum
wage ordinances, including the provisions in the City of San Jose’s initiative that increased the
minimum wage and included an annual cost of living adjustment tied to the CPI, and alternatives for
Page 1 of 8
14-0280 Agenda Date:5/20/2014
implementation and remedies/enforcement of the ordinance.
EXISTING POLICY
Council Policy 7.3.1 Legislative Management - Goals and Policies:
Policy 7.3B.3 Prepare and update ordinances to reflect current community issues and
concerns in compliance with state and federal laws.
Policy 7.3B.4 Prepare and update the Legislative Advocacy Positions as the shorter-term
policies that support the General Plan and guide Council and staff on intergovernmental
matters.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
N/A
DISCUSSION
A. City Advocacy Position
There are several key pieces of minimum wage-related legislation making their way through the
Congress and the California Legislature. Senate Bill 935 (Leno) may address Council’s intent
regarding raising the minimum wage and tying annual increases to the CPI. However, the City does
not have a policy position allowing advocacy regarding minimum wage increases at the state or
federal level. To support this issue at the state and federal level, a new long-term advocacy position
such as the following would need to be adopted by Council:
“Supporting the quality of life in Sunnyvale, the City would support legislation to increase the current
minimum wage or tie future increases to Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the rate of inflation.”
Adoption of such a policy would allow staff to advocate for minimum wage increases at the state and
federal level in a timely manner.
B. Local Minimum Wage Ordinance
Since Council’s ranking of Study Issue OCM 14-01, staff has evaluated the efforts of other cities on
the topic of minimum wage increases and local ordinances, and researched current and pending
legislation at the state and federal level. In addition, staff performed outreach in the community via an
online survey and targeted industry outreach meetings with business owners, business
representatives and business groups, including the Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce and California
Restaurant Association, and nonprofit representatives including the Sunnyvale Community Services
Board.
There appears to be a growing concern that the current state minimum wage does not acknowledge
the high cost of living in California and in particular the Bay Area. The cities of San Francisco and
San Jose have already enacted local minimum wage laws, and a number of other Bay Area cities are
in the process of considering them. Some cities are having discussions about the viability of a
regional minimum wage for a geographic area, such as a county. Additionally, both the federal and
state legislatures are considering amending their minimum wage laws. Below is a table showing
some of the efforts currently underway:
Jurisdiction Proposal per hour Tied to
CPI/Inflation
Status/Exemptions
US Congress,
Minimum
Wage
Fairness Act
$10.10 Yes; tied to
Inflation
Failed to garner support from the
Senate, but several additional bills
are pending. The minimum wage
issue continues to be an actively
discussed topic at the Federal
level.
California
Legislature,
SB 935 (Leno)
1/1/15 $11.00
1/1/16 $12.00
1/1/17 $13.00
Yes; tied to
Inflation
beginning
January 2018
Suspense file (used by
Appropriations Committees in both
houses of the legislature to
temporarily hold bills with
$150,000 or more of
expenditures).
Berkeley 7/1/14 $9.00 (same
as state) 1/1/15
$10.00 1/1/16
$10.75
No Second Reading of the ordinance
to be on 5/20/14. The Council also
established a task force to work
with businesses on additional
increases. Task force would
explore creating a “regional
minimum wage” with Oakland and
other East Bay cities. Some
exemptions, but “direct tipped”
employees included in the
ordinance.
Richmond 1/1/15 $9.60 1/1/16
$11.52 1/1/17
$12.30
Yes; tied to CPI
beginning
January 2018
Council directed staff to draft an
ordinance with several
exemptions, including, but not
limited to: 1. People less than 18
years of age 2. Businesses with
fewer than 10 employees 3.
Employees that are regularly
tipped
Mountain
View
Nothing formally
proposed
Nothing formally
proposed
Community activists asking council
to consider a ballot initiative or
adopt ordinance to raise minimum
wage to $15 per hour.
Page 2 of 8
14-0280 Agenda Date:5/20/2014
Jurisdiction Proposal per hour Tied to
CPI/Inflation
Status/Exemptions
US Congress,
Minimum
Wage
Fairness Act
$10.10 Yes; tied to
Inflation
Failed to garner support from the
Senate, but several additional bills
are pending. The minimum wage
issue continues to be an actively
discussed topic at the Federal
level.
California
Legislature,
SB 935 (Leno)
1/1/15 $11.00
1/1/16 $12.00
1/1/17 $13.00
Yes; tied to
Inflation
beginning
January 2018
Suspense file (used by
Appropriations Committees in both
houses of the legislature to
temporarily hold bills with
$150,000 or more of
expenditures).
Berkeley 7/1/14 $9.00 (same
as state) 1/1/15
$10.00 1/1/16
$10.75
No Second Reading of the ordinance
to be on 5/20/14. The Council also
established a task force to work
with businesses on additional
increases. Task force would
explore creating a “regional
minimum wage” with Oakland and
other East Bay cities. Some
exemptions, but “direct tipped”
employees included in the
ordinance.
Richmond 1/1/15 $9.60 1/1/16
$11.52 1/1/17
$12.30
Yes; tied to CPI
beginning
January 2018
Council directed staff to draft an
ordinance with several
exemptions, including, but not
limited to: 1. People less than 18
years of age 2. Businesses with
fewer than 10 employees 3.
Employees that are regularly
tipped
Mountain
View
Nothing formally
proposed
Nothing formally
proposed
Community activists asking council
to consider a ballot initiative or
adopt ordinance to raise minimum
wage to $15 per hour.
In addition to the efforts under way in Richmond, Berkeley, and Mountain View, similar initiatives are
also being considered in Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Diego. In all of these jurisdictions, councils
are being lobbied to join San Francisco and San Jose in setting a minimum wage higher than state
law and, in some cases, to include an automatic annual increase linked to the CPI.
Community Outreach
A survey was created and promoted via Facebook, Twitter, and direct emails, resulting in about 460
participants providing input (Attachment 2). Approximately 65 percent of survey respondents were
Page 3 of 8
14-0280 Agenda Date:5/20/2014
Sunnyvale residents, 23 percent were business owners, and the remaining 12 percent choosing
either employee or “other”. About 78 percent of residents support an increase to $10.00 per hour
prior to the state’s increase in January 2016, and about 74 percent support linking the increase to the
CPI. Business owners’ responses were split nearly down the middle with 53 percent opposing an
increase to the minimum wage (47 percent in support) and 51 percent opposing linking future
increases to the CPI (49 percent in support).
The nonprofits unanimously support a minimum wage increase and support linking future increases
to the CPI (Attachment 5). Sunnyvale Community Services Board of Directors, an emergency
assistance provider, voted unanimously to support a minimum wage increase and tying future
increases to the CPI. The main reason for the support is due to the high cost of living in Sunnyvale.
These organizations are seeing more clients unable to pay for basic necessities such as housing and
food.
Points for Council Consideration
1.Typical Provisions of a Local Ordinance
The San Jose local minimum wage law adopts a local minimum wage which adjusts automatically
each year based on any increase to the CPI. It requires employers to pay its minimum wage for each
hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City. It defines “Employer” as any person,
including corporate officers or executives, as defined in Section 18 of the California Labor Code, who
directly or indirectly through any other person, including through the services of a temporary
employment agency, staffing agency or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages,
hour or working conditions of any Employee and who is ether subject to the Business License Tax
Chapter of the Municipal Code or maintain a facility in the City.” The ordinance set the original
minimum wage at $10.00 per hour; under the adjustment formula, on January 1, 2014, San Jose
increased its minimum wage to $10.15 per hour.
Staff has met with business owners and groups, the Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce, and
nonprofit organizations to discuss the study issue. A survey was also conducted to gather additional
input from the community at large. Based on the feedback from these groups, below are additional
provisions for Council consideration, including potential exemptions for specific working groups and
the intervals at which adjustments to the minimum are applied.
Increases to CPI or Inflation.
Some businesses are supportive of increasing the City’s minimum wage to $10.00 prior to
the state’s mandated $10.00 per hour on January 1, 2016. However, the majority of
businesses, including the Chamber of Commerce and California Restaurant Association, are
opposed to linking any future increases to the CPI. Business owners representing sectors
such as restaurants, hotels, small retail businesses, stated that they currently pay more than
the State’s minimum wage. However, most of the impacted businesses say that linking the
minimum wage to the CPI would change the minimum wage every year and would be costly
and inconvenient as they will not be able to accurately predict annual budgets.
Intervals at which adjustments to the minimum wage would be considered.
As an alternative to an annual increase that ties to CPI, the Sunnyvale Chamber of
Commerce is proposing that Council consider a fixed minimum wage with reviews every
Page 4 of 8
14-0280 Agenda Date:5/20/2014
three years and adjustments to a predictable and fixed amount (Attachment 3). The logic
behind the proposal is that if the CPI increases by two percent on year one, four percent on
year two, and three percent on year three, when Council reviews the minimum wage issue in
year three, the increase could be up to nine percent.
Potential exemptions for specified working groups or categories of people.
Directly-Tipped Employees: The California Restaurant Association strongly
opposes any minimum wage increase (Attachment 4) due to the industry’s low profit
margins and their assertion that tipped employees would profit the most from a
minimum wage increase. Restaurant owners repeatedly stated that minimum wage
should not apply to directly-tipped employees because they have higher
compensation when tips are taken into account, and because more base pay for
tipped workers would mean less funding would be available for non-tipped
employees. At the state level, California Labor Code 351 precludes crediting tips
against wages to meet a minimum wage requirement. San Jose’s ordinance
(Attachment 6) does not exclude any directly-tipped employees from the minimum
wage requirement.
Additional Exemptions Being Considered by Other Cities: Other cities, including
Berkeley and Richmond, are considering exempting businesses with less than a
certain number of employees, persons less than 18 years of age, and directly-tipped
employees.
2.Implementation and Enforcement
San Jose and San Francisco’s minimum wage ordinances were mandated by voter initiatives. San
Francisco voters approved their minimum wage ordinance in 2003. San Francisco’s program is
enforced by its Labor Standards Enforcement, which also enforces Healthy San Francisco (a
healthcare ordinance) and its Paid Sick Leave requirement. The San Jose Minimum Wage Initiative
was approved by voters in November 2012 and took effect March 2013. San Jose’s program
enforcement is managed by the city's Office of Equality Assurance, which also manages the city’s
Living Wage and Prevailing Wage programs. The City of San Jose has two full-time positions
assigned to enforcement of their program - a division manager and a contract compliance specialist.
The City of San Jose’s ordinance identifies two means of enforcement or remedy, including
administrative action by the city’s Office of Equality Assurance (OEA) and/or a private enforcement
action through the courts by the person aggrieved by the violation.
The San Jose minimum wage ordinance basically creates a minimum wage program. In order for the
City to implement an ordinance modeled after the one adopted in the City of San Jose, the following
activities would be required.
Implementation:
• Provide outreach and education to affected businesses and employees about their rights and
responsibilities, which would include creation and distribution of educational materials with
annual updates.
• Develop any guidelines required to implement the program.
• Answer questions about the ordinance.
Page 5 of 8
14-0280 Agenda Date:5/20/2014
Administrative Enforcement:
• Accept complaints.
• Investigate complaints made regarding compliance, which include interviewing employees,
requesting and reviewing documentation, and possible subpoenas.
• Negotiate informal resolutions of complaints.
• Issue administrative citations for noncompliance.
• Provide appeals with the hearing office for administrative citations.
• Collect and track administrative citations.
Unlike San Jose and San Francisco, Sunnyvale does not have infrastructure in place nor staff
expertise to manage a minimum wage program. Currently, persons employed within the City rely on
the State’s Department of Industrial Relations to enforce any wage issues between an employee and
their employer. Enforcement of a minimum wage ordinance program for the City is not currently
considered a core service. Development of such a program would take time and resources. Staff
estimates that up to six months and approximately 900 staff hours may be needed to fully develop an
implementation and enforcement program based on adoption of a minimum wage ordinance. The
amount of hours may increase or decrease depending on any exemptions and the intervals on which
increases are made.
It may be possible to contract out enforcement actions with another local agency that already has
resources dedicated to enforce such an ordinance. Should Council choose to explore this option,
staff would return with language presenting enforcement options for Council consideration.
Additionally, Council could consider an ordinance that adopted a local minimum wage that did not
include administrative enforcement provisions and provided only a private enforcement mechanism.
Under that scenario, an aggrieved person would file an enforcement action directly with the courts
rather than through a complaint with the City.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate fiscal impact to Council’s adopting an advocacy position or providing direction
on the specific provisions it would want in a local ordinance. At a minimum, to implement a City
minimum wage ordinance with City enforcement may require approximately 900 hours of staff time to
conduct outreach and update employee/employer notifications and guidelines; the estimated cost for
promotional and outreach materials would be approximately $10,000 per year. Specific costs for the
various provisions of a potential ordinance as presented in this report could vary and would be
presented to Council in a follow-up report.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City's official-notice bulletin board
outside City Hall, at the Sunnyvale Senior Center, Community Center and Department of Public
Safety; and by making the agenda and report available at the Sunnyvale Public Library, the Office of
the City Clerk and on the City's website. Staff also notified interested parties and those that submitted
comments and/or attended the outreach meetings.
As previously mentioned, staff conducted a community survey regarding the issue; survey results are
presented as Attachment 2. Additional letters received on this matter are presented as Attachments
3, 4, and 5
Page 6 of 8
14-0280 Agenda Date:5/20/2014
ALTERNATIVES
1. Advocacy Position:
a. Adopt a new long-term advocacy position as presented:Supporting the quality of life in
Sunnyvale, the City would support legislation to increase the current minimum wage or
tie future increases to Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the rate of inflation.
b. Adopt a modified long-term advocacy position.
c. Do not adopt a City advocacy position on this subject.
2. Direct staff to Create a Minimum Wage Ordinance:
a. Automatic Future Increases.
i. Annual increases tied to CPI.
Ii Increases every three years tied to CPI.
iii. Other interval as directed by Council.
iv. Do not tie future increases of the minimum wage to CPI.
b. Potential exemptions for specified working groups or categories of people.
i. Exempt directly-tipped employees.
ii.Exempt businesses with less than a certain number of employees, as
specified by Council.
iii. Exempt persons within age ranges as specified by Council.
iv. Exempt public agencies and/or nonprofits.
v. Other exemptions as directed by Council.
vi. Do not provide any exemptions.
c. Enforcement options:
i. Direct staff to explore options for in-house City enforcement of the
ordinance and return to Council with their findings.
ii. Direct staff to explore options for contract enforcement of the ordinance and
return to Council with findings.
iii. Other action as directed by Council.
iv. Introduce an Ordinance with no City enforcement and only a Private Right
of Action.
3. Do not move forward with a minimum wage ordinance.
4. Other action as directed by Council.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff makes no recommendation on Alternatives 1 (City advocacy position) or 2 (whether or not City
should adopt a minimum wage ordinance). However, should Council pursue an ordinance, staff
recommends that Council provide guidance addressing each of the Alternative categories -
Automatic Future Increases,Potential Exemptions, and Enforcement Options. More specifically with
regard to Enforcement Options, should Council pursue an ordinance with City enforcement, staff
recommends Council move both Alternatives 2c(i) and 2c(ii) to ensure staff returns with a
comprehensive list of options.
The costs and effort required for either of those options could vary significantly. An in-house program,
for example, would require development from the ground up as currently the City has no supportive
infrastructure in place. The cost of a contracted enforcement service might be less; however there
may be additional inconveniences to the aggrieved parties in traveling to another city to file a
complaint. Exploring both options would benefit Council by resulting in a more comprehensive list of
options.
Page 7 of 8
14-0280 Agenda Date:5/20/2014
Prepared by: Connie Verceles, Economic Development Manager
Approved by: Robert A. Walker, Interim City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Study Issue OCM-14-01
2. Minimum Wage Increase Survey Results
3. Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce Letter
4. California Restaurant Association Letter
5. Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits Letter
6. City of San Jose Minimum Wage Ordinance
Page 8 of 8
City of Sunnyvale
Agenda Item
14-0694 Agenda Date:10/14/2014
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Introduce an Ordinance to Add Chapter 3.70 (Minimum Wage) to Title 3 of the Sunnyvale Municipal
Code to Require the Payment of a Citywide Minimum Wage; Find that the proposed ordinance is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline Section 15061
(b)(3); and Approve Budget Modification No.16.
BACKGROUND
Currently, most Sunnyvale employers are governed by the State’s minimum wage requirement,
which is $9.00 per hour and is set to increase to $10.00 per hour on January 1, 2016. In San Jose,
the current minimum wage is $10.15 per hour and may increase on January 1, 2015, based on this
year’s increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
At the May 20, 2014 City Council meeting, Council took three actions related to Study Issue OCM 14-
01:
1. Adopted a long-term advocacy position supporting legislation to increase minimum wage and
tie future increases to the CPI.
2. Directed staff to return to Council with a minimum wage ordinance (modeled after the City of
San Jose’s Minimum Wage Ordinance) with no exemptions for specific groups of employees
and with annual increases tied to CPI.
3. Directed staff to explore options for contract and in-house enforcement of the ordinance and to
return to Council with findings.
Staff has continued to monitor state legislation regarding minimum wage increases and submitted a
support letter for SB 935 (De Leon), which proposes to increase the minimum wage over a three
year period, and then provide for annual automatic adjustments based on the CPI. SB 935 did not
garner enough votes to pass the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee, and will not be heard
again this year.
Similar to the San Jose ordinance, the City of Sunnyvale’s proposed ordinance (Attachment 1)
adopts a local minimum wage which adjusts automatically each year based on any increase in the
CPI. The ordinance requires Sunnyvale employers to pay a minimum wage of $10.30 per hour
starting January 1, 2015, for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of
Sunnyvale. It defines “Employer” as any person, including corporate officers or executives, as
defined in Section 18 of the California Labor Code, who directly or indirectly through any other
person, including through the services of a temporary employment agency, staffing agency or similar
entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any employee.
In accordance with Council direction provided to staff on May 20, 2014, the proposed ordinance
creates a minimum wage program for the City of Sunnyvale. In order for the City to implement and
Page 1 of 6
14-0694 Agenda Date:10/14/2014
administer the proposed ordinance the following is required:
··Adoption of the ordinance by City Council
··Outreach and education for employers and employees
··Informational materials regarding new ordinance
··Clear and concise program guidelines
··Investigation of complaints
··Complaint resolution
EXISTING POLICY
Council Policy 7.3.1 Legislative Management - Goals and Policies:
Policy 7.3B.3 Prepare and update ordinances to reflect current community issues and
concerns in compliance with state and federal laws.
Council 5.0 Long-term Advocacy Positions - Socio-Economic:
Policy 5.2.3 Supporting the quality of life in Sunnyvale, the City would support legislation to
increase the current minimum wage or tie future increases to Consumer Price Index (CPI) or
inflation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adoption of the proposed ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA in that it is not a
project which has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3).)
DISCUSSION
Proposed Ordinance
The proposed ordinance creates Chapter 3.70 (Minimum Wage) of Title 3 of the Sunnyvale Municipal
Code and requires employers, including the City, to pay a citywide minimum wage to all employees
employed within the boundaries of the City of Sunnyvale. The provisions of the proposed ordinance
include, but are not limited to:
··A minimum of $10.30 per hour be paid by employers beginning January 1, 2015
··An adjustment to the minimum wage, every year on January 1, based on the prior year’s CPI
··Employers' adherence to the higher minimum wage in the City of Sunnyvale even though the
minimum wage rate is higher than the state and federal requirements
While the text of the proposed ordinance is very similar to the one adopted by the City of San Jose,
Sunnyvale’s ordinance also incorporates state provisions which are contained in San Jose’s
administrative regulations rather than the ordinance. For instance, state law allows offsets for meals
and housing costs if there is a prior voluntary agreement between employee and employer; San Jose
also allows the offset, but it is contained in the administrative regulations rather than the ordinance.
For convenience to both employers and employees, Sunnyvale proposes to include substantive
requirements in the ordinance itself, rather than in administrative regulations.
Implementation and Enforcement Options
As per Council direction, staff explored options for in-house and contract enforcement of the
proposed ordinance. The enforcement model of the proposed ordinance is complaint-driven. There
are two major phases needed for the implementation and enforcement of a minimum wage
ordinance:
Page 2 of 6
14-0694 Agenda Date:10/14/2014
1.Outreach & Education-actions include, but are not limited to:
a.Developing administrative guidelines for program implementation
b.Distributing materials regarding the ordinance to employers and employees
c.Creating a set of FAQs to respond to inquiries
d.Partnering with business associations to distribute information to employers and
employees
e.Staff training
f. Translating documents into different languages as prescribed in ordinance
g.Updating information on annual basis
2.Administration & Enforcement-actions include, but are not limited to:
a.Informal resolution
i. Conducting investigations
ii. Informal resolution of complaints
iii. Receiving and distributing restitution checks for affected employees
b.Administrative Citation
i. Issuing administrative citations for non-compliance
ii. Implementing a process for due process hearings, including defending
court appeals
iii. Pursuing civil action or other remedies if an employer does not respond to
administrative citations
iv. Receiving and distributing restitution checks for affected employees
Staff explored the pros and cons of both options for the two phases needed to implement the
ordinance. Below is a table outlining staff’s findings:
In-House Enforcement Pros Cons
Outreach & Education Familiarity with constituents New program - lack of
staff expertise
Businesses familiar with staff No enforcement
infrastructure in place
Aware of City’s outreach
requirements
Administration &
Enforcement
Higher cost due to lack of
staff expertise
Small number of
anticipated complaints
does not justify ongoing
staffing costs
No infrastructure in place
to manage program
Need to create program
from scratch
Contract Enforcement Pros Cons
Outreach & Education Familiarity with ordinance Not familiar with
constituents
Businesses unfamiliar
with staff
Not familiar with City of
Sunnyvale’s outreach
requirements
Administration &
Enforcement
Lower cost due to staff
expertise and by leveraging
existing staff resources already
dedicated to this effort in San
Jose
Not familiar with
constituents
Fully developed program in
place
Employees having to go
through another city for
enforcement
Staff familiar with Ordinance
Page 3 of 6
14-0694 Agenda Date:10/14/2014
Contract Enforcement Pros Cons
Outreach & Education Familiarity with ordinance Not familiar with
constituents
Businesses unfamiliar
with staff
Not familiar with City of
Sunnyvale’s outreach
requirements
Administration &
Enforcement
Lower cost due to staff
expertise and by leveraging
existing staff resources already
dedicated to this effort in San
Jose
Not familiar with
constituents
Fully developed program in
place
Employees having to go
through another city for
enforcement
Staff familiar with Ordinance
The City of Sunnyvale does not have infrastructure in place nor staff expertise to manage a minimum
wage program. Currently, persons employed within the City rely on the State’s Department of
Industrial Relations to enforce any wage issues between an employee and their employer.
Administration and enforcement of a minimum wage program for the City of Sunnyvale is not
currently considered a core service. At a minimum, to implement a City of Sunnyvale minimum wage
ordinance with City enforcement may require approximately 900 hours of staff time to conduct
enforcement, outreach and update employee/employer notifications and guidelines.
Staff has explored both options and plans initially to pursue a hybrid model. Under the hybrid model,
the City of Sunnyvale will complete the Outreach and Education phase in-house and contract with the
City of San Jose for the Administration & Enforcement- Informal Resolution part of phase two. The
City of Sunnyvale will coordinate with San Jose staff, but will have primary responsibility for the
Administration & Enforcement-Administrative Citation part of phase two. This operational strategy is
based on the fact that preliminary discussions with the City of San Jose suggest that contracting with
San Jose will be more cost-effective than providing these services in-house. It also recognizes
existing City resources: Sunnyvale is staffed to perform outreach and education functions, but lacks
the expertise and resources to execute day-to-day enforcement functions. Given this type of program
is new to the City of Sunnyvale and there is no existing City department that administers a similar
program, the hybrid model will allow Sunnyvale staff time to become familiar with the program and
determine whether other operational strategies should be pursued. The City already has provisions in
the Sunnyvale Municipal Code for the issuance of administrative citations and staff will coordinate
with the Office of the City Attorney to implement those administrative procedures when necessary.
FISCAL IMPACT
Based on preliminary discussions, the potential fiscal impact of entering into a contract with the City
of San Jose may be up to $30,000 per year. This amount could be lower or higher depending on the
number of cases needing to be resolved. The contract with the City of San Jose will only cover
administration and enforcement of typical cases; those needing to be moved to the administration
Page 4 of 6
14-0694 Agenda Date:10/14/2014
citation phase will return to Sunnyvale for staff issuance of citations and coordination with the Office
of the City Attorney. Costs for the outreach and education phase will be absorbed within the current
budget.
In addition to the costs of outreach and enforcement, adopting this ordinance also affects the City’s
operating costs. The City employs a variety of casual and seasonal staff, primarily in the Recreation
Division, who are paid at or below $10.30 per hour. The state minimum wage is already set to rise to
$10 per hour in 2016. Had the minimum wage of $10.30 been in place over the last fiscal year, it
would have affected approximately 50 employees at a total cost of approximately $25,000 for the
year. Therefore, bringing Sunnyvale staff up to a higher wage will not significantly affect the cost of
operations and can be absorbed in the current budget and adjusted for in future budgets. However,
on a long-term basis, this ordinance changes the nature of budgeting for these personnel as the
costs will subsequently be tied to CPI as opposed to directly under the City’s control.
Staff is recommending that the $30,000 per year for enforcement be funded from the General Fund
Budget Stabilization Fund. Should this cost remain stable, this will have a 20-year impact of
approximately $750,000.
Budget Modification No. 16 has been prepared to appropriate $30,000 from the Budget Stabilization
Fund to a new project to fund minimum wage enforcement activities.
Budget Modification No. 16
FY 2014/15
Current Increase/
(Decrease)
Revised
General Fund
Expenditures:
New Project - Minimum Wage
Ordinance Enforcement
$ 0 $30,000 $30,000
Reserves
Budget Stabilization Fund $38,371,772 ($30,000)$38,341,772
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City's official-notice bulletin board
outside City Hall, at the Sunnyvale Senior Center, Community Center and Department of Public
Safety; and by making the agenda and report available at the Sunnyvale Public Library, the Office of
the City Clerk and on the City's website.
Staff also sent postcards stating time and location of this evening's Council meeting to businesses
with valid business licenses. In addition, staff notified interested parties that attended outreach
meetings in the past regarding this issue and posted information regarding the ordinance on the
City’s Facebook and Twitter pages.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Introduce an ordinance, as presented in Attachment 1, to add Chapter 3.70 (Minimum Wage)
to Title 3 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code to require the payment of a citywide minimum wage
Page 5 of 6
14-0694 Agenda Date:10/14/2014
2. Find that the proposed ordinance is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3)
3. Approve Budget Modification No. 16
4. Introduce an ordinance with modifications
5. Do not create Chapter 3.70 at this time
RECOMMENDATION
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3: Introduce an ordinance, as presented in Attachment 1, to add Chapter 3.70
(Minimum Wage) to Title 3 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code to require the payment of a citywide
minimum wage; Find that the proposed ordinance is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guideline
15061(b)(3); and Approve Budget Modification No. 16 to fund the hybrid enforcement model.
Staff developed the ordinance in accordance with Council’s direction on May 20, 2014. Staff also
explored options for contract and in-house enforcement of a minimum wage program. Staff plans
initially to implement a hybrid enforcement model based on discussions with San Jose and the limited
resources currently available within the City of Sunnyvale. This ordinance creates a new minimum
wage program for the City of Sunnyvale and there is no existing City department to administer such a
program. The hybrid enforcement model will allow Sunnyvale staff time to become familiar with the
program and determine whether other operational strategies should be pursued.
Prepared by: Connie Verceles, Economic Development Manager
Reviewed by: Joan Borger, City Attorney
Reviewed by: Robert A. Walker, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Sunnyvale Draft Ordinance
Page 6 of 6
Attachment 1
As of December 2014
Source: National Employment Law Project. Retrieved
from http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/City-Minimum-Wage-Laws-Recent-Trends-
Economic-Evidence.pdf
Bay Area Minimum Wage Ordinances
City Ordinance
Adopted
Current Hourly Minimum
Wage Rate
Notes
Berkeley 6/27/2014 $10.00
$11.00 on 10/1/2015
$12.53 on 10/1/2016
Passed by the City Council.
Campbell - $9.00 The City Council will hold a study
session on 5/19/2015 to
examine the issue of a minimum
wage ordinance.
Emeryville 5/5/2015 $9.00
$14.44 (for large businesses)
on 7/1/2015
$12.25 (for small businesses)
on 7/1/2015
$13.00 (for small businesses)
on 7/1/2016
$14.00 (for small businesses)
on 7/1/2017
$15.00 (for small businesses)
on 7/1/2018
$16.00 (for small businesses)
on 7/1/2019
Passed by the City Council. Small
business classification for those
with fewer than 55 employees.
Minimum wage rate for large
businesses will be tied to the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) and
increase each July 1 starting in
2016.
Morgan Hill - $9.00 The City Council has directed staff
to study the issue of a minimum
wage ordinance tied to the CPI.
Mountain View 10/9/2014 $9.00
$10.30 on 7/1/2015
$12.00 on 7/1/2016
$13.50 on 7/1/2017
$15.00 on 7/1/2018
Passed by the City Council. Tied
to the CPI after 2018.
Oakland 11/4/2014 $12.25 Voter-initiated ordinance
(Measure FF). Tied to the CPI, will
increase January 1 of each year.
City Ordinance
Adopted
Current Hourly Minimum
Wage Rate
Notes
Palo Alto - $9.00 The City Council Policy and
Services Committee endorsed the
following minimum wage rate
schedule on 4/28/2015: $11.00
on 1/1/2016, which would
gradually climb to $15.00 by 2018
through increments approved by
the City Council.
Richmond 5/6/2014 $9.60
$11.52 on 1/1/2016
$12.30 on 1/1/2017
$13.00 on 1/1/2018
Passed by the City Council.
Employers who pay less than 800
hours of employee wages over a
two-week period are exempt.
Employers who derive more than
50% of their income where the
point of sale is outside the city
must pay an intermediate wage
halfway between the city and
state minimum wage.
San Francisco 11/4/2003 $12.25
$13.00 on 7/1/2016
$14.00 on 7/1/2017
$15.00 on 7/1/2018
Voter-initiated ordinance
(Measure J). Tied to the CPI after
2018.
San Jose 3/11/2013 $10.30 Voter-initiated ordinance
(Measure D). No exceptions. Tied
to the CPI, will increase January 1
of each year.
Sunnyvale 10/14/2014 $10.30 Passed by the City Council. Based
on San Jose’s ordinance.
Attachment 2
Charts
Index average for all participating places, both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan, is 100. An index value of 150 indicates a 50% higher cost of living
compared to an index score of 100. The San Jose – Sunnyvale – Santa Clara metropolitan area did not provide data for 2014.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Co
s
t
o
f
L
i
v
i
n
g
I
n
d
e
x
V
a
l
u
e
Year
San Francisco Bay Area Cost of Living, 2009-2014
San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco CA
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara CA
Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley CA
National Average
Source: Council for Community
and Economic Research
141.6
101.9 104.8
130.4 136.1
112.5 112.5
130
161.6
149.3
128.07
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Co
s
t
o
f
L
I
v
i
n
g
I
n
d
e
x
S
c
o
r
e
California Metropolitan Areas Cost of Living Index, 2013
Source: Council for Community and Economic Research
Attachment 2
1.2
2.0
3.2 3.3 3.1
0.7
1.4
2.6 2.7
2.2
2.8
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
Year
Consumer Price Index Annual Percent Change,
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose CA
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Retrieved from California Department of Transportation,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic_files/2014/SantaClara.pdf
Retrieved from California Department of Transportation,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic_files/2014/SantaClara.pdf
Attachment 5
Survey Results
16.9%
9.4% 7.4% 6.9% 6.6% 4.0% 3.4%
45.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Type of Business
n = 350
69.6%
24.9%
5.5%
Respondent Title
Business Owner
Business Manager
Other (16 categories)
n = 342
Percentage of Minimum Wage Employees in Organization
Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0% - 10% 270 77.4 77.4
11% - 20% 10 2.9 80.2
21% - 30% 4 1.1 81.4
31% - 40% 9 2.6 84.0
41% - 50% 8 2.3 86.2
51% - 60% 6 1.7 88.0
71% - 80% 4 1.1 89.1
81% - 90% 1 0.3 89.4
91% - 100% 37 10.6 100.0
Total 349
38.9%
24.4%
14.5% 11.6%
3.1% 3.4% 0.6% 3.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 30 31 - 45 46 - 75 76 - 90 91+
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Number of Employees
Number of Employees in Organization
n = 352
What percentage of total positions would be eliminated (and not replaced)?
Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0% - 10% 227 84.4 84.4
11% - 20% 26 9.7 94.1
21% - 30% 8 3.0 97.0
31% - 40% 4 1.5 98.5
41% - 50% 1 0.4 98.9
51% - 60% 1 0.4 99.3
61% - 70% 1 0.4 99.6
71% - 80% 1 0.4 100.0
Total 269
10.1% 7.1% 2.5%
60.1%
14.7%
1.8% 3.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Maybe Yes Definitely No Probably No Maybe No Unsure
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Would your business eliminate (and not replace) any positions to
compensate for increased labor costs?
n = 326
7.6% 6.3% 5.7%
47.0%
19.7%
1.3%
12.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Maybe Yes Definitely No Probably No Maybe No Unsure
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Would your organization also increase the hourly wages of any higher-paying
positions, such as those who supervise minimum wage employees?
n = 315
7.9% 8.8%
2.5%
59.1%
15.4%
1.9% 4.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Maybe Yes Definitely No Probably No Maybe No Unsure
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Would your business reduce employee work hours?
n = 318
What percentage of employees would have their work hours reduced?
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
0% - 10% 214 80.5 80.5
11% - 20% 10 3.8 84.2
21% - 30% 11 4.1 88.3
31% - 40% 8 3.0 91.4
41% - 50% 9 3.4 94.7
51% - 60% 3 1.1 95.9
71% - 80% 2 0.8 96.6
81% - 90% 1 0.4 97.0
91% - 100% 8 3.0 100.0
Total 266
15.7%
11.4%
5.9%
46.0%
15.1%
0.9%
4.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Maybe Yes Definitely No Probably No Maybe No Unsure
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Would your business increase its prices to customers?
n = 324
What percentage would your business' prices to customers increase?
Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0% - 10% 194 78.5 78.5
11% - 20% 26 10.5 89.1
21% - 30% 10 4.0 93.1
31% - 40% 7 2.8 96.0
41% - 50% 2 0.8 96.8
51% - 60% 1 0.4 97.2
71% - 80% 1 0.4 97.6
91% - 100% 6 2.4 100.0
Total 247
1.8% 1.5%
28.2%
13.4% 12.2%
42.9%
0%5%10%
15%20%25%30%35%40%
45%50%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
If there was a possibility to expand your organization, would a
minimum wage increase affect this expansion?
n = 329
What percentage of your organization's total expenditures would a $1.30 increase in the
minimum wage be?
Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0% - 10% 249 80.3 80.3
11% - 20% 28 9.0 89.4
21% - 30% 8 2.6 91.9
31% - 40% 9 2.9 94.8
41% - 50% 4 1.3 96.1
51% - 60% 6 1.9 98.1
61% - 70% 2 0.6 98.7
71% - 80% 1 0.3 99.0
81% - 90% 2 0.6 99.7
91% - 100% 1 0.3 100.0
Total 310
5.5% 4.3%
34.9%
49.5%
5.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Highly Likely Likely Unlikely Highly Unlikely Not Sure
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
How likely would a minimum wage increase to $10.30 per hour be to cause
your organization to move to another city with a lower minimum wage?
n = 327
*Question allowed for multiple responses per respondent, thus total figures sum to greater than 100%.
2.8% 7.5%
54.6%
4.7% 6.2%
24.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Yes,
Significantly
More Qualified
Applicants
Yes, Slightly
More Qualified
Applicants
No, Equally
Qualified
Applicants
No, Slightly
Less Qualified
Applicants
No,
Significantly
Less Qualified
Applicants
Unsure
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Would increased wages for your lowest-paid employees result in higher
qualified applicants for these positions?
n = 322
6.8%
17.8%
8.9%
18.4%
60.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Increased
Productivity
Increased
Morale
Reduced
Turnover
Would Not
Result in Any
Unsure
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
*
Would increased wages for your lowest-paid employees result in
increased productivity, increased morale, or reduced turnover?
n = 337
75.5%
24.5%
Would you support a minimum wage increase if it led to increases in
employee productivity, employee retention, employee morale, and the level
of qualifications of applicants, to offset all or part of increased labor costs?
Yes
No
n = 322
37.3%
62.7%
Would you support a minimum wage increase if it did not lead to increases in
employee productivity, employee retention, employee morale, and the level of
qualifications of applicants, to offset all or part of increased labor costs?
Yes
No
n = 322
Attachment 6
References
Aaronson, D., French, E., & MacDonald, J. (2008). The minimum wage, restaurant
prices, and labor market structure. Journal of Human Resources, 43(3), 688-720.
Retrieved from http://davideharrington.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/R9-Min-Wage-Restaurant-Prices-and-Labor-MS.pdf.
Acs, G., Wheaton, L., Enchautegui, M., & Nichols, A. (2014). Understanding the
implications of raising the minimum wage in the District of Columbia. Retrieved
from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/413200-Understanding-the-Implications-
of-Raising-the-Minimum-Wage-in-the-District-of-Columbia.pdf?RSSFeed=UI_Employment.xml
Addison, J. T., Blackburn, M. L., & Cotti, C. D. (2009). Do minimum wages raise
employment? Evidence from the U.S. retail-trade sector. Labour Economics, 16(4),
397-408. doi: http://dx.doi.org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2008.12.007.
Allegretto, S. A., Dube, A., & Reich, M. (2011). Do minimum wages really reduce teen employment? Accounting for heterogeneity and selectivity in state panel data. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 50(2), 205-240.
Allegretto, S. & Reich M. (2014). Minimum wage effects on prices: Preliminary results.
Paper presented at the Portland meeting of the Labor and Employment Research
Association.
Benner, C., & Jayaraman, S. (2012). A dime a say: The Impact of the Miller/Harkin minimum wage proposal on the price of food. University of California Berkeley Food
Labor Research Center, Food Chain Workers Alliance and Restaurant
Opportunities Center. Retrieved
from: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2012/price_food12.pdf.
Boushey, H. & Glynn, S. J. (2012). There are significant business costs to replacing employees. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved
from https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/CostofTurnover.pdf.
Coomer, N. M., & Wessels, W. J. (2013). The effect of the minimum wage on covered teenage employment. Journal of Labor Research, 34(3), 253-280.
Doucouliagos, H., & Stanley, T. D. (2009). Publication selection bias in minimum‐wage
research? A meta‐regression analysis. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(2), 406-428.
Dube, A., Lester, T. W., & Reich, M. (2010). Minimum wage effects across state
borders: Estimates using contiguous counties. The Review of Economics and
Statistics, 92(4), 945-964.
Dube, A., Lester, T. W., & Reich, M. (2013). Minimum wage shocks, employment flows and labor market frictions. Working Paper No. 149-13. Institute for Research on
Labor and Employment, UC Berkeley. Retrieved
from http://irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/149-13.pdf.
Dube, A., Naidu, S., & Reich, M. (2007). The economic effects of a citywide minimum wage. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 60(4), 522-543. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=25641161&si
te=ehost-live
Elmendorf, D. W. (2014). The effects of a minimum-wage increase on employment and family income. Retrieved from https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/44995-
MinimumWage.pdf
Giuliano, L. (2013). Minimum wage effects on employment, substitution, and the
teenage labor supply: Evidence from personnel data. Journal of Labor Economics,
31(1), 155-194.
Hirsch, B. T., Kaufman, B. E., & Zelenska, T. (2011). Minimum wage channels of adjustment. Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Research Paper Series, (11-
34). Retrieved
from http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/58927/1/690181728.pdf.
Lee, C., Schluter, G., & O’Roark, B. (2000). Minimum wage and food prices: an analysis of price pass-through effects. The International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review, 3(1), 111-128. Retrieved
from http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6553466.pdf.
Meer, J., & West, J. (2013). Effects of the minimum wage on employment dynamics.
(No. w19262). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Myers-Lipton, S., & Quyo, P. (2014, March 12). San Jose minimum wage: A year-old success story. San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved
from http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_25315215/san-jose-minimum-wage-
year-old-success-story
Potter, N. (2006). Earnings and employment: The effects of the living wage ordinance in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Retrieved from https://repository.unm.edu/bitstream/handle/1928/3257/SF_earnings_final_rpt.
pdf?sequence=1
Reich, M. (2012). Increasing the minimum wage in San Jose: Benefits and costs.
Berkeley, CA: Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, University of California, Berkeley, 2012-2001.
Reich, M., Jacobs, K. & Berhhardt, A. (2014). Local minimum wage laws: Impacts of
workers, families, and businesses. Working Paper No. 104-14. Institute for
Research on Labor and Employment, UC Berkeley. Retrieved
from http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/104-14.pdf.
Reich, M., Jacobs, K. & Dietz, M. (eds.). (2014). When mandates work: Raising labor standards at the local level. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ropponen, O. (2011). Reconciling the evidence of Card and Krueger (1994) and
Neumark and Wascher (2000). Journal of Applied Econometrics, 26(6), 1051-1057.
doi: 10.1002/jae.1258.
Sabia, J. (2009). The effects of minimum wage increases on retail employment and hours: New evidence from monthly CPS data. Journal of Labor Research, 30(1),
75-97. doi: 10.1007/s12122-008-9054-1.
Schmitt, J. (2013). Why does the minimum wage have no discernible effect on
employment? Center for Economic and Policy Research, 22. Retrieved from http://dev.takeactionminnesota.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Why-Does-the-Minimum-Wage-Have-No-Discernible-Effect-on-Employment.pdf.
Schmitt, J., & Rosnick, D. (2011). The wage and employment impact of minimum-wage
laws in three cities. Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved
from http://new.reimaginerpe.org/files/min-wage-2011-03.pdf.
Wolfson, P. J., & Belman, D. (2014). What does the minimum wage do?. W.E. Upjohn
Institute for Employment Research: Kalamazoo, MI.
Zavodny, M. (2000). The effect of the minimum wage on employment and hours. Labour
Economics, 7(6), 729-750.
doi: http://dx.doi.org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(00)00021-X
5/19/2015 – Addendum to Staff Memo
Question 13: Would you support a minimum wage increase if it led to increases in employee productivity, employee
retention, employee morale, and the level of qualifications of applicants, to offset all or part of increased labor costs?
- All respondents: 75.5% Yes ; 24.5% No
Question 14: Would you support a minimum wage increase if it did not lead to increases in employee productivity,
employee retention, employee morale, and the level of qualifications of applicants, to offset all or part of increased
labor costs?
- All respondents: 37.3% Yes ; 62.7% No
Scenario 1: Remove all respondents with 0% - 10% of employees in their organization earning the minimum wage.
Question 13: Yes – 58.5%
No – 41.4%
Question 14: Yes – 22.9%
No – 77.1%
Scenario 2: Remove all respondents with 0% - 50% of employees in their organization earning the minimum wage.
Question 13: Yes – 54.8%
No – 45.2%
Question 14: Yes – 28.6%
No – 71.4%
Scenario 3: Remove all respondents with 0% - 90% of employees in their organization earning the minimum wage.
Question 13: Yes – 68.8%
No – 31.3%
Question 14: Yes – 34.4%
No – 65.6%
News Release
For Immediate Release Contacts
July 27, 2015 Kimberly S. Thomas, Assistant to the City Manager,
City of Mountain View, (650) 903‐6301;
kimberly.thomas@mountainview.gov
Connie Verceles, Economic Development Manager,
City of Sunnyvale, (408) 730-7256
CVerceles@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Community Feedback Wanted for
Regional Minimum Wage
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Mountain View, Calif.) — The cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale invite all
community members to attend one of two public meetings about a regional increase to
the minimum wage rate. The current minimum wage is $10.30 per hour in both
Mountain View and Sunnyvale. By the end of this year, both city councils will receive
a minimum wage update and may consider proposed ordinances to increase the
minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2018.
Mountain View Community Meeting Sunnyvale Community Meeting
When: Wednesday, September 2,
2015, from 6:30 - 8:00 p.m.
When: Thursday, September 3, 2015,
from 2:00 — 3:30 p.m.
Where: Mountain View Senior Center
266 Escuela Ave. - Social Hall
Mountain View
Where: City of Sunnyvale
Council Chambers
456 W. Olive Ave., Sunnyvale
[More]
Community Meetings on Regional Minimum Wage – page _
The following schedule is a potential approach to reaching $15.00 by 2018.
Neither Council has voted on the approach as of the time of this release.
In addition to the two meetings, members of the community may express feedback to
the Mountain View and Sunnyvale City Councils in the following ways:
Mountain View Community Feedback: Sunnyvale Community Feedback:
Online
Feedback:
Mountain View Open City
Hall forum – available on
September 1, 2015 at
www.mountainview.gov/open-
city-hall
Online
Feedback:
City of Sunnyvale Open City
Hall forum – available on
September 1, 2015 at
Sunnyvale.ca.gov or
MinimumWage.inSunnyvale.com
E-mail/
Call:
citycouncil@mountainview.gov
(650) 903-6301
E-mail/
Call:
MinimumWage@Sunnyvale.ca.gov
or (408) 730-7902
Council
Meeting:
Attend the City Council
meeting on October 27, 2015, to
address the City Council
(expected meeting date as of
the time of this announcement).
Council
Meeting:
Council date is to be
determined. Visit
TCMAC.inSunnyvale.com to view
upcoming Council items
More
Info:
MountainView.gov/minwage
City Manager's Office
500 Castro St., PO Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039
(650) 903-6301
MinWage@mountainview.gov
More
Info:
MinimumWage.inSunnyvale.com
City of Sunnyvale
456 W. Olive Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
(408) 730-7902
MinimumWage@Sunnyvale.ca.gov
# # #
Proposed Effective Date Proposed Minimum Wage Rate
Current $10.30
7/1/2016 $12.00
7/1/2017 $13.50
7/1/2018 $15.00
July 1st Each Following Year CPI Increase
MINUTES
Scott Myers-Lipton, San Jose State University Professor, stated in the two
years since the City of San Jose raised the minimum wage by 25 percent,
the unemployment rate had decreased from 7.6 percent to 4.6 percent; the
leisure and hospitality industry had increased by more than 7 percent; and
restaurant business had increased 20 percent. He hoped the Council would
approve a minimum wage of $15 by 2018.
Chair Burt noted Staff was present to provide a report, which could inform
public comment. He suggested pausing public comment for the Staff Report,
unless speakers objected.
Reverend Geoff Browning felt increasing the minimum wage was the right
thing to do for many reasons. He encouraged the Council to act boldly in
order to bring a modicum of equity into the chasm between the wealthy and
those trying to get by.
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney, reported many cities were
adopting Minimum Wage Ordinances. The proposed Ordinance modeled
Ordinances adopted by Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and San Jose. The draft
Ordinance added a new section, Chapter 4.62, to the Municipal Code; set a
local minimum wage of $10.30; and provided annual increases for the
minimum wage based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Currently, the
Ordinance would become effective 31 days after a second reading; however,
the Council could decide to delay implementation. The draft Ordinance
applied to all employers subject to the City's Business Registry Ordinance
and covered all employers who maintained a business facility within the City
of Palo Alto. The draft Ordinance contained exclusions for sovereign
immunity exemptions. Under sovereign immunity, the City could not
regulate the Veterans Health Administration and Palo Alto Unified School
District. The draft Ordinance applied to employees who worked a minimum
of two hours per week within the City's boundaries. The draft Ordinance
applied equally to tipped employees, but exempted independent contractors.
The draft Ordinance required employers post notices of wage rates and
employees' rights; contained translation requirements; prohibited retaliation
and discrimination; and required employers maintain payroll records for a
minimum of four years. With respect to compliance and enforcement, the
draft Ordinance provided public and private remedies. Employees had a civil
right of action against employers; however, the City could also enforce the
Ordinance. The City of San Jose was willing to assist the City with
enforcement on a fixed-price basis. Staff expected the price to be rather
modest, unless significant or protracted violations occurred. Senate Bill (SB)
13 would institute a State-wide minimum wage of $11 in 2017. Mountain
View was exploring a minimum wage of $15 by 2018. Seattle adopted an
incremental increase to $15 by 2018.
April 28, 2015
Page 2
MINUTES
Council Member Berman clarified that SB 13 called for a minimum wage of
$11 in 2016 and $13 in 2017.
Ms. Silver indicated Seattle considered employers with less than 500
employees and demarcated employers that did and did not provide medical
insurance.
Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager, found a relationship between the
simplicity and understandability of the Ordinance and its implementation.
Compliance rates within San Jose were good. The City's communications
regarding the new Business Registry would be an asset to implementing a
minimum wage.
Reverend Eileen Altman, First Congregational Church of Palo Alto, advised
that the Church's Outreach Board endorsed raising the minimum wage in
Palo Alto. She encouraged the Policy and Services Committee (Committee)
to implement an increase to $15 an hour sooner.
Winter Dellenbach felt an increase would not help all low-wage workers.
Many people living in below market rate housing paid approximately $700
per month for rent, the approximate amount of income they would receive
from an increase in the minimum wage. A minimum wage of less than $15
per hour was not worth the Council's time.
Esha Menon, Working Partnerships USA, indicated many workers would
continue to have financial troubles with an increase to $10.30. Even with a
minimum wage increase, high housing costs in Palo Alto would continue to
force workers to live outside Palo Alto. She supported raising the minimum
wage to $15 per hour by 2018 if not sooner and the inclusion of a collective
bargaining opt-out.
Alison Hicks was appalled by the great income gap characteristic of the 21st
Century economy. She urged the Committee to address the minimum wage
effectively through raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2018.
Mariam Andrade, as a fast food worker, needed $15 per hour to support her
family. She and her husband worked hard to support their family.
Lacey Lutes worked minimum wage jobs while attending college. Often she
worked longer hours rather than studying in order to afford food. She urged
the Council to take a small step toward closing a large economic disparity.
Jessica LaMaack, California Restaurant Association, reported restaurants
faced thin profit margins as technology companies provided meals for their
employees. Minimum wage increases should be gradual and phased in. An
Ordinance should contain triggers for economic review and include a training
April 28, 2015
Page 3
MINUTES
or teen wage to preserve entry-level jobs. She requested the Committee
include a total compensation model in the Ordinance.
Meghan Fraley, Raise the Wage South Bay Coalition, indicated Mountain
View included in its proposed Ordinance a schedule for raising the minimum
wage to $15 by 2018. She suggested the Committee include a similar
schedule in the proposed Ordinance. The current living wage for a single
adult in Palo Alto was $14.26, which supported a minimum wage of $15 per
hour.
Scott Weikart advised that studies had shown that an increase in the
minimum wage created no real impact on jobs. Families rather than
teenagers were attempting to live on minimum wages. States that raised
the minimum wage in 2014 had a higher increase in employment of
teenagers than other states. He encouraged the City to increase the
minimum wage at least as high as neighboring cities.
Qiao Li reported his hourly wage as a homecare worker was $12.81. In
order to live in Palo Alto, he needed to find a second job. The rent for his
studio apartment was more than $1,500 per month. Raising the minimum
wage would help low-wage workers.
Randall Jones noted that no retail business owners lived in their cars and no
restaurant owners received food stamps. In the early 2000s, Oregon
increased the minimum wage to $8.50 and suffered no negative effects. He
suggested the Committee increase the minimum wage to $15 in 2016.
Brian O'Neill, Service Employees International Union 521, was committed to
people working in low-wage jobs. Most low-wage workers were not trainees
or teenagers. Increasing wages for low-wage workers would increase wages
for other workers. He supported a tiered increase in the minimum wage.
Rainer Pittham took issue with studies mentioned in the Staff Report.
Raising the minimum wage was good for the economy.
Chair Burt suggested the Committee first identify issues for discussion, and
then discuss each issue.
Council Member Berman noted the current minimum wage in California was
$9 an hour and would increase to $10 an hour January 1, 2016. He asked if
a minimum wage amount different from that set by San Jose, Mountain
View, and Sunnyvale would cause San Jose to withdraw its offer to assist
with enforcement.
Mr. Shikada had not discussed that with San Jose, but suspected San Jose
would be willing to discuss it in order to understand additional workload. A
April 28, 2015
Page4
MINUTES
different dollar amount would not necessarily change the type of work San
Jose would perform. Changing exemptions and such could impact San Jose's
workload.
Council Member Berman was intrigued by increasing the minimum wage to
$15 per hour by 2018, but asked how the City could implement an increase.
Ms. Hicks advised that the Raise the Wage Coalition spoke with Mountain
View staff who reported San Jose could offer enforcement services if the City
utilized a different dollar amount.
Council Member Wolbach wished to discuss teenagers, tipped employees,
collective bargaining agreements, amounts to target for the short term and
long term, a schedule for minimum wage increases, phase-in for different
types of employers, potential dis-employment, working with other cities in
the region, simplicity of the Ordinance, and impacts to employers and the
local economy. He inquired about auxiliary organizations as stated in the
Staff Report.
Ms. Silver would need to review the Municipal Code. Because it fell under
the Education Code, it was probably a specific term utilized in the Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD) arena.
Council Member DuBois requested the definition of a business facility as
stated in the proposed Ordinance.
Ms. Silver indicated the proposed Ordinance did not define business facility;
however, Staff could include a definition. Typically a business facility was
defined as an office or some type of physical presence in the City.
Council Member DuBois asked if Staff had specific businesses in mind that
would be excluded from the Ordinance.
Ms. Silver explained that those were the two criteria used in San Jose's
initiative. Cities had different Business Registry requirements. In Palo Alto,
transitory businesses were not subject to the Business Registry. Only
businesses with a physical office location were currently subject to Palo
Alto's Business Registry.
Council Member DuBois inquired whether a gardening business working out
of trucks or a business located in a home would be exempt from the
Ordinance.
Ms. Silver replied yes.
Council Member DuBois asked if the minimum wage would decrease should
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) decrease.
April 28, 2015
Page 5
MINUTES
Ms. Silver answered no, the minimum wage would not decrease.
Council Member DuBois inquired about the length of time that San Jose
communicated with businesses.
Mr. Shikada believed San Jose took about 90 days for notifications to
businesses. It would be relatively easy to communicate with Palo Alto
businesses as the City continued to communicate regarding the Business
Registry.
Council Member DuBois inquired about current enforcement procedures in
Palo Alto.
Chair Burt explained that enforcement followed State regulations.
Council Member DuBois wanted to know why the City's Ordinance should
model San Jose's Ordinance.
Mr. Shikada reported the State would not enforce a local Minimum Wage
Ordinance. San Jose's model was responsive. Enforcement would be based
on complaints and follow-up investigations.
Council Member DuBois asked if San Jose would teach the City how to
enforce the Ordinance with the idea of the City discontinuing its contract
with San Jose.
Mr. Shikada indicated the City would enter into the new regulatory structure
and get a feel for what would be involved in enforcement. If sufficient work
and communication occurred, then the City could build its own enforcement
expertise.
Council Member DuBois calculated that 14 percent annual increases would
raise the local minimum wage to $15.25 in 2018.
Chair Burt noted Beacon Economics issued a report predicting the City of
San Jose would lose 800-900 jobs due to increasing the minimum wage. He
asked if in fact no jobs were lost.
Mr. Shikada could not say. From an enforcement perspective, the workload
would be significantly smaller than originally expected.
Chair Burt had not expected Staff to provide a detailed proposed Ordinance
based on the Colleague's Memo. He inquired whether the Committee could
revise provisions in the proposed Ordinance.
Ms. Silver nodded yes.
April 28, 2015
Page 6
MINUTES
Chair Burt advised that Committee Members had identified the bulk of the
issues needing discussion. Issues could be divided into categories of Phase
1 implementation date and amount and potential exemptions and Phase 2
communication and enforcement. The section regarding retaliation did not
contain a dollar amount for the penalty. He inquired about the
consequences of an employer retaliating against an employee.
Ms. Silver reported a civil penalty as well as a criminal violation could be
imposed for violating the Ordinance.
Chair Burt asked how a penalty would be determined.
Ms. Silver explained that the Council would set that through a separate
penalty schedule.
Chair Burt wished to impose a high consequence for retaliation. A July 1,
2015 implementation date would be too soon in that communications would
be rushed and businesses would not have time to plan. He was interested in
the possibility of a January 1, 2016 implementation date; however, a local
minimum wage would be only $0.30 higher than the State minimum wage
on January 1, 2016. A starting minimum wage of $10.30 would not provide
an economic benefit to employees. He requested Committee Members
comment on an $11 minimum wage beginning on January 1, 2016.
Council Member Wolbach understood Mountain View and Sunnyvale were
considering a schedule of $10.30 on July 1, 2015, $12 on July 1, 2016,
$13.50 on July 1, 2017, and $15 on July 1, 2018.
Ms. Silver agreed that Mountain View was considering those amounts on
those dates. -
Council Member Wolbach inquired whether the Committee wished to align
Palo Alto's dates with those of the other cities.
Chair Burt understood the other cities were not aligned with respect to
implementation dates.
Ms. Silver indicated Mountain View had given formal direction to study that
particular schedule, but had not adopted it.
Council Member Berman requested the scheduled dates be repeated.
Council Member Wolbach reiterated the dates and amounts.
Ms. Silver noted Attachment C to the Staff Report contained implementation
dates for other cities.
April 28, 2015
Page 7
MINUTES
Council Member Wolbach agreed that $10.30 effective January 1, 2016
would not be useful. If the City followed Mountain View's proposed
schedule, the local minimum wage would be only $0.30 above the State
minimum wage from January 1 until July 1, 2016. He would consider a
schedule beginning with $12 on January 1, 2016.
Chair Burt noted the Committee would discuss in Phase 2 whether to provide
direction for a specific implementation plan. The Committee should discuss
whether to provide a specific Phase 2 in the current discussion or leave the
details of Phase 2 open subject to additional study of impact and discourse.
Council Member Wolbach reiterated that a local minimum wage only slightly
higher than the State minimum wage was pointless. He preferred a
minimum wage of $12 an hour by January 1, 2016.
Council Member Berman emphasized the importance of robust
communications with the business community. That should dictate the
implementation date. The business community should be informed and
included in discussions. An implementation date of July 1, 2015 would be
too soon. He suggested an implementation date of October 1, 2015 with a
tiered approach and a July 1, 2016 date for a subsequent increase. He
asked if the Committee would discuss outreach.
Chair Burt requested Committee Members discuss outreach in Phase 1.
Council Member Berman believed outreach could follow the approaches
taken with the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program and the Business
Registry. The City would need to ensure everyone was aware of the issue
and given an opportunity to participate. Moving to $12 by January 1, 2016
was aggressive; however, he was open to a discussion.
Council Member DuBois calculated an increase from $9 to $12 was a 33
percent increase, which seemed very aggressive. The City had to consider
the business community. Matching the City's schedule with those of San
Jose, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale would be beneficial. San Jose and
Sunnyvale appeared to have a January 1 schedule with CPI increases. The
City could implement a schedule by September 1, 2015, and then discuss
Phase 2 implementation with a different schedule.
Chair Burt inquired whether Council Member DuBois envisioned
implementation immediately or on January 1, 2016 if the Council did not
approve it by September 1, 2015.
Council Member DuBois hoped it would be presented to the Council before
the Break.
April 28, 2015
Page 8
MINUTES
Chair Burt felt January 1, 2016 would be the best and most consistent
implementation date so that businesses could plan for the increase.
Allowing businesses a few months to incorporate a wage increase in fiscal
planning was reasonable. He wanted the City's schedule to align roughly
with other cities' schedules. He suggested a minimum wage of $11 take
effect on January 1, 2016.
Council Member Wolbach would not describe a minimum wage of $12 taking
effect on January 1, 2016 as aggressive. It would accelerate Mountain
View's plan by six months. The City should not implement a minimum wage
increase in the Calendar Year of 2015 in order to have good outreach to the
business community.
Chair Burt clarified that Mountain View had not adopted that schedule.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, nodded in agreement.
Chair Burt moved to a discussion of exemptions for tipped employees,
teenagers, and workers under a collective bargaining. The Berkeley
Ordinance contained an exemption for young adult trainees participating in
job training programs offered by nonprofit agencies. He asked if State law
provided exemptions for family members.
Ms. Silver believed that was State law. The proposed Ordinance contained
that exemption.
Chair Burt suggested exemptions could offer different tiers for some
subgroups. A complicated schedule would make implementation difficult.
The Committee should balance exemptions with simplicity.
Council Member DuBois felt the Committee may not have considered all
exemptions. He asked if a homecare business without an office would be
exempt.
Ms. Silver advised that if the homecare business had a facility in Palo Alto
and was dispatching workers, those workers as employees of that business
would be subject to the Ordinance. If in-home care workers were hired by
an individual privately and paid directly by the individual, then the City's
Ordinance as proposed would exempt those employees.
Council Member DuBois inquired whether a business operated from a home
office would be exempt.
Ms. Silver explained that a legal in-home business would be a permitted
facility under the Zoning Code; therefore, she would characterize that as
requiring a business license and likely would be covered.
April 28, 2015
Page9
MINUTES
Chair Burt requested Committee Members forego hypothetical scenarios and
focus on the reality of the Palo Alto economy. He did not know of anyone
who could hire a nanny or a cleaning person in his home in Palo Alto for
minimum wage.
Council Member DuBois was uncomfortable with the definition and preferred
a simple definition with relatively few exemptions. He did not want to
consider teenagers and categories. The minimum wage should be the
minimum wage.
Council Member Wolbach tended to agree with Council Member DuBois with
respect to exemptions. Unless someone offered a compelling argument,
exemptions should be simple. More exemptions undermined the policy
objectives of a minimum wage. He asked if the Ordinance could include a
homecare contractor living with and caring for an individual.
Ms. Silver responded yes. That was a policy decision for the Committee.
Staff would need to confer with San Jose to determine whether it would add
complications to enforcement.
Council Member Wolbach encouraged the Committee to close loopholes.
Perhaps Mountain View and Sunnyvale would follow the City's lead to close
loopholes in their Ordinances. If enforcement was based on complaints,
closing those loopholes should not significantly impact general enforcement.
Council Member Berman stated the loophole under discussion was an
independent contractor.
Council Member DuBois was not sure it was a loophole, rather the definition
of businesses under the Ordinance. San Jose should understand the
differences in business licenses requirements.
Council Member Wolbach requested the City Attorney revise the definition of
employer to focus on the employee rather than the employer. If the
employee's work was significantly in Palo Alto, then he should be covered
regardless of the employer's location.
Ms. Silver would work with that definition.
Chair Burt could agree to including more contentious exemptions in
discussion of Phase 2. The impact of an $11 minimum wage beginning on
January 1, 2016 was not terribly onerous when compared to the State
minimum wage increasing to $10 an hour. An $11 minimum wage for tipped
employees would not have a large impact on restaurants. However, a $15
minimum wage for tipped employees could have a significant impact. An
Ordinance that caused people making higher wages to lose their jobs was
10
April 28, 2015
Page
MINUTES
unacceptable. He asked if the proposed Ordinance contained an exemption
for employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
Ms. Stump responded yes.
Chair Burt noted live-in workers would be exempt under the proposed
Ordinance.
Ms. Silver indicated nannies, housekeepers, and live-in caregivers who were
paid directly by a resident would be exempt.
Chair Burt suggested in Phase 2 the Committee distinguish between live-in
homecare workers who received room and board as additional compensation
and caregivers receiving an hourly wage. Perhaps the Committee would
consider job training programs offered by nonprofit agencies as a
hypothetical scenario.
Council Member Berman advised that Goodwill Industries offered such a
program.
Chair Burt inquired about actions taken by other cities with respect to job
training programs.
Ms. Silver reported the proposed Ordinance did not contain such an
exemption, because it was modeled after Ordinances in other cities.
Chair Burt suggested the Committee consider that in Phase 2.
Council Member Wolbach inquired whether a group of employees who were
covered by a collective bargaining agreement and who agreed to a
compensation amount lower than the Palo Alto minimum wage would be
allowed under the proposed Ordinance.
Ms. Silver answered yes, as that was a Federal requirement.
Council Member Wolbach liked the idea of keeping the Ordinance simple in
Phase 1. In Phase 2, the Committee should at least set a policy goal for the
path forward. By implementing the minimum wage in phases, the City
would have time to study and consider issues.
Chair Burt asked if Staff considered creating an advisory group of
stakeholders to assist with details.
Mr. Shikada answered no.
Chair Burt asked if Staff would be interested in doing that.
11
April 28, 2015
Page
MINUTES
Mr. Shikada advised that the positions of various stakeholders were fairly
well known. The issues could come down to ease of implementation more so
than feedback. It could be more productive to put a proposal forward and
allow stakeholders to react with respect to implementation.
Chair Burt related his experience with a deliberate process of defining and
working through issues to reach consensus among stakeholders. He
requested comment regarding including real consequences in the retaliation
prov1s1on. He was concerned that penalties would impact the employee
considerably more than the employee. He wanted to provide a greater
financial consequence to any employer that was found to have retaliated
against an employee.
Ms. Stump explained that the language of the draft Ordinance discussed an
adverse action, which was not only a termination but also a loss of a shift,
demotion, or loss of hours. Under employment law, those types of actions
could be adverse actions.
Chair Burt suggested an "up to" amount be included, and asked who would
determine the penalty amount.
Ms. Silver reported the Council could establish penalties when it adopted a
penalty schedule. The Council could provide different penalties for different
types of violations or a tiered penalty structure. Penalties could be assessed
through an administrative process or as a criminal penalty.
Chair Burt did not find either satisfactory. He preferred to avoid a criminal
action, to institute a $5,000 penalty for a termination with lower fines for
lesser retaliation, and to require adjudication by a level higher than Code
Enforcement Officer.
Council Member Berman suggested the Committee direct Staff to return with
examples of how often retaliation had been reported in other communities.
Chair Burt stated the point of a heavy fine was to deter retaliation.
Council Member Wolbach was comfortable with the terms presented by the
City Attorney's Office. A discussion of penalty amounts could be included in
the discussion of the City's penalty schedule. In egregious cases of
retaliation against an employee who raised concerns of wage theft, the
Committee should not rule out the possibility of a misdemeanor prosecution.
Chair Burt asked if the draft Ordinance provided for a misdemeanor
prosecution.
12
April 28, 2015
Page
MINUTES
Ms. Stump reported it was contained in the general prov1s1ons of the
Administrative Code. However, egregious cases were very rare.
Chair Burt could agree to including it in the Phase 2 discussion. Any
language should provide sufficient clarity that prosecution was a deterrent.
Council Member Wolbach wished to discuss Phase 2 communication and
enforcement issues.
Chair Burt noted the Committee had discussed a clear schedule and a goal
and structure for Phase 2 and requested the Committee discuss alternatives.
Council Member DuBois believed the Ordinance should include some
measure of the performance of the economy. A recession could trigger a
percentage increase.
Chair Burt explained that that could occur under adopting a schedule or one
of the goals. ·
Council Member DuBois noted Ordinances for San Jose, Mountain View, and
Sunnyvale were tied to the CPI.
Chair Burt agreed that that would be an aspect for consideration in Phase 2.
Council Member Wolbach wished to discuss Phases 2, 3, and 4. The
Committee should set a policy goal of $15 an hour by 2018. Evidence
supported implementing a minimum wage of $15 per hour. Increases
should occur annually and automatically. Six or 12 months prior to an
increase, the Council could discuss issues related to the upcoming increase
and make adjustments.
Council Member Berman felt a schedule with a caveat that additional details
needed clarification after Phase 1 would be helpful. Many of those details
would concern exemptions and enforcements.
Chair Burt was inclined to have a goal. The schedule should be part of the
Phase 2 deeper discussion of dates and amounts and triggers. He supported
establishing a goal of $15 per hour by 2018. The schedule was premature;
it should be open for discussion.
Council Member DuBois wanted to capture the concept of staying in sync
with surrounding cities in order to assist employers. He would agree to a
goal of $15 in 2018, but wanted to capture the idea of being in sync
regionally.
13
April 28, 2015
Page
MINUTES
Chair Burt indicated the Committee could adopt that as a concept. The
Committee should not limit itself to following other's actions if it did not feel
those actions were sound. He could support a statement that the City would
attempt to align itself with other cities as much as possible.
Council Member Wolbach expressed concern that being too timid or too
vague would discourage other cities. It was important to establish some
type of schedule or goal in the current discussion and provide an opportunity
for regular reconsideration.
Chair Burt wished to ensure the Council acted deliberately and received
input from all parties. His experience in tackling complex issues was that
one could be strong and leading and deliberate and thoughtful at the same
time.
Council Member Berman noted that an increase to $11 effective January 1,
2016 would result in an increase of $2 by January 1, 2017 and another $2
increase by January 1, 2018 to reach $15 by 2018.
Chair Burt was not aware whether the implementation date in 2018 would
be the beginning, middle, or end of 2018. Reaching a minimum wage of $15
around 2018 would lead the nation.
Council Member Berman wanted to ensure Palo Alto could meet a goal of
$15 by 2018. Completing Phase 1 by October 1, 2015 would provide the
Committee with flexibility for deciding when to begin Phase 2.
Chair Burt would be open to considering an implementation date of October
1 if Staff believed the item could be presented to the Council prior to its
vacation. If not, he preferred an implementation date of January 1, 2016.
Council Member Berman recalled the Committee's desire for business input.
Chair Burt wanted to allow time for businesses to plan for an increase. The
implementation date should be January 1, 2016. Six months should be
adequate forewarning.
Council Member Berman stated October 1 was approximately five months
away.
Chair Burt clarified that the Council was not adopting the Ordinance that
day. He was inclined to create a stakeholder group to iron out details of
Phase 2.
Council Member Wolbach inquired whether the Chair wanted separate
Motions for Phases 1 and 2.
14
April 28, 2015
Page
MINUTES
Chair Burt answered no.
Council Member DuBois asked if the Motion set a hard date of October 1.
Chair Burt answered yes. The sooner the Committee began the
conversation, the more time it would have to discuss and consider a process.
Council Member DuBois inquired whether Staff felt October was a reasonable
date.
Ms. Silver responded yes.
Council Member Wolbach recalled that $11 per hour was only $0.70 more
than the State minimum wage. If the objective was to reflect the economic
realities of the region, then he requested an explanation for the preference
of $11 rather than $11.50.
Chair Burt stated the $10.30 State minimum wage would be a significant
increase from the present minimum wage.
Ms. Silver clarified that the State minimum wage would increase to $10 an
hour on January 1, 2016.
Council Member Wolbach noted the proposed minimum wage amount would
be $1 higher than the State minimum wage.
Chair Burt explained that Palo Alto businesses would have an increase of $2
per hour. Businesses were planning for a $1 increase, not a $2 increase.
Council Member DuBois added that an increase to $11.50 would be a 27
percent increase at one time.
Chair Burt felt a 27 percent increase was not an insignificant increase for
small businesses.
Council Member Berman inquired whether the CPI increase was a
placeholder until the Committee discussed Phase 2.
Council Member DuBois responded yes.
Ms. Stump asked if the Council should affirm the goal.
Chair Burt replied yes.
Council Member Berman felt Staff would have a difficult time aligning Palo
Alto's schedule with surrounding cities if Mountain View adopted its proposed
schedule.
16
April 28, 2015
Page
MINUTES
Chair Burt suggested adding language clarify that "align" did not mean
"mimic."
Council Member Wolbach suggested changing the word "align" to
"coordinate."
Chair Burt believed the City wanted to coordinate with and to the extent
possibly align with surrounding cities' schedules.
Council Member Wolbach believed "seek to" would establish the ideal.
Chair Burt wanted to coordinate with other cities and to create an aligned
wage. Alignment did not mean duplication.
Council Member Wolbach asked if the Committee should identify specific
elements.
Chair Burt answered no. Elements were the topics the Committee would
address in the process.
MOTION RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Chair
Burt that the Policy & Services Committee recommend the City Council:
1) Adopt the Staff recommendation of an Ordinance raising the
minimum wage to $11.00 per hour to be implemented by January
01, 2016 with an annual increase by Consumer Price Index (CPI)
2) Adopt a goal of raising the minimum wage to $15.00 by 2018 to
coordinate and seek to create an aligned minimum wage with
surrounding cities.
3) Return to the Policy & Services Committee no later than October
01, 2015 with a process to consider the elements of obtaining the
$15.00 goal
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned at 9:57 P.M.
17
April 28, 2015
Page
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6005)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/24/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Proposed Response to Grand Jury Report on Sea Level Rise
Title: Approval of Response to Grand Jury Report “A Slow Rising Emergency –
Sea Level Rise”
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached response to the Santa Clara
County Civil Grand Jury Report “A Slow Rising Emergency – Sea Level Rise.” Staff
further recommends that the Mayor send a letter to the Grand Jury with the
City’s response by the specified deadline, September 15, 2015.
Background
On June 11, 2015, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury issued a report entitled
“A Slow Rising Emergency – Sea Level Rise” (Attachment A), which found that
public agencies are not adequately preparing for sea level rise and makes several
findings and recommendations for actions by public agencies in Santa Clara
County abutting the San Francisco Bay.
It should be noted that the City is actively engaged in preparation for Sea Level
Rise and is coordinating its efforts with neighboring jurisdictions. In FY 2015, the
City Council approved $500,000 in capital improvement program funding for the
City to participate in the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority’s (JPA)
regional feasibility study of potential improvements to the Bayfront levee system
intended to provide flood protection, including from future sea level rise (SAFER
Bay Project). The City’s funding covers the cost of the analysis of alternatives for
levee improvements between San Francisquito Creek and the City of Mountain
View border. City staff is also coordinating with Mountain View staff on their
efforts to improve the Mountain View levee system, including coordination with
City of Palo Alto Page 2
the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project.
Discussion
Staff’s recommendations for the the City’s response to the Grand Jury findings
and recommendations that pertain to the City are included in Attachment B. Staff
agrees with Finding and Recommendation 1 that the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (Water District) “take a more proactive role in coordinating with cities that
will be affected by Sea Level Rise,” but rather than “directing,” staff would like to
see a collaborative multi-jurisdictional effort within Santa Clara County and also
strongly endorses the need for Bay Area-wide coordination on sea level rise issues
and impacts.
Staff does not agree with the Grand Jury’s finding that the City of Palo Alto’s 2014
“Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment” (THIRA) did not identify
the effects of Sea Level Rise as one of the hazards affecting the City. The THIRA
already addresses Sea Level Rise in both the hazard summary and recommended
actions. In addition, it appears that the Grand Jury was not aware of Palo Alto’s
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which also addresses climate change and related
issues including sea level rise.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Grand Jury Report: A Slow Rising Emergency - Sea Level Rise (PDF)
Attachment B: Grand Jury Response: A Slow Rising Emergency-Sea Level Rise (DOCX)
1
City of Palo Alto’s Response to the Civil Grand Jury Report
“A Slow Rising Emergency – Sea Level Rise”
Finding 1
The cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale want to retain control of Sea Level Rise related efforts within
their jurisdictions, but would like to have an organization assume responsibility for coordinating the plans and activities
involved in addressing Sea Level Rise.
RESPONSE to Finding 1:
The City agrees with the finding.
Recommendation 1
The Santa Clara Valley Water District should take a more proactive role in coordinating with cities that will be affected by
Sea Level Rise, unifying, integrating and directing efforts in Santa Clara County.
RESPONSE to Recommendation 1:
Consistent with Finding 1, the City agrees that the Santa Clara Valley Water District should assume responsibility
for coordinating plans, unifying and integrating. However, the City would like to see a collaborative multi-
jurisdictional effort rather than the District “directing” efforts as stated in the recommendation. In addition, the
City of Palo Alto also believes that a Bay Area-wide effort will be needed to coordinate a response to Sea Level
Rise regionally.
Finding 2
The City of Milpitas does not have a Climate Action Plan which addresses Sea Level Rise.
RESPONSE to Finding 2:
NA
Recommendation 2
The City of Milpitas needs to develop a Climate Action Plan which addresses Sea Level Rise.
RESPONSE to Recommendation 2:
NA
Finding 3
The City of Palo Alto’s 2014 “Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment” did not identify the effects of Sea
Level Rise as one of the hazards.
RESPONSE to Finding 3:
The City does not agree with this finding. The City’s “Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment”
(THIRA) already addresses climate change and Sea Level Rise (SLR), see www.cityofpaloalto.org/thira:
p. 24: Section 5.3 Flood/Severe Winter Storm Hazard Summary
"Palo Alto, along with the entire Bay Area, is also subject to increasing flood risk as a result of rising sea levels,
requiring city planners to collaborate with regional organizations and projects, such as the SCVWD, SFCJPA, the
US Army Corps of Engineers’ South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, and the State Coastal Conservancy Salt
Pond Restoration Project, who have each initiated studies on impacts of sea level rise in the vicinity of Palo
Alto."
p. 40: Section 6.1 Planning, Recommended Actions:
"Continue to collaborate with regional planning efforts to mitigate impacts of sea level rise/ climate change."
In addition, the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) addresses climate change and related issues, including
Sea Level Rise: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/oes/PlansPublications/Pages/LHMP.aspx. While the THIRA tends
to address threats and hazards that are evolving (cyber terror) and/or to which shorter-term mitigation
measures could be applied based on federal criteria, the LHMP focuses on longer-term planning issues.
Attachment B
2
Climate Change and associated Sea Level Rise will also be addressed in the City’s updated Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan and Comprehensive Plan (General Plan), which are currently under development and are
scheduled to be completed in 2016.
The Bay Area Security Initiative (UASI) also has a number of regional catastrophic planning efforts that relate
to these topics: http://www.bayareauasi.org/programs/rcpgp/working-groups
Recommendation 3
The City of Palo Alto needs to identify Sea Level Rise as a hazard in its “Threat and Hazard Identification Risk
Assessment”.
RESPONSE to Recommendation 3:
The City has implemented the recommendation. Furthermore, the THIRA and LHMP are both due for revision
in 2016. SLR and related topics will continue to be given appropriate coverage in the revised versions of these
documents.
Finding 4
The Santa Clara Valley Water District, which is by law tasked with the responsibility for flood control in Santa Clara
County, has not coordinated Santa Clara County’s efforts to address Sea Level Rise and all of the cities in Santa Clara
County that abut the Bay.
RESPONSE to Finding 4:
NA
Recommendation 4
The Santa Clara Valley Water District should coordinate Santa Clara County’s effort to address Sea Level Rise for all of
the cities in Santa Clara County that abut the Bay.
RESPONSE to Recommendation 4:
NA
Finding 5
According to the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s website, since July 2012, it has held only one public meeting
to share information about Sea Level Rise.
RESPONSE to Finding 5:
NA
Recommendation 5
The Santa Clara Valley Water District should provide more information for the residents of Santa Clara County about
Sea Level Rise.
RESPONSE to Recommendation 5:
NA
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5909)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/24/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Response to Grand Jury Report: Most Vulnerable Residents
Title: Approval of Response to Grand Jury Report on Protecting Our Most
Vulnerable Residents
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the following response to the 2014-2015 Santa Clara
County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, “Protecting Our Most Vulnerable Residents.”
Background
On June 8, 2015, the Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County released a report which surveyed
various municipal law enforcement agencies in Santa Clara County to evaluate the purported
failure of Law Enforcement’s use of the California Penal Code mandates in reporting incidences
of elder and/or dependent adult abuse, especially when the abuse was mental or emotional.
A copy of the Grand Jury Report is included as Attachment A.
Discussion
The Grand Jury’s Report culminates in seven (7) findings and twenty (20) recommendations
(see pages 14 through 17). One (1) of those recommendations is related to law enforcement
practices of the Palo Alto Police Department. The following discussion responds to the
recommendation.
Recommendation 6H – “The City of Palo Alto Police Department, as a member of the Police
Chiefs Association of Santa Clara County, should advocate for the revision of the Elder and
Dependent Adult Abuse Protocol for Santa Clara County Law Enforcement.”
Response: Agree. The current County Protocol needs to be updated, revised and shortened.
These modifications were discussed at the June 9, 2015 County Police Chief’s meeting. A
representative from the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office presented on this topic
and stated that they, along with other members of the county Elder Death Review Team, were
already working on the proposed recommendations. On June 10, 2015, The District Attorney’s
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Office formally notified the Civil Grand Jury that they agreed with the recommendations and
were in the process of updating the County Protocol.
A copy of the Police Department’s Response to the Grand Jury’s Findings and
Recommendations is included as Attachment B.
Resource Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact resulting from this report.
Policy Implications
None - This report recognized that the Palo Alto Police Department Policy and practices
regarding Elder and/or Dependent Adult abuse were consistent with best practices.
Environmental Review
There is no environmental review required for this report.
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A - Grand Jury Report-Vulnerable Residents (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B - Response Letter to Grand Jury - Elder Dependent Abuse (PDF)
ATTACHMENT C - Extension Request and Response (PDF)
August 24, 2015
VIA U.S. Mail and FAX
Honorable Risë Jones Pichon
Presiding Judge
Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Re: Civil Grand Jury Report ― “Protecting Our Most Vulnerable Residents” (June 8, 2015)
Honorable Jones Pichon,
Attached please find the City of Palo Alto’s response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury’s Final
Report entitled “Protecting Our Most Vulnerable Residents” (dated June 8, 2014) as required by
California Penal Code §§ 933(c) & 933.05 (a) & (b).
Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the enclosed document, please feel free to call me
at (650) 329‐2103.
Sincerely,
Dennis Burns
Police Chief
enclosure
Palo Alto Police Department Response to
Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations Pertaining to the City of Palo Alto
Recommendation 6H – “The City of Palo Alto Police Department, as a member of the Police Chiefs
Association of Santa Clara County, should advocate for the revision of the Elder and Dependent Adult
Abuse Protocol for Santa Clara County Law Enforcement.”
Response: Agree. The current County Protocol needs to be updated, revised and shortened. These
modifications were discussed at the June 9, 2015 County Police Chief’s meeting. A representative from
the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office presented on this topic and stated that they, along with
other members of the county Elder Death Review Team, were already working on the proposed
recommendations.
July7,2015
Chief Dennis Burns
City of Palo Alto Police Department
275 Forest Avenue , MS I C
Palo Alto, California 94301
Dear Chief Burns,
As a follow up to the 2014-2015 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury 's transmission of
its Final Report, Protecting Our Most Vulnerable Residents, it has come to my
attention that the Grand Jury sent a 60-day response letter dated June 15,2015 , which has
the incorrect response submission date of August 17, 20 15.
As a responding agency, you should have received a 90-c1ay response letter from the
2014-2015 Santa Clara Civil Grand Jury.
Please submit your response to the office of the Honorable Rise Jones Pichon, Presiding
Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 ,
no later than Wednesday, September 16,2015.
3ce~~~
Tamara L. Davis
Deputy Manager
Civil Grand Jury
Cc: Honorable Karen Holman, Mayor, and Members of the Palo Alto City Council
James Keene, City Manager, City of Palo Alto
Received
JUL 10 2015
POlice Chief
SUPER I OR COURT BUILDING· 191 N ORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, C,\I.IFORNIA 95113 • (408) 299·3608 • FA' 298·0582 ~
t> OO~
CI " Y 01
PALO
ALTO
OFF I CE OF THE CITY ATTORN E Y
25 0 Hil m llton Avenue. 8th Floor
Pal o Alto. CA 943 01
650 .32 9.2171
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Elaine K. Larson
Foreperson
2014-2015 Civil Grand Jury
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Ms. Larson:
June 25, 2015
We received your Final Report, Protecting Our Most Vulnerable Residents dated June 15, 2015.
There appears to be an error in the cover letter, which di rects the City of Palo Alto to respond
to the Presiding Judge on the findings and recommendations within 60 ~.a'i.s of receipt of the
report (Augu st 17, 2015). Penal Code section 933(c) requires that county agencies respond to
the Presiding Judge within 60 days, and allows all other public agencies 90 days to respond . The
Palo Alto City Council will return from the summer legislative break in late August, more than
60 days after receipt of the Grand Jury's report. The Council intends to con sid er the response
on August 241h, which is within the 90 day time period for non-county agencies set by Section
933(c). Staff will forward the response to the Presiding Judge promptly thereafter.
We trust this will be acceptable to the Court. If the Court has questions or concerns about this
proposal, ple ase contact me at the number below.
MSS:sh
Attachment
cc: Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager
150(.23 ~h 0 I.JO 136
Very truly yours,
4:Jld:
Ci ty Attorney
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5664)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/24/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Ordinance Amendment to PC and Prelimy Screening
Regulations
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance to Amend Chapters 18.38, PC Planned
Community District Regulations, and 18.79, Development Project Preliminary
Review Procedures; Exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines 15061.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt an ordinance (Attachment B) to implement changes to
the PC Planned Community District and Development Project Preliminary Review procedures by
amending Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Executive Summary
The attached ordinance (Attachment B) would enact changes to Chapters 18.38 PC Planned
Community District Regulations (PC), and 18.79, Development Project Preliminary Review
Procedures (Pre-Screening), of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Revisions are based on comments
received from the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), City Council, the public, and
Policy & Services Committee (the latter related to Pre-Screening).
This text amendment to the Zoning Code was prompted by concerns raised in the community
about the ad hoc nature of each separate negotiation for PC projects, overuse of the PC
process, inadequacy of public benefits obtained, insufficient transparency, and lack of
monitoring and enforcement. Based on these concerns, the City Council approved a “time-out”
on all PC requests in early 2014 and directed staff to return with an analysis of reforms and
alternatives. Potential reforms and alternatives were discussed at a City Council study session
in October 6, 2014.
The proposed revisions to the PC regulations include procedural changes that would require
early consultation with the City Council, a definition of public benefit, a requirement for a
preliminary economic analysis as part of the application process, consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan at time of application, and enhanced monitoring and enforcement
City of Palo Alto Page 2
requirements. The proposed revisions also restructure the PC district into an overlay or
combining zoning district so the existing zoning designation would remain in place as the base
zoning district. The requirement for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan at the time of
application would ensure that PC projects are in conformance with the community’s collective
vision for Palo Alto as expressed by the Comprehensive Plan.
The PTC reviewed the draft ordinance at public hearings on February 11, 2015 and March 11,
2015 and made a number of suggestions, some of which have not been included in the
proposed ordinance. More information is provided in the Discussion section below and a
summary of the PTC’s discussion is provided as Attachment A.
Background
The PC regulations defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38 were adopted in 1951
and have been used to approve approximately 100 different projects. Sites have been zoned as
PC to enable them to be used or developed in a manner that would not be allowed under their
original zoning designation. This process has allowed the City to be responsive to new land-use
opportunities that were not potentially considered at the time the area was zoned, and to
proactively address community objectives related to such land uses as affordable housing, small
grocery stores, and other uses. Since the late 1970’s the process has granted flexibility to
applicants in exchange for “public benefits”, although this term is not currently defined in the
regulations.
While the PC zoning process has resulted in many successful projects like the Opportunity
Services Center and the Tree House Apartments, it has come to be viewed as too transactional,
allowing neighborhood impacts to be “traded” for benefits that may accrue to people outside
of the immediate vicinity. In response, the City Council approved a “time-out” on all PC
requests and directed staff to return with an analysis of reforms and alternatives (Attachment
D).
Planning staff prepared a working paper in August 2014 summarizing issues around PC zoning
and collected information on how other communities provide for flexibility in meeting zoning
requirements when it is appropriate (Attachment E). The PTC reviewed and discussed the
current PC regulations and possible alternatives and revisions at an August 2014 study session.
A copy of the staff reports and meeting minutes are appended to this report as Attachment F
and G. Overall, members of the PTC acknowledged that PC zoning has provided a unique
opportunity for flexibility in developing specific sites within a zoning code that is otherwise
determinative. The PTC also noted a need for flexibility in zoning. The following eight items
were identified as key:
1. The need for a better definition of public benefits.
2. The need for an independent economic analysis of the proposed public benefit and the
value of the requested entitlement.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
3. The need for a clearer process, including clarity about the role of the PTC and the City
Council.
4. The desire to ensure adequate disclosure of ex parte communications.
5. The need for enhanced monitoring and enforcement of public benefits, and some
discussion regarding the desired duration for those benefits.
6. Consideration of the use of development agreements or precise plans for some types of
projects rather than via a PC.
7. The possibility that the Comprehensive Plan should identify areas of the City where use
of PC zoning is allowed.
8. The possibility that the PC regulations should cap the degree of variation from
underlying zoning district standards that could be allowed.
On October 6, 2014, the City Council also held a study session and provided their thoughts
about needed reforms and alternatives to the PC process. A copy of the staff report and
excerpt minutes of the City Council’s discussion is appended as Attachment H. Council
members generally expressed their desire to keep and revise the PC regulations. The City
Council’s comments can be grouped into five general areas:
1. Eligible Projects – Currently the PC regulations do not specifically identify the types of
projects or geographic areas in the City that are most appropriate for rezoning to a PC
district. The majority of the Councilmembers did not feel that identifying geographic
locations within the City would work for PC districts because future needs were
unknown. Several council members wished to further explore a proposal to cap the
degree of variation from the base zoning that should be allowed. This has effectively
been accomplished in the proposed ordinance by requiring proposed PC ordinances to
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in place at the time of application.
2. Revisions to public benefits – Councilmembers agreed that there should be a formal
definition of public benefits but did not think that a prescribed menu of public benefits
was the best solution unless the list was updated every five years. A suggestion was
made to link the public benefits menu with the most current assessments for
infrastructure, human needs, and community needs. This suggestion has been
incorporated in section 18.38.015(b) of the proposed ordinance.
3. Economic Impact Analysis – The Council supported the creation of an independent
economic analysis of the proposed benefit and value of the requested entitlement
should be required. This suggestion has been incorporated in section 18.38.070,
Application Requirements, of the proposed ordinance.
4. Preliminary Conceptual Review – Some thought was given to requiring a preliminary
conceptual review by the City Council before a formal submittal of a rezoning to a PC
district is made. This is in keeping with proposed changes to the pre-screening
regulations incorporated in section 18.38.065, Application Process, of the ordinance.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
5. Enforcement and Monitoring – There was consensus that the PC regulations should
provide a reasonable process for enforcement of public benefits, including effective
monitoring. These subjects have been addressed in section 18.38.160, Enforcement
and Monitoring of the proposed ordinance.
On November 10, 2014, the City Council adopted an updated Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan for the period from 2015 through 2023 and described ongoing discussions
of reforms to the PC zoning process (page 109). In that section of the Housing Element – about
governmental constraints – the City agreed that “if the Code pertaining to the PC district is
revised, the PC ordinance will contain language to preserve affordable housing opportunities. If
the PC code is removed, the City will replace the PC zone with another mechanism that would
provide the same affordable housing opportunities.” Proposed revisions to the PC ordinance
would meet this commitment, by defining “public benefits” as including affordable housing and
providing a clear and consistent process for consideration of PC proposals.
Pre-Screening Requirements
Pre-screening is a process in the city’s zoning code that allows for early input on development
projects from the City Council. This is currently a voluntary program available to projects that
have substantial zoning regulations or district map changes and comprehensive plan
amendments. Concerns about the consistent application of this process to several
controversial projects and findings in a grand jury report prompted the City Council to direct a
review of the preliminary screening requirements. The City Council directed a review of these
procedures and requested that the Policy and Services Committee review and make
recommendations to modify the program. On December 9, 2014 the Policy and Services
Committee reviewed the procedures and offered some recommendations, which have been
incorporated into the draft ordinance. Specifically, the modifications include:
Establish a mandatory preliminary screening of PC zoning requests, Development
Agreements, and General Plan, District Map and Zoning Text Amendments.
Maintain a voluntary program for all other projects.
The Policy and Services Committee December 9, 2015 Staff report and excerpt minutes are
included with this report as Attachment I. The Committee voted 2-1-1 to move the
recommendations forward to the PTC and Council, with Vice Mayor Schmid dissenting.
Discussion
The proposed action includes a text amendment to Chapters 18.38, PC regulations, and 18.79,
pre-screening regulations. In summary, the revisions include procedural changes to require
early consultation with the City Council, application submission changes to require an economic
analysis for all future PC requests, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan at the time an
application is submitted, and elimination of provisions which are more suitable as application
City of Palo Alto Page 5
checklists. The PC zoning district is also proposed as an overlay or combination district such
that the existing, underlying zoning district would remain in place.
Proposed Changes to PC Regulations
Under the existing PC regulations, the separate negotiations associated with a request for an
application for a PC contributed to community concerns about the lack of a coherent set of
values or vision for the future. Several projects submitted were used to demonstrate a steering
away from the spirit of the ordinance. At the time, one request for a PC district was withdrawn
(395 Page Mill Rd. Jay Paul Development) and another was rescinded by public vote (Maybell-
Clemo residential project, Palo Alto Housing Corporation). The proposed changes provide the
clarity sought when the “time-out” was called. Moreover, the text amendment clarifies the
City’s expectations for projects seeking approval under the PC regulations. These revisions
ensure projects are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and achieve the right balance
between flexible development standards and the public good.
The following are substantive changes to the PC regulations incorporated in the proposed
ordinance and recommended by the PTC. This list does not cover all of the changes contained
in the attached Ordinance.
1. Public Benefits Definition
A definition section has been added to clarify what is meant by certain terms including
“public benefits.” Since 1978 public benefits have taken several forms including, but not
limited to, the development of BMR units, the addition of publicly accessible open
spaces or plazas, public art and the payment of in-lieu fees. There was some discussion,
at the City Council and PTC level about including a menu of public benefits. However,
both the PTC and City Council agreed that it is difficult to project future needs and some
flexibility should be built in to the definition. This flexibility will allow the City Council to
respond to changing needs. Below is the relevant text of the proposed definition of
public benefit:
Section 18.38.015(b). “Public benefits” means specific improvements or amenities for
Palo Alto by the developer in exchange for uses, densities, and/or a development
configuration specific to the PC district that would be unattainable in general zoning
districts or combining districts. Examples of Public Benefits include but are not limited
to affordable housing, reasonable monetary or “in-kind” contribution towards
meeting goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan or human service needs assessment,
and other similar amenities or improvements identified by the City Council.
2. Applicability of Regulations
Currently the PC regulations do not provide sufficient details about the applicability of
the regulations for projects seeking approval for a PC district. The text amendment
proposes five new subsections under Section 18.38.020, Applicability of regulations.
The intent behind these specific provisions is to make clear what regulations apply to all
City of Palo Alto Page 6
PC districts and they will assist with future questions about how a project can be
developed through the PC process.
First, the proposed revisions restructure the PC district into an overlay district which
preserves the base zoning designation should a future owner desire to terminate the PC
district designation. The existing PC regulations provide special requirements for
projects that are abutting a residential use or zone. Staff felt strongly that these special
requirements should be highlighted earlier in the ordinance to ensure developers are
aware of these limitations. The proposed revisions also explicitly state that the City may
use a Development Agreement under certain circumstances, notes that a project
seeking a residential density bonus is not eligible for a PC district, and explicitly states
that future requests for a PC district must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan at
that time of application. Several of these provisions were not favored by the PTC and
additional information is provided later in this report about their rationale. The
following provisions are proposed in the draft ordinance:
Section 18.38.020. Applicability of regulations
(a) Overlay District. The Planned Community (“PC”) district is an overlay zoning
district that supersedes any conflicting regulations required by the underlying base
zone or combining district applicable to the property. To the extent the underlying
base or combining zone district regulations are consistent with this Chapter and the
specific PC district, those regulations shall also apply to such property.
The specific regulations of this chapter, and the additional regulations and procedures
established by Chapters 18.54 and 18.99, inclusive, shall apply to all planned community
districts. Notwithstanding the regulations of Chapters 18.54 to 18.99, inclusive, where
specific regulations are adopted pursuant to Sections 18.38.110 and 16.68.120, the
specific regulations so adopted shall apply to that planned community district.
(b) Special Requirements Applicable to all PC districts. Notwithstanding Section
18.38.020(a), all PC districts shall conform to the Special Requirements set forth in
Section 18.38.150.
(c) Development Agreement. A Development Agreement may be used in lieu of or in
addition to a PC district when the applicant anticipates phased development over
multiple lots or when the applicant or City anticipates extended negotiations
regarding public benefits beyond those contemplated by this Chapter.
(d) Density Bonus. A project seeking a residential density bonus or zoning concession
or incentive under Section 18.15 shall not be eligible for a PC district
(e) Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. A use proposed for a PC District must be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation in effect at the time of
application.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
3. Application Process
An updated review process for new PC applications involving a preliminary conceptual
review by the City Council is proposed. This review will also include a discussion of the
proposed community benefit. The procedural change will provide early consultation
with the City Council and the opportunity for the public to provide comments to the
developer during the conceptual stage. The following provisions are proposed in the
draft ordinance:
Section 18.38.065. Application process.
(a) The applicant for a PC district shall initially submit to the City Council planning
commission a request for a preliminary screening as set forth in Chapter 18.79. Once
the City Council has conducted a preliminary screening, the applicant may submit an
application for a PC District which shall be calendared for a public hearing by the
Planning and Transportation commission. development program statement,
development plan, and a development schedule which are described in Sections
18.38.080, 18.38.090, and 18.38.100. The plot plans, landscape development plan, and
design plan in the development plan should only be preliminary during this phase of
review by the planning commission.
(b) Following preliminary screening review by the City Council, an application for a
Planned Community Overlay may be submitted. The Planning and Transportation
Commission shall conduct an initial public hearing(s) subject to the requirements of
this Chapter and Chapter 18.80. The Commission shall conduct a separate public
hearing(s) and final review of the proposed project after the Architectural Review
Board has conducted a noticed public hearing(s) on the findings for architectural
review in Section 18.76.020(d) and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council. If
the planning commission acts favorably in its initial review of the PC application, the
development plan shall be submitted to the architectural review board for review,
except in the case of single-family and accessory uses. In this phase, a detailed plot plan,
landscape development plan, and design plan of the development plan are required.
The architectural review board shall make a recommendation on the development plan
based on the findings for architectural review in Section 18.76.020 (d).
Notwithstanding the above, projects consisting of a single family home or accessory
structure that would otherwise be exempt from ARB review shall not go to the
Architectural Review Board for recommendation and shall only require one public
hearing by the Planning and Transportation Commission.
(c) The development plan as approved by the architectural review board is then
returned to the planning commission for final planning commission review and
recommendation before being submitted to the city council for final action.”
4. Economic Analysis
City of Palo Alto Page 8
The City Council identified a need for an economic analysis to access quality economic
data and determine costs and benefits. Requiring submittal of an economic analysis will
facilitate the City Council’s discussion about the value and appropriateness of public
benefits and an economic analysis will be required for all PC requests. With provisions
in the draft ordinance, applicants would submit a preliminary economic analysis at the
time of pre-screening and then fund an independent analysis by a consultant under
contract to the City during the application review process. The following provisions are
proposed in the draft ordinance:
Section 18.38.070. Application requirements.
The City may from time to time establish application forms, submittal requirements,
fees, and other requirements, guidelines and informal regulations as will aid in the
efficient implementation of this Chapter. These submittals shall include an
independent economic analysis quantifying the amount of the proposed community
benefit and a financial comparison between the likely projects under base zoning and
the planned community proposal and any other economic analysis as prescribed by the
Director.
In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.80, each application for a PC district shall be
accompanied by a development program statement, a development plan, and a
development schedule.
5. Enhanced Enforcement and Monitoring Requirements
The proposed revisions require that a public benefits agreement be prepared for each
PC project. The agreement would contain an enforcement and monitoring plan that is
commensurate with the project and proposed public benefits. The agreement would
ensure that the City has a means and a mechanism to fund and undertake enforcement
activities. The following provisions are proposed in the draft ordinance:
Section 18.38.160. Enforcement and Monitoring Inspections.
Each PC district shall be inspected by the building division at least once every three
years for remain in compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the
ordinance under which the district was created for the life of the project, or until
modified by ordinance.
(a) A Public Benefits Agreement is required as part of the PC Overlay District
approval.
(b) A Public Benefits Agreement containing all requirements of the ordinance shall be
executed between the City and the applicant following approval of a new PC
District and shall be recorded as a covenant on the affected property.
(c) A Public Benefits Agreement shall contain a monitoring and enforcement plan
appropriate to the development project that may include the following
components: frequency of inspections, establishments of a funding mechanism for
inspection; penalties for violations, procedures for replacement of lost or
City of Palo Alto Page 9
diminished community benefits and other similar provisions. Council may elect to
waive enforcement costs for non-profit developers.
Changes to Preliminary Screening
The proposed changes clarify when a pre-screening is required and maintain flexibility for an
applicant or the City Council to request a review of other projects that may not have the same
degree of policy implications. Changes proposed to Section 18.79.030, Applicability and
Initiation, would make it mandatory for development projects that include of the following
applications: 1) Planned Community; 2) Development Agreement; 3) Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan; 4) District Map Amendment, and 5) Zoning text Amendment.
There are some exemptions to this requirement (18.79.030(c)). For instance, projects requiring
a hotel or automobile combining district that would not have significant policy implications
would not be subject to preliminary screening. The voluntary component remains unchanged
and follows the same procedure that exists today, which sets forth when an application can be
submitted and who may initiate a pre-screening request.
PTC Discussion
In their review, the PTC noted that the PC regulations would benefit from greater clarity
regarding the City’s expectations for projects seeking designation as a PC district. Generally the
PTC supports PC zoning and considers it a flexible zoning tool. In considering the draft
Ordinance, the proposed revisions, and the future use of the PC regulations, the PTC felt
strongly about not recommending language that was too prescriptive since it could be
construed as a limiting factor for future projects. One concept that emerged from the PTC
discussion was that PC zoning provides a unique opportunity as a flexible development option
within the zoning regulations to allow the community to meet new needs included among the
City’s development regulations. This was grounded in this notion that perhaps developers
should be afforded an opportunity for out of the box thinking. Ultimately the City Council could
determine, after the pre-screening, that the proposed project, public benefits and/or the
requested deviation from the underlying zone are not appropriate.
The PTC identified three issues with the PC regulations and proposed revisions that staff could
not support at the time; these have not been included in the proposed ordinance: (1)
elimination of the 50 foot maximum building height limit contained in sections 18.38.110(c) and
18.38.150(b); (2) specific language about “furthering objectives” of the Comprehensive Plan in
lieu of stronger language about Comprehensive Plan conformance; and (3) elimination of the
provision that prevents residential density bonus projects from being eligible for rezoning to a
PC. Staff believes that these recommended changes do not reflect the direction of the City
Council, but they are summarized in Attachment A for the Council’s consideration. The PTC’s
minutes are also included as Attachment C.
Public Comments
Several comments have been provided throughout the public review process, including the
following oral comments made at the study sessions held by the City Council and PTC:
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Eliminate the use of the PC zone except where it already exists;
The PC district has been a successful tool for producing affordable housing in Palo Alto
and should be retained for that purpose;
Retain the PC regulations to address situations where the zoning regulations have not
kept pace with community objectives; and
The City should zone for what it wants and eliminate PC zoning.
Finally, representatives of the applicant hoping to use the PC process at the corner of Page Mill
Road and El Camino submitted comments and suggestions (Attachment J).
Resource Impact
The activities to address PC reform have been included in the Planning Department’s work plan.
Staff analysis of rezone requests are typically cost-recovery projects. The application fees
collected for each zone request represent a deposit, from which staff costs are recovered.
Policy Implication
The recommended action modifies the PC and pre-screening requirements by introducing
greater transparency and predictability of the review and decision making. Together, changes
to these chapters are intended to ameliorate uncertainty in the community about the future
use of the PC and pre-screening regulations. Staff believes the proposed draft ordinance
reflects changes requested and conform with and enhance the intent and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, the revisions better balance the desire for flexible
development standards and the promoting public good. Currently there is one pending PC
zoning application, which is proposing a 33,000 sq. ft. office building on the former VTA lot on
the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real (2755 El Camino Real). This project has been
affected by the “time out” and the expectation is that Council action will inform the future
approach to this development.
Timeline
If approved, a second reading of the Ordinance is required not less than ten (10) days from the
approval date. The ordinance would become effective thirty one (31) days from the second
reading of the ordinance.
Environmental Review
The zoning code revision is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15305 (Minor Alternations in Land Use
Limitations). Specifically, the proposed project establishes additional regulatory requirements
that require additional public outreach (pre-screening), requires additional application
requirements (economic analysis) and establishes a public process to review public benefits.
Projects subject to the proposed regulatory changes will continue to require project-specific
environmental analysis under CEQA.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Attachments:
Attachment A: PTC Executive Summary (PDF)
Attachment B: Ordinance Amending Chptr 18.38 and 18.79 (PDF)
Attachment C: February 11 and March 11 PTC Staff Reports (without attachments) and
excerpt minutes (PDF)
Attachment D: February 3, 2014 City Council CMR #4414 (without attachments) and
Excerpt Minutes (PDF)
Attachment E: PC Zoning Reform Summary Report (PDF)
Attachment F: August 13, 2014 PTC Staff Report ID#4978 (without attachments) and
Excerpt Minutes (PDF)
Attachment G: August 27, 2014 PTC Staff Report #5058 (without attachments) and
Excerpt Minutes (PDF)
Attachment H: October 6, 2014 City Council CMR #5101 (without attachments) and
Excerpt Minutes (PDF)
Attachment I: December 9, 2014 Policy & Services CMR #5292 (without attachments)
and Excerpt Minutes (PDF)
Attachment J: Public Comments (PDF)
April 2015 1
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Public Hearing on Draft Ordinance: PC and Pre-Screening Regulations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 11th and March 11, 2015 the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) discussed
changes to Chapters 18.38, PC Planned Community District Regulations (PC), and 18.79, Development
Project Preliminary Review Procedures (Pre-Screening). Generally the PTC supports PC zoning and
considers it a flexible zoning tool with a clear review process to help implement the Comprehensive
Plan. The PTC also acknowledged that PC zoning has provided a unique opportunity for flexibility to be
used to facilitate community needs by developing specific sites within a zoning code that is otherwise
determinative. Changing community needs and values, as well as business needs, frequently move
faster than the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance can be updated. This was predicated on the
observation that PC zoning has been and will continue to be used infrequently.
Members of the PTC focused their discussion on the issues related to the PC regulations and whether
the revisions contained in the draft Ordinance addressed the identified issues with the existing PC
regulations. In considering the draft Ordinance and revisions, the PTC felt strongly about not adopting
language that was too prescriptive since it could become a limiting factor for future PC district projects.
Several members of the PTC also felt strongly about ensuring the ordinance allowed developers
sufficient flexibility that would afford an opportunity for out of the box thinking and projects. This
centered on the idea that during the pre-screening phase the City Council could determine the project
was not appropriate.
The PTC understands that PC projects have caused confusion and dissatisfaction with planning and
development in Palo Alto. That being said, a majority of the PTC believes that PC-zoning remains an
important 'escape-valve' to enable creative projects that benefit the City, which would not otherwise be
allowed under the Comp Plan. To that end, a majority of the PTC argued that a PC project should be
allowed to contravene existing regulations in pursuit of a public benefit, which is to be evaluated by the
City Council. The PTC felt that the Council's review of a PC application is an important and necessary step
to avoid bad projects
During the deliberations a number of issues were identified as key. The PTC took a closer look at the
issues and worked towards a consensus on each. The majority of the PTC (6-1) supported the proposed
ordinance. Commissioner Guardias was unable to support the motion because he did not agree with
the PTC’s consensus over eliminating the maximum 50 foot height limit from the existing PC regulations.
There were three notable policy changes recommended by the PTC that differed from the staff
recommendations. Specifically, the PTC supported the concept that PC projects could:
Amend the Comprehensive Plan concurrently with an application to achieve project objectives,
including public benefit goals;
Exceed the maximum 50 foot height limit; and
Allow state density bonus projects to be eligible for a PC district overlay.
The following is a summary of the discussion and their final determination on each issue:
ATTACHMENT A
April 2015 2
Public Benefits
The PTC identified the following four dimensions of public benefits that required further discussion.
Should the project be the public benefit (intrinsic) or should the incentives provided by the
developer in exchange for the derivation from the zoning ordinance (extrinsic) be considered
the public benefit. The PTC reached a consensus that the Ordinance should not limit the public
benefits to only be intrinsic. The PTC concluded that the City Council would be charged with
balancing the intrinsic and extrinsic merits of the project and public benefits.
Can a public benefit be a monetary contribution? After some deliberation the majority of the
PTC, with a few dissenting votes, felt that this option should be left in the ordinance. The
dissenting votes felt that allowing a public benefit to be a monetary contribution could be
construed or perceived as “zoning for sale.”
The third dimension was related to the location of the public benefit and whether or not there
should be a nexus between the neighborhood and the location of the project. Since future
needs are unknown the PTC felt that a slight modification to the proposed text would resolve
this issue. Specifically, they agreed that replacing “local community or neighborhood” with
“Palo Alto” in the proposed Ordinance resolved this issue.
The fourth element was whether a menu of public benefits should be included in the draft
Ordinance. They agreed that a menu is not needed but the language should be broadened and
stronger language that identifies a preference for certain things.
Enforcement
Proposed revisions to the PC regulations introduced a public benefits agreement that would contain a
monitoring and enforcement plan. The discussion included the content of the enforcement plan, the
frequency of enforcement, the amount that should be collected, the funding mechanism, and what
happens when there is noncompliance. A distinction was made for certain types of projects proposed
by non-profit developers that should not be subject to the same requirements (i.e. affordable housing).
Finally, there was some discussion around the sequence of actions around the public benefits
agreement and a distinction was made between the negotiations and execution of the agreement.
There was consensus on enforcement and monitoring that is commensurate with the project.
Geographic Location
No real consensus was formed from the PTC or City Council around identifying a geographic location in
the City most appropriate for PCs. Members of the City Council previously indicated that identifying a
specific geographic location in the City did not work since future needs were unknown. However, one
member of the PTC felt that identifying geographic locations in the City should be revisited. Ultimately,
the majority of the PTC felt identifying a geographic location removed the flexibility the PC regulations
provide and determined it should not be included in the ordinance.
50 Foot Maximum Height Limit
Revisions in the draft Ordinance did not propose changes to the existing text in the special requirements
section. However, one member of the PTC felt strongly that perhaps 50 feet is the wrong metric to
determine what the maximum height should be. Sections 18.38.110(c) and 18.38.150(b) of the existing
PC regulations state that “in no event shall the maximum height exceed fifty feet.” He explained that
this as an opportunity for the City Council to revisit this provision and engage in a discussion about a
building needing an additional 4 feet to create a better design. Another member of the PTC noted that
it was interesting that the building height was the only development standard that contained an explicit
limitation within the PC regulations for all projects.
April 2015 3
Zoning Incongruity
Members of the PTC acknowledged that the PC regulations allow certain flexibility from existing zoning.
As such, it would not make sense that the special requirements contained in the PC regulations would
impose greater limitations than what the existing development standards might prescribe for a
particular zone. Furthermore, members of the PTC also felt an explicit provision is needed conveying
that the special requirements apply unless the existing development standards are less restrictive. Staff
provided additional information to illustrate that a zoning incongruity did not appear to exist and after
receiving the information the PTC agreed with staff.
Economic Analysis
One member of the PTC felt that an economic analysis should not be a component that is used to
measure the merits of the public benefit component of a PC project. Specifically, the concern is that the
analysis might cloud judgment and because it is very difficult to measure benefits and impact.
Ultimately, the majority of the PTC felt that an economic analysis is an important tool and should be
maintained in the draft ordinance.
Density Bonus Provision
The draft ordinance includes a provision which states that a project seeking a residential density bonus
or zoning concession under Chapter 18.15, Density Bonus, of the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance shall not be
eligible for a PC district. Members of the PTC noted that PC’s have been a critical zoning tool used in
Palo Alto to facilitate the development of affordable housing. There were questions from members of
the PTC as to why a limitation would be placed on the ability of a developer to provide additional
affordable housing units. If the City is interested in facilitating affordable housing there should be some
reconsideration of this policy determination. As such, they recommended removal of the proposed text
amendment.
Extraneous Items
General changes contained in the draft ordinance included the elimination of provisions which are more
suitable as application checklists. The PTC directed staff to go through the ordinance and both remove
any extraneous items and ensure a consistent use of terminology.
Comprehensive Plan Objectives
There is a desire to ensure that PC projects be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Some members
of the PTC opined that it is impossible for every project to be consistent with all of the policies in the
Comprehensive Plan and suggested rephrasing the proposed text amendment with “furthering the
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.” Staff did not feel that the proposed language offered by the PTC
would achieve the goal of introducing predictability to the process.
Limit on the degree of variation from the underlying zoning regulations
One of the main concerns raised by the community is that the existing PC regulations do not prescribe a
limit on the variation from the underlying zoning a developer can request. Some consideration was
given to placing a limit on the degree of the deviation from the development standards as it relates to
density. In comparing the densities allowed under the current zoning ordinance with the densities
allowed in the Comprehensive Plan, there is a cap that is inherently set. While the PTC agreed that a
cap should not be placed they disagreed with staff’s rationale. Staff provided additional information and
the PTC agreed that explicit language was not needed.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 1 August 10, 2015 Council Version
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.38 and
Chapter 18.79 of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding
Planned Community (“PC”) District Regulations and Development Project
Preliminary Review Procedures
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 18.38 (PC Planned Community District Regulations) of
Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
Chapter 18.38
PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.38.010 Specific purposesIntent and Purpose.
18.38.015 Definitions.
18.38.020 Applicability of regulations.
18.38.030 Permitted uses.
18.38.040 Conditional uses.
18.38.050 Establishment of districts.
18.38.060 Required findingsdeterminations.
18.38.065 Application process.
18.38.070 Application requirements.
18.38.080 Development program statement.
18.38.090 Development plan.
18.38.100 Development schedule.
18.38.110 Action by P&TCcommission.
18.38.120 Action by council.
18.38.130 Change in development scheduleExpiration of approvals.
18.38.140 Failure to meet development schedule.
18.38.150 Special requirements.
18.38.160 InspectionsEnforcement and Monitoring.
18.38.170 Recycling storage.
18.38.010 Intent and PurposeSpecific purposes.
The planned community (“PC”) district is intended to accommodate developments for
residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities,
including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions
not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly
intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments which will result in substantial
public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or
ATTACHMENT B
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 2 August 10, 2015 Council Version
combining districtsare of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the
policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
18.38.015 Definitions
Whenever the following terms are used in this Chapter, they shall have the meaning
established by this section:
(a) “Development Agreement” means a contract between Palo Alto and a property
owner/developer regarding development of real property as provided for in
California Government Code Section 65864 et seq.
(b) “Public Benefit” means specific improvements or amenities for Palo Alto the local
community or neighborhood provided by the developer in exchange for uses,
densities, and/or a development configuration specific to the PC district that would
be unattainable in general zoning districts or combining districts. Examples of Public
Bbenefits shall include but are not limited to affordable housing,
reasonablesignificant monetary or “in kind” contributions towards meetings goals of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan adopted infrastructure plan or human services needs
assessment with a nexus to the proposed project, orand other similar amenities or
improvements identified by the City Council. From time to time, the City Council
may adopt by resolution a menu of public benefits that representcurrent priorities.
(c) “Public Benefits Agreement” means a project-specific agreement between a
property owner/developer and the City of Palo Alto that details the project’s
contribution to the community and outlines a monitoring and enforcement schedule
and/or program.
18.38.020 Applicability of regulations.
(a) Overlay District. The Planned Community (“PC”) Zonedistrict is an overlay zoning
district that supersedes any conflicting regulations required by the underlying base zone or
combining district applicable to the property. To the extent the underlying base or combining
zonedistrict regulations are consistent with this Chapter and the specific PC district, those
regulations shall also apply to such property. The specific regulations of this chapter, and the
additional regulations and procedures established by Chapters 18.54 to 18.99, inclusive, shall
apply to all planned community districts. Notwithstanding the regulations of Chapters 18.54 to
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 3 August 10, 2015 Council Version
18.99, inclusive, where specific regulations are adopted pursuant to Sections 18.38.110 and
16.68.120, the specific regulations so adopted shall apply to that planned community district.
(b) Special Requirements Applicable to all PC districts. Notwithstanding Section
18.38.020(a), all PC districts shall conform to the Special Requirements set forth in Section
18.38.150.
(c) Development Agreement. A Development Agreement may be used in lieu of or
in addition to a PC district when the applicant anticipates phased development over multiple
lots or when the applicant or City anticipates extended negotiations regarding public benefits
beyond those contemplated by this Chapter.
(d) Density Bonus. A project seeking a residential density bonus or zoning
concession or incentive under Section 18.15 shall not be eligible for a Planned Community
ZonePC district.
(e) Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. A use proposed for a PC district must be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation in effect at the time of
application.
18.38.030 Permitted uses.
Any use may be permitted in any specific PC district provided such use shall be
specifically listed as a permitted use and shall be located and conducted in accord with the
approved development plan and other applicable regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter
to govern each specific PC district.
18.38.040 Conditional uses.
Any use may be established as a conditional use in any specific PC district provided such
use shall be specifically listed as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.76
(Permits and Approvals), and shall be located and conducted in accord with the approved
development plan and other applicable regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter to govern
each specific PC district.
18.38.050 Establishment of districts.
Planned communityPC districts may be established, modified, or removed from the
zoning map, and the regulations applicable to any specific PC district may be established,
modified, or deleted in accord with Chapter 18.80.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 4 August 10, 2015 Council Version
All PC districts shall be identified on the zoning map with the letter coding "PC" followed
by a specific reference number identifying each separate district. All use regulations,
development plans, development schedules, and other regulatory provisions adopted pursuant
to this chapter, or pursuant to Chapter 18.80, which apply to any specific PC district, shall be
considered to be a part of this title as if fully set forth in this title, and shall be identified by
reference to the corresponding designation of each specific PC district on the zoning map.
18.38.060 Required findingdeterminations.
The Pplanning and Ttransportation Ccommission (“P&TC”), prior to recommending
approval of any PC district application, and the city City councilCouncil, prior to approving an
ordinance designating and regulating any PC district, shall make all of the following required
findings with respect to the application, in addition to findings required by Chapter 18.80:
(a) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such
characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide
sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development.
(b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community
district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of
general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the
planning commission and city City councilCouncil, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the
public benefits expected to result from use of the planned communityPC district.
(c) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable
within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as it existed at the
time of application, and is shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining
sites or within the general vicinity.
18.38.065 Application process.
(a) The applicant for a PC district shall initially submit to the planning commission
City Council a development program statement, development plan, and a development
schedule which are described in Sections 18.38.080, 18.38.090, and 18.38.100. request for
preliminary screening as set forth in Chapter 18.79. Once the City Council has conducted a
preliminary screening, the applicant may submit an application for a PC district which shall be
calendared for a public hearing by the P&TC. The plot plans, landscape development plan, and
design plan in the development plan should only be preliminary during this phase of review by
the planning commission.
(b) Following preliminary screening review by the City Council, an application for a
PC district may be submitted. The P&TC shall conduct an initial public hearing(s) subject to the
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 5 August 10, 2015 Council Version
requirements of this Chapter and Chapter 18.80. The P&TC shall conduct a separate public
hearing(s) and final review of the proposed project after the Architectural Review Board
(“ARB”) has conducted a noticed public hearing(s) on the findings for architectural review in
Section 18.76.020 (d) and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council. If the planning
commission acts favorably in its initial review of the PC application, the development plan shall
be submitted to the architectural review board for review, except in the case of single-family
and accessory uses. In this phase, a detailed plot plan, landscape development plan, and design
plan of the development plan are required. The architectural review board shall make a
recommendation on the development plan based on the findings for architectural review in
Section 18.76.020 (d).
Notwithstanding the above, projects consisting of a single family home or accessory
structure that would otherwise be exempt from ARB review shall not go to the ARB for
recommendation and shall only require one public hearing by the P&TC.
(c) The City Council shall conduct a noticed public hearing pursuant to this Chapter
and Chapter 18.80 after the ARB and P&TC have completed their review and forwarded
recommendations to the City Council. development plan as approved by the architectural
review board is then returned to the planning commission for final planning commission review
and recommendation before being submitted to the city council for final action.
18.38.070 Application requirements.
The City may from time to time establish application forms, submittal requirements,
fees, and such other requirements, guidelines and informal regulations as will aid in the
efficient implementation of this Chapter. These submittals shall include an independent
economic analysis quantifying the amount of proposed public benefit and a financial
comparison between the likely projects under base zoning and the proposed PC district and any
other economic analysis as prescribed by the Director.
In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.80, each application for a PC district shall be
accompanied by a development program statement, a development plan, and a development
schedule.
The development plan shall, as approved by the city council, become a part of the
zoning regulations applicable within the respective PC district. Subsequent changes in the
development plan shall be made in accord with Chapter 18.80, or, for minor changes, through
the architectural review process, as set forth in Section 18.76.020 (b)(3)(D).
The development schedule shall, as approved by the city council, become a part of the
zoning regulations applicable within the respective PC district. Subsequent changes in the
development schedule, if included as part of the regulations, shall be made in accord with
Chapter 18.80 or, for minor changes, through the architectural review process, as set forth in
Section 18.76.020 (b)(3)(D); provided, that specifically authorized changes may be made by the
director pursuant to Section 18.38.130.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 6 August 10, 2015 Council Version
18.38.080 Development program statement.
The purpose of the development program statement shall be to describe the proposed
use or uses to be conducted in the district in a manner sufficient to enable preparation and
consideration of regulations governing permitted uses, conditional uses, site use and
development regulations, off-street parking and loading requirements, and other special
regulations which may be appropriate to govern development, use, and maintenance of the site
or sites included within the PC district.
The development program statement shall include the following:
(a) A statement by the applicant demonstrating the necessity of the application for
the PC district, including information demonstrating the compliance of the proposed
development with the required determinations set forth in Section 18.38.060;
(b) A complete listing of all uses proposed, or potentially to be included, within the
PC district, incorporating insofar as possible the terminology used in other parts of this title to
define, describe, and regulate permitted uses and conditional uses, and the definitions
pertinent thereto;
(c) A complete description of the nature of uses proposed, and the conditions or
characteristics of occupancy, use, or operation, with particular reference to those conditions or
characteristics which may warrant regulation differing from those regulations which might
apply to such uses if located in one or more general districts within the city;
(d) A schedule or statement indicating number, type, floor area, number of
bedrooms, and projected sale or rental price of all housing units proposed in the district;
(e) Such additional information as the director may prescribe as necessary, in his
judgment, to facilitate review and action on the application by the planning commission, the
architectural review board, and the city council.
18.38.090 Development plan.
The development plan submitted with the application for a PC district shall include the
following, unless waived by the director for cause:
(a) An aerial photograph of the site and adjacent land within two hundred fifty feet
of the site, at a scale to be prescribed by the director. The director may specify that information
required by subsections (b) through (i) be superimposed on the aerial photograph, or a
duplicate copy thereof;
(b) A map showing any public or private streets, proposed building sites, and any
areas proposed to be dedicated or reserved for parks, parkways, paths, playgrounds, school
sites, public buildings and other such uses. Compliance with this requirement shall not be
construed to relieve the applicant from compliance with the subdivision code in Title 21, or any
other applicable ordinances of the city;
(c) A map showing the existing and proposed topography of the proposed district at
contour intervals as determined appropriate by director;
(d) A land use plan for the proposed district indicating the areas proposed for each
use or combination of uses identified by the development program statement;
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 7 August 10, 2015 Council Version
(e) A plot plan or plans for each building site in the proposed district, or any portion
thereof, in such form as required by the director. The required plans shall show the location of
all proposed buildings and principal site improvements, shall indicate dimensions of buildings,
site lines, and improvements, and shall indicate the location of physical or natural site features,
including trees, and any changes proposed thereto.
(f) A landscape development plan, showing the boundaries and location of
proposed landscaped areas and exterior site improvements, including but not limited to lights,
swimming pools, and service and refuse areas.
(g) A circulation plan, indicating the proposed movement of vehicles, goods, and
pedestrians within the district, and to and from adjacent public thoroughfares. Any special
engineering features and traffic regulation devices needed to insure safety or to facilitate ease
of access and circulation, whether on or off the site, shall be shown.
(h) A parking and loading plan, showing the number of spaces and the location,
internal circulation and dimensions of all parking and loading areas. The parking and loading
plan shall be based upon the requirements of Chapter 18.54, unless requested modifications to
meet the needs of the individual project are supported by traffic engineering studies or
relevant data, as may be required by the director, demonstrating the feasibility and adequacy
of the plan.
(i) Preliminary design plans, including such schematic floor
plans, schematic exterior elevations and sections, and/or perspective drawings, as may be
necessary to indicate the height of proposed buildings and the general appearance of the
proposed structures to the end that the entire development will have architectural unity and
will be compatible with existing and proposed neighborhood development. Such drawings need
not show final architectural detail. Construction drawings and contract plans, subsequently
submitted with applications for required permits or other construction approvals pursuant to
approved PC district regulations, shall conform substantially to the preliminary design plans,
and shall be subject to all applicable review and permit requirements in effect at the time of
approval and permit issuance.
18.38.100 Development schedule.
The development schedule submitted with the application for a PC district shall include
the following:
(a) A schedule, indicating to the best of the applicant's knowledge, the approximate
date on which construction or development is expected to begin, the duration of time required
for completion of the development, and the approximate date or dates of occupancy;
(b) A phasing program, indicating, in the event the proposed development within
the district is expected to require more than two years for completion and occupancy, a logical
or programmed sequence of phases and incorporating a schedule as described in subsection (a)
for each phase of development.
18.38.110 Action by P&TCcommission.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 8 August 10, 2015 Council Version
In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.80, the planning commissionP&TC shall
review and consider all materials submitted by the applicant pursuant to this chapter, and shall
prepare and recommend to the city City councilCouncil, as appropriate, the specific regulations
to be applied within the proposed planned communityPC district. The specific regulations may
modify those regulations contained in Chapters 18.54 to 18.99, inclusive the underlying base
zoning, as is appropriate to meet the individual district and shall include the following:
(a) Permitted Uses. A listing of all uses to be permitted generally within the PC
district, or the uses to be permitted in specific locations within the PC district as shown on the
development plan;
(b) Conditional Uses. A listing of all uses to be conditionally allowed within the PC
district, or the uses to be permitted in specific locations within the PC district as shown on the
development plan;
(c) Site Development Regulations. Maximum or minimum regulations, as
appropriate, governing site dimensions, required yards and distances between buildings, site
coverage, building height, residential density, and floor area ratio, open space requirements,
accessory facilities and uses, and other aspects of the proposed development within the PC
district. The regulations may be in text, or by reference to the development plan, or both. In no
event shall the maximum height exceed fifty feet except as provided in Chapter 18.76 (Permits
and Approvals);
(d) Parking and Loading Requirements. Regulations establishing off-street parking
and loading requirements for the PC district, and governing design, location, screening,
landscaping and operation of parking and loading activities. The regulations may be by
reference to Chapters 18.52 and 18.54, or in text if the regulations of Chapters 18.52 and 18.54
are modified for the individual PC district, or both;
(e) Special Requirements. Additional regulations, as may be appropriate to assure a
harmonious relationship between uses within the PC district, and a compatible relationship
with existing or potential uses within adjoining PC districts, may be recommended by the
commission. Such regulations may include additional height limitations, yard requirements,
landscaping and screening, provisions governing outdoor activities, and other requirements;
(f) (f) Development Plan and Development Phasing Schedule. The
development plan submitted pursuant to Section 18.38.090 and the development scheduleIf
the PC district contains a phasing schedule, such schedule shall require the public benefit to be
constructed or provided before the development of the other components of the project where
feasible. If not feasible the schedule shall contain a date for delivery of the public benefit
submitted pursuant to Section 18.38.100, as amended or approved by the planning
commission, shall be recommended for inclusion in the regulations applicable to the PC
planned community district;
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 9 August 10, 2015 Council Version
(g) Definitions. Definitions applicable specifically to the regulations recommended
for the PC district may be included.
18.38.120 Action by council.
In the event the city City council Council adopts an ordinance pursuant to Chapter 18.80
establishing a specific PC planned community district, the council Council shall include the
regulations described in Section 18.38.110, either as recommended by the planning
commissionP&TC or as modified by the councilCouncil.
18.38.130 Expiration of approvals.Change in development schedule.
The approval granted under this Chapter shall be governed by the time limits and
extension procedures set forth in Section 18.77.090. If the applicant fails to exercise its permit
in accordance with the time periods set forth in Section 18.77.090, the PC district shall expire
and the base zoning regulations shall control.
If an extension granted under this section shall affect the delivery date of the public
benefit, the extension shall provide a new public benefit delivery date.
For good cause shown by the property owner in writing and unless otherwise specified by the
specific applicable regulations for the district, prior to the expiration of the original time
schedule for the development, the director may, without a public hearing, modify the time
limits imposed by any adopted development schedule; provided, that such modification shall
not extend the schedule by more than one year; and provided, that only one such modification
may be made.
18.38.140 Failure to meet development schedule.
Sixty days prior to the expiration of the development schedule, the director shall notify
the property owner in writing of the date of expiration and advise the property owner of
Section 18.38.130. Failure to meet the approved development schedule, including an extension,
if granted, shall result in:
(a) The expiration of the property owner's right to develop under the PC district. The
director shall notify the property owner, the city council, the planning commission and the
building official of such expiration; and
(b) The director's initiating a zone change for the property subject to the PC district
in accordance with Chapter 18.80. The property owner may submit a new application for a PC
district concurrently with the director's recommendation for a zone change.
18.38.150 Special requirements.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 10 August 10, 2015 Council Version
Sites abutting or having any portion located within one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1,
R-2, RM, or any PC district permitting single-family development or multiple-family
development shall be subject to the following additional height and yard requirements:
(a) Parking Facilities. The maximum height shall be equal to the height established in
the most restrictive adjacent zone district.
(b) All Other Uses. The maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1,
R-2, RM, or applicable residential PC district shall be thirty-five feet; provided, however, that for
a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at
least sixty percent residential, the maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of an RM-4 or
RM-5 district shall be fifty feet.
(c) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or
applicable residential PC district, a minimum interior yard of 10 feet shall be required, and a
solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed and maintained along
the common site line. Where a use in a PC district where the gross floor area, excluding any
area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the interior yard
shall be at least as restrictive as the interior yard requirements of the most restrictive
residential district abutting each such side or rear site line. The minimum interior yard shall be
planted and maintained as a landscaped screen.
(d) On any portion of a site in the PC district which is opposite from a site in any RE,
R-1, R-2, RM or applicable residential PC district, and separated therefrom by a street, alley,
creek, drainage facility or other open area, a minimum yard of 10 feet shall be required. Where
a use in a PC district where the gross floor area, excluding any area used exclusively for parking
purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the minimum yard requirement shall be at least as
restrictive as the yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district opposite such site
line. The minimum yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding
areas required for access to the site.
(e) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or any
residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane
beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope
of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the
height limit otherwise established for the PC district; provided, however, that for a use where
the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty
percent residential, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of
the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting
the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as
allowed in this section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential
district shall be imposed.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 11 August 10, 2015 Council Version
(f) Recycling Storage. All new development, including approved modifications that
add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible
interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate
containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be
subject to ARB approval pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals).
18.38.160 Enforcement and MonitoringInspections.
Each PC district shall be inspected by the building division at least once every three
years for remain in compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the
ordinance under which the PC district was created for the life of the project or until modified by
ordinance.
(a) A Public Benefits Agreement is required as part of the PC Overlay District
approval.
(b) A Public Benefits Agreement containing all requirements of the ordinance shall
be executed between the City and the applicant following approval of a new PC district and
shall be recorded as a covenant on the affected property.
(c) The Public Benefits Agreement shall contain a monitoring and enforcement plan,
appropriate to the development project that may include the following components: frequency
of inspections, establishment of a funding mechanism for inspections; penalties for violations,
procedures for replacement of lost or diminished community benefits and other similar
provisions. Council may elect to waive enforcement costs for non-profit developers.
18.38.170 Recycling storage.
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more
floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior
enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design,
construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to architectural
review approval pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals).
SECTION 2. Chapter 18.79 (Development Project Preliminary Review Procedures) of
Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
Chapter 18.79
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY REVIEW PROCEDURES
Sections:
18.79.010 Purposes.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 12 August 10, 2015 Council Version
18.79.020 Supplemental procedures.
18.79.030 Applicability and initiation.
18.79.040 ReservedPreliminary review.
18.79.050 Preliminary review public study session procedure.
18.79.060 Voluntary compliance.
18.79.010 Purposes.
This chapter establishes procedures for preliminary screening of development projects
("prescreening"). This chapter is intended to achieve, and shall be implemented to accomplish,
the following purposes:
(a) To maximize opportunities for meaningful public discussion of development projects, at the
earliest feasible time, for the guidance of the public, project proponents and city decision
makers.
(b) To focus public and environmental review of development projects on the issues of
greatest significance to the community, including, but not limited to, planning concerns,
neighborhood compatibility, Comprehensive Plan consistency, economics, social costs and
benefits, fiscal costs and benefits, technological factors, and legal issues. These procedures
are not intended to permit or foreclose debate on the merits of approval or disapproval of
any given development project.
(c) To provide members of the public with the opportunity to obtain early information about
development projects in which they may have an interest.
(d) To provide project proponents with the opportunity to obtain early, non-binding
preliminary comments on development projects to encourage sound and efficient private
decisions about how to proceed.
(e) To encourage early communication between elected and appointed public officials and
staff with respect to the implementation of city policies, standards, and regulations on
particular development projects.
(f) To facilitate orderly and consistent implementation of the city's City's Comprehensive Plan
and development regulations.
18.79.020 Supplemental procedures.
These procedures are supplemental to any other authority under state or local law which
permits preliminary screening of development projects, including, but not limited to, the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and the
State Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code Section 65000, et seq.
18.79.030 Applicability and initiation.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 13 August 10, 2015 Council Version
(a) These procedures may be applied to the following types of development projects:
Preliminary screening is required for development projects that include any of the following
applications:
(1) Planned Community (PC);
(2) Development Agreement
(3) General Plan Amendment and Specific Plans, including Specific Plan Amendments
(4) District Map Amendment
(5) Zoning Text Amendment, except as provided for in section (c) below.
(1) Substantial zoning regulation or district map change proposals;
(2) Comprehensive plan amendments, including specific plans;
(3) Any other development project, or permit or entitlement application, including a
major alteration or expansion of existing use, which implicates major land use or other
policy or planning concerns.
(b) Development project preliminary review may be initiated by motion of the city council,
with the concurrence of the project proponent, or upon request of the city manager and
project proponent with the concurrence of the city council, at any time after the city has
received a development project application and before the development project is noticed for
public hearing on the merits of the application, if any is required. Preliminary screening is
initiated by filing an application and payment of applicable fees. Preliminary screening
applications shall be scheduled for a study session before the City Council. Notice of the study
session and the opportunity for public participation shall be provided in the same manner as
may be required by law for action on the underlying development project application. The City
Council may include in the study session, or refer a preliminary screening application to, any
board, commission or committee.
(c) Development project preliminary review may also be initiated prior to the filing of an
application, upon the request of the project proponent with the concurrence of the city council.
The project proponent shall pay a preliminary review fee as set forth in the municipal fee
schedule. If the project proponent wishes to proceed with the project after preliminary review,
he or she must then file an application and pay a regular application fee. Preliminary screening
is not required for zoning text amendments under the following circumstances:
(1) The project does not include a request for an application in section (a) (1)
through (a)(4 ) above, and
(2) The Director of Planning and Community Environment determines the requested
amendment would not have significant policy implications. Such zoning amendments include,
but are not limited to, projects requiring a hotel or automobile combining district.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 14 August 10, 2015 Council Version
(d) Preliminary screening may be initiated for any application not included in section (a) (1)
through (a)(4 ) above that results in The city may from time to time establish application forms,
submittal requirements, fees, and such other requirements, guidelines and informal regulations
as will aid in the efficient implementation of these procedures. Any other development project,
or permit or entitlement application, including a major alteration or expansion of an existing
use, which implicates major land use or other policy or planning concerns, subject to the
following requirements:
(1) Development project preliminary review may be initiated by motion of the City
Council, with the concurrence of the project proponent, or upon request of the city manager
and project proponent with the concurrence of the City Council, at any time after the City has
received a development project application and before the development project is noticed for
public hearing on the merits of the application, if any is required.
(2) Development project preliminary review may also be initiated prior to the filing
of an application, upon the request of the project proponent with the concurrence of the City
Council. The project proponent shall pay a preliminary review fee as set forth in the municipal
fee schedule. If the project proponent wishes to proceed with the project after preliminary
review, he or she must then file an application and pay a regular application fee.
(3) The noticed public study session will be conducted solely by the planning and
transportation commission (“P&TC”); or by the P&TC initially and then by the City Council; or
solely by the City Council; or as a joint meeting of the City Council and P&TC, or as a joint
meeting of the City Council and any other city boards, commissions or committees whose
participation is deemed desirable by the City Council. Unless directed otherwise by the City
Council, the P&TC shall conduct a study session on all preliminary review matters and forward
its comments to the City Council. Minutes of P&TC study sessions conducted pursuant to this
section shall be produced in the same manner as minutes of regular meetings.
(4) Notice of the study session and the opportunity for public participation shall be
provided in the same manner as may be required by law for action on the underlying
development project application.
(d) (e) The City may from time to time establish application forms, submittal requirements,
fees, and such other requirements, guidelines and informal regulations as will aid in the
efficient implementation of this section these procedures.
(f) No formal action may be taken during preliminary review.
18.79.040 ReservedPreliminary review.
Upon initiation as provided in Section 18.79.030, one or more noticed public study sessions will
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 15 August 10, 2015 Council Version
be held to solicit comments which will aid in accomplishing the purposes of these procedures.
The noticed public study session will be conducted solely by the planning commission; or by the
planning commission initially and then by the city council; or solely by the city council; or as a
joint meeting of the city council and planning commission, or as a joint meeting of the city
council and any other city boards, commissions or committees whose participation is deemed
desirable by the city council. Unless directed otherwise by the city council, the planning
commission shall conduct a study session on all preliminary review matters and forward its
comments to the city council. Minutes of planning commission study sessions conducted
pursuant to this section shall be produced in the same manner as minutes of regular meetings.
Notice of the study session and the opportunity for public participation shall be provided in the
same manner as may be required by law for action on the underlying development project
application.
No formal action may be taken during preliminary review.
18.79.050 Preliminary review public study session procedure.
(a) Preliminary review study sessions may be conducted in any manner deemed appropriate by
the Ccity Ccouncil.
(b) City staff will prepare a summary outline of the proposed project which highlights any
information relevant to the purposes identified in Section 18.79.010, including but not
limited to any initial study prepared for the project. In addition, the project proponent or
any interested person may provide oral or written comments consistent with the purposes
of these procedures during a preliminary review study session. Subsequent city staff reports
on development projects which have been subject to preliminary review should summarize
any comments made during the process.
(c) Preliminary review study sessions shall not be for the purpose of taking evidence with
respect to a development project. Neither the city City councilCouncil, nor any Ccity board,
commission, committee, or staff person may rely upon information obtained or comments
made during the preliminary review process for any final decision, unless such information
or comments are reintroduced during a subsequent noticed public hearing on the merits of
the development project.
18.79.060 Voluntary compliance.
(a) Compliance with any development project revisions, alterations, or conditions suggested
during the preliminary review process shall be voluntary. Failure to comply with any such
revisions, alterations, or conditions shall not affect consideration of the project by the
cityCity.
(b) Nothing in these procedures is intended, nor shall any provision be construed, to constitute,
permit or result in any binding determination of the rights, interests, or entitlements of the
cityCity, project proponent, or any interested person with respect to a development project
upon which preliminary review is conducted.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 16 August 10, 2015 Council Version
(c) Development project preliminary review shall be without prejudice to the ability of the
cityCity, project proponent, or any interested person to proceed with a development
project in any manner, notwithstanding any suggested revisions, alterations, or conditions.
(d) When preliminary review has been initiated, a project proponent shall have the right to
withdraw a development project application at any time before commencement of a public
hearing on the first discretionary permit, license, or entitlement for the project. Such
withdrawal shall be without prejudice to the project proponents ability to reapply for the
same or a substantially similar development project at a future date, subject to the
regulations, standards, and policies in effect upon reapplication. Upon such withdrawal, the
city City shall refund any application processing deposits to the project proponent which
have not yet been expended.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code inconsistent with the
provisions of this chapter, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby
repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this chapter.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this chapter and each and every
section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without
regard to whether any portion of the chapter would be subsequently declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the adoption of this chapter is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline section
15061 because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project will have
a significant effect on the environment in that the proposals make procedural modifications to
an already existing zoning district.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 17 August 10, 2015 Council Version
ATTEST:
__________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5460)
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 2/11/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Draft Revisions to PC District and Preliminary Screening
Regulations
Title: Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform and Preliminary Screening
Requirements: Review of Draft Revisions to PC Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Project Preliminary Procedures in Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 18.38 and 18.79.
From: Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner
Lead Department: Planning & Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) conduct a public hearing
to review and recommend adoption of the attached draft ordinance to the City Council.
(Attachment A)
Executive Summary
The attached ordinance would enact changes to Chapter 18.38, PC Planned Community District
Regulations (PC), of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Revisions are based on comments received
from the PTC, City Council, and the public. Collectively these revisions address concerns about
a need for a more transparent process, a clear definition of what constitutes a public benefit,
and enhanced monitoring and enforcement requirements. The proposed revisions include
procedural changes, application submission requirements, and general modifications to the PC
regulations. Additionally, the attached ordinance includes a modification to Chapter 18.79,
Development Project Preliminary Review Procedures. This section establishes a voluntary
preliminary review of certain projects. Last year, the City Council directed a review of these
procedures and requested the Policy and Services Committee review and make
recommendations to modify the program. The attached ordinance reflects the Committee’s
input and includes a mandatory preliminary review for projects that have significant policy
considerations.
PC Zoning has introduced flexibility to an otherwise determinative ordinance. However, the PC
zoning process, whereby the City and a developer negotiate site-specific design and
development standards in exchange for “public benefits” is viewed by many as too opaque and
PTC Packet Page #1 of 250
ATTACHMENT C
City of Palo Alto Page 2
transactional, allowing neighborhood impacts to be “traded” for benefits that may serve those
outside the immediate vicinity. Other concerns have been expressed about the ad hoc nature
of each separate negotiation, perceived overuse of the PC process, the inadequacy of public
benefits obtained, and the inadequacy of monitoring and enforcement. In response to these
concerns, the City Council placed a “time-out” on all PC zoning requests and directed staff to
return with an analysis of potential reforms and alternatives.
Staff began this process by preparing an initial outline of the issues associated with PC zoning
and developing a list of planning tools used by other jurisdictions to address the need for
flexibility in the zoning code. Staff then enlisted the assistance of the PTC to further identify
issues and potential reforms and alternatives, and provide for an opportunity for public input.
PC Zoning Reform was discussed by the PTC in a study session on August 8, 2014 with the
discussion continued to August 17, 2014. Overall, members of the PTC acknowledged that PC
zoning has provided a unique opportunity for flexibility in developing specific sites within a
zoning code that is otherwise determinative. On October 6, 2014 the City Council held a similar
study session as an opportunity to provide their thoughts about needed revisions and
alternatives to the PC Zoning process. There appeared to be a Council consensus for reforming
the existing PC Ordinance and the Council comments have been grouped in five general areas:
1) Eligibility criterion for PC projects; 2) public benefits generally; 3) the need for an economic
analysis; 4) the need for a preliminary conceptual review by the City Council; and 5) the need
for enhanced enforcement and monitoring.
Background
The Planned Community (PC) zoning district defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38
was adopted in 1951. Sites have been zoned as PC to enable them to be used or developed in a
manner that would not be allowed under their original zoning designation. The process has
allowed the City to be responsive to opportunities that presented themselves, and to
proactively address community objectives related to such land uses as affordable housing, small
grocery stores, etc. Since the late 1970s, the process has granted flexibility to applicants in
exchange for “public benefits,” although this term is not defined in the code. Approximately
100 projects have been approved since the ordinance was originally adopted.
As amended in 1978, the process allows the City Council to re-zone property to PC if the Council
agrees that:
More traditional zoning districts do not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the
proposed development;
Development of the site will result in specific public benefits not otherwise
attainable; and
The proposal is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which is the
City’s guiding document when it comes to land use and development issues.
PTC Packet Page #2 of 250
City of Palo Alto Page 3
While the PC zoning process has resulted in many successful projects like the Opportunity
Services Center and the Tree House Apartments, it has come to be viewed as too transactional,
allowing neighborhood impacts to be “traded” for benefits that may serve people outside of
the immediate vicinity. In response, on February 3, 2014 the City Council received a staff
presentation regarding the Planned Community (PC) zoning district (Attachment G) and voted
to:
1. Defer requests for rezoning to the Planned Community (PC) zoning district until the
process and requirements regulating the PC zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal
Code are revised, and
2. Direct Staff to return to the Council with an analysis of potential revisions and
alternatives to the PC zone for public input and discussion.
A copy of the excerpt from the minutes of the City Council meeting are contained in
Attachment H, February 3, 2014 City Council Minutes (excerpt of item 9).
Planning staff prepared a working paper summarizing issues around PC zoning and collected
information on how other communities provide for flexibility in meeting zoning requirements
when it is appropriate (Attachment E).
PTC Review and Recommendations
The PTC held a study session to review and provide comments on the possible revisions and/or
alternatives to the PC district regulations on August 13, 2014 with the discussion continued to
August 27, 2014 (Attachments I & K). An executive summary of the PTC’s comments is provided
in Attachment D, and identifies the following eight key issues:
1. The need for a better definition of public benefits.
2. The need for an independent economic analysis of the proposed public benefit and the
value of the requested entitlement.
3. The need for a clearer process, including clarity about the role of the PTC and the City
Council.
4. The desire to ensure adequate disclosure of ex parte communications.
5. The need for enhanced monitoring and enforcement of public benefits, and some
discussion regarding the desired duration for those benefits.
6. The idea that some types of projects should be handled via development agreements or
precise plans rather than PC zoning.
7. The possibility that the Comprehensive Plan should identify areas of the City where use
of PC zoning is allowed.
8. The possibility that the PC regulations should cap the degree of variation from the
underlying zoning district standards that could be allowed.
PTC Packet Page #3 of 250
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Overall, the members of the PTC acknowledged that PC zoning has provided a unique
opportunity for flexibility in developing specific sites within a zoning code that is otherwise
determinative. The Commission also agreed that defining ‘public benefit’ is the greatest
challenge in PC zoned projects, along with the enforcement of related agreements. The
Commissioners’ comments also touched on the proper sequence of the review process, and the
PTC observed that PC Zoning has been used infrequently. Since 2007, an average of one PC
district action has been approved each year. The PTC also noted a need for flexibility in zoning.
The Comprehensive Plan and the zoning adopted to implement it are not always as facile as the
community’s need for change. Therefore, the City needs some more flexible tool to use
judiciously and thoughtfully on occasion.
Public comments at the PTC’s study session included a suggestion to eliminate the use of the PC
zone except where it already exists, a suggestion that the City retain the PC Zone to address
situations where the zoning regulations have not kept pace with community objectives, and a
recognition that PC Zoning has been used successfully to support the production of affordable
housing in Palo Alto.
City Council Review
On October 6, 2014 the City Council held a study session as an opportunity to provide their
thoughts about needed reforms and alternatives to the PC zoning Process. It also provided an
additional opportunity for public input prior to preparation of a draft ordinance. Council
members expressed their desire to keep the PC zone district and acknowledged that the code
required revisions. In summary, the City Council’s comments can be grouped in five general
areas:
1. Eligible projects: Currently the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically identify the types
of projects or geographic areas in the City that are most appropriate for rezoning to a PC
district. The majority of the council members did not feel that identifying geographic
locations within the City would work for PC districts because future needs were
unknown. Several Council members wished to further explore a proposal to cap the
degree of variation from the base zoning that should be allowed.
2. Revisions to Public Benefits: Council members agreed that there should be a better
definition of public benefits but did not think that a prescribed menu of public benefits
was the best solution unless the list was updated every five years. A suggestion was
made to link the public benefits menu with the most current assessments for
infrastructure, human needs, and community needs. Finally, some members of the City
Council felt that the most successful PC’s were those that started with a public benefit.
In other words, the proposed development was considered a public benefit (i.e. the
Opportunity Services Center).
3. Economic Impact Analysis: The Council felt the submittal of an independent economic
impact analysis of the proposed benefit and value of the requested entitlement should
PTC Packet Page #4 of 250
City of Palo Alto Page 5
be required. Developers should be provided with a template outlining the relevant
information that should be submitted along with their application.
4. Preliminary Conceptual Review: Some thought was given to requiring a preliminary
conceptual review by the City Council before a formal submittal of a rezoning to a PC
district is made. This is in keeping with proposed changes to “pre-screening”
requirements discussed by the Policy and Services Committee in December 2014.
5. Enforcement and Monitoring: Generally there was consensus that the PC regulations
should provide a reasonable process for enforcement of public benefits, including
effective monitoring. There was discussion about requiring submittal of an annual
report. One idea was to have the monitoring reports replicate an environmental
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program.
A copy of the excerpt minutes from the City Council’s discussion is appended as Attachment C.
Comments collected by Staff from the PTC, City Council, and the public have been used to
inform the proposed revisions to the PC district regulations.
Discussion
The proposed zoning text amendment address concerns summarized in the background section
of this report and provides clarity in the future use of the PC district regulations. As mentioned
before, this amendment was prompted by concerns raised in the community about the ad hoc
nature of each separate negotiation, recent overuse of the PC process, the inadequacy of public
benefits obtained, and the inadequacy of monitoring and enforcement. To address the
concerns raised, the amendment includes details about the intent and purpose of the
ordinance. A redline version of the draft revisions to Chapter 18.38 is appended to this report
as Attachment A. The primary changes proposed in this amendment include:
Procedural changes – an updated review process for new PC District applications
involving a preliminary conceptual review by the City Council. The pre-screening
process shall be consistent with Chapter 18.79, Development Project Preliminary
Review Procedures. (See discussion below on proposed changes to this chapter.)
This review will also include a discussion of the proposed community benefit.
The procedural change will provide early consultation with the City Council and
the opportunity for the public to provide comments to the developer during the
conceptual stage. .
Submission Requirement Changes – an economic analysis will be required for all
PC requests. At a minimum the analysis shall compare the proposed project to a
project that is consistent with the current zoning, and shall compare the value of
the additional density and/or any other development flexibility requested to the
value of the proposed public benefit.
PTC Packet Page #5 of 250
City of Palo Alto Page 6
General Changes – minor modifications to the purpose section of the PC district
regulations, a definition section has been added to clarify what is meant by
certain terms including “public benefits,” elimination of provisions which are
more suitable as application checklists, and updates to the monitoring and
inspection section. Moreover, language has been added to Section 18.38.020,
Applicability of Regulations, which will require consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation in affect at the time of application
and highlights the special requirements applicable to all PC districts. While these
changes set specific eligibility criteria, there is opportunity for these to be
amended by the City Council.
Issues not addressed in the Draft Ordinance
A variety of issues and concerns related to the implementation of the PC zoning regulations
were identified during the study sessions with the PTC and the City Council. While staff has
addressed most of these concerns through the proposed text amendments, there are a few
that have not been incorporated: 1) Ex parte communications; 2) Eligibility criterion based on
geographic location and/or parcel size; and 3) a cap on the degree of variation, although staff
believes the latter is addressed indirectly by requiring proposal to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of application (i.e. no concurrent Comp Plan
amendment can be proposed with a PC Ordinance).
The PTC identified a desire to ensure adequate disclosure of ex parte communications. Several
City Council members noted at the study session related to PC zoning reform held on October
6, 2014, that there are existing policies in place that address this concern. As such, staff has not
proposed any text be added to further this point. Some deliberation occurred around
establishing eligibility criterion for a designation to a PC zoning district. The ideas included
either identifying a geographic location in the City most appropriate for PC zoning or setting a
minimum parcel size. There was no real consensus from the PTC or the City Council around this
option and some argued that setting this level of criteria removes the flexibility and intent of PC
zoning. Finally, several members of the PTC and City Council expressed interest in wanting to
explore the idea of placing a cap on the degree of variation from the underlying zoning district
standards that could be allowed. Inherent in this concern is the need to respect the land use
designations and densities contained in the Comprehensive Plan. In comparing the densities
allowed under the current zoning ordinance with the densities allowed in the Comprehensive
Plan, there is a cap that is set by the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, any new application
received for a designation to a PC zoning district would have to comply with the Comprehensive
Plan at the time the application is submitted.
To that end, the proposed revisions to the existing regulations address concerns about a need
for a more transparent process, they introduce a definition of what constitutes a public benefit
and requires submission of an economic analysis to facilitate the City Council’s discussion about
the value and appropriateness of public benefits, and provide enhanced enforcement and
monitoring requirements.
PTC Packet Page #6 of 250
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Preliminary Screening Requirements
Preliminary screening is a process in the city’s zoning code that allows for early input on
development projects. This is currently a voluntary program eligible to projects that have
substantial zoning regulations or district map changes and comprehensive plan amendments. It
also broadly includes any development that impacts major land use or planning policies.
Concerns about the consistent application of this process to several controversial projects and
findings in a grand jury report prompted the City Council to direct a review of the preliminary
screening requirements.
At the Council’s request, the Policy and Services Committee reviewed the procedures and
offered some recommendations, which have been incorporated into the draft ordinance.
Specifically, the modifications:
Establish a mandatory preliminary screening requirement for Planned Community
rezoning requests; Development Agreements; and General Plan, District Map and
Zoning Text Amendments.
Maintain a voluntary program for all other projects.
The proposed changes clarify when preliminary review is required and maintains flexibility for
an applicant or the City Council to request a review of other projects that may not have the
same degree of policy implications. The voluntary component follows the same procedures
that exist today, which sets forth when an application can be submitted and who may initiate a
preliminary screening request.
The Policy and Services December 9, 2014, staff report and minutes are included with this
report as Attachments M and N. The Committee voted 2-1-1 to move the recommendations
forward to the PTC and Council, with Vice Mayor Schmid dissenting.
Timeline
After the PTC has completed its review and recommendatio regarding the draft ordinance, staff
will schedule a public hearing by the City Council for Spring 2015.
Environmental Review
The zoning code revision is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Minor Alternations in Land Use
Limitations). Specifically, the proposed project establishes additional regulatory requirements
that require additional public outreach (preliminary review), requires additional application
requirements (economic analysis) and establishes a public process to review public benefits.
Projects subject to the proposed regulatory changes will continued to require project-specific
environmental analysis under CEQA.
Attachments:
PTC Packet Page #7 of 250
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.38 and 18.79 Redline (PDF)
Attachment B: October 6, 2014 City Council CMR #5101 (without Attachments) (PDF)
Attachment C: City Council October 6, 2014 Meeting Minutes (PDF)
Attachment D: PTC Executive Summary (PDF)
Attachment E: PC Zoning Reform Summary Report (PDF)
Attachment F: Working Draft PC Zoning Log 1990-2014 (PDF)
Attachment G: February 3, 2014 City Council Staff Report (CMR #4414) without
attachments (PDF)
Attachment H: February 3, 2014 City Council Minutes (excerpt of Item 9) (PDF)
Attachment I: August 13, 2014 PTC Staff Report ID#4978 without attachments (PDF)
Attachment J: August 13, 2014 PTC Excerpt Draft Verbatim Minutes (PDF)
Attachment K: August 27, 2014 PTC Staff Report ID#5058 (without attachments) (PDF)
Attachment L: August 27, 2014 PTC Draft Excerpt Minutes (PDF)
Attachment M: December 9, 2014 Policy & Services Staff Report (PDF)
Attachment N: December 9, 2014 Policy & Services Meeting Minutes (PDF)
PTC Packet Page #8 of 250
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 10
1
Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner Alcheck to move forward with staff recommendation, 2
Commissioner Downing second. Motion passed unanimously 5-0-1-1; Commissioner Gardias recused 3
himself due to conflict and Commissioner Michael absent. 4 5
The Commission took a break6 7
3. Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform and Preliminary Screening Requirements:8 Review of draft revisions to PC Planned Community District Regulations and Development Project 9 Preliminary Procedures in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 18.38 and 18.79, and recommend 10
adoption of the draft ordinance to the City Council. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA 11
pursuant to Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). For more information contact 12
Consuelo Hernandez at Consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org. 13 14
Chair Tanaka: Ok, I’d like to call the meeting back to order and we’re going to do our last item, Item 3,15
which is Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform and Preliminary Screening Requirements. Would like,16
would staff oh, ok. Would staff like to kick it off?17 18
Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner: Good evening Chair, members of the Planning Commission,19
Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner. Tonight we bring before you an ordinance, a draft ordinance that20
would enact changes to the City’s zoning ordinance. Specifically we’re looking at two sections of our21 code: Chapter 18.38 which relates to PC district regulations, and Chapter 18.79, Development Project22 Preliminary review. And I’ll start tonight with the PC regulations.23 24 PC zoning has introduced flexibility to an otherwise determinative ordinance. Implementation of this tool25
has resulted in many successful projects like the Opportunity Center; however, recently it has come to be26
viewed as too transactional. There’s a perception that there’s an overuse of the process or the27
regulations and that the public benefits received or the outcome of the public benefits are inadequate. In28
response the City Council called for a time out and directed staff to return to Council with an analysis of29
potential revisions. What we did for staff is we started by identifying the primary issues and polices that30
have been recommended in the past. We held two study sessions with the Planning Commission in31
August last year and then a follow up study session with the City Council in October. Out of that we32
received a lot of mixed reviews. We heard from the public that perhaps the PC process should be33
eliminated. There was one member of the Council that agreed with that as well, but ultimately the City34 Council decided that PC zoning should not be eliminated but that revisions are required. And both the35 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the City Council did state and recognize that PCs36 should be used infrequently.37 38
Based on Council’s direction what staff did was looked at what the identified issues are through the study39
sessions to inform the revisions presented to you tonight. Those revisions are captured in Attachment A,40
which is the draft ordinance. And I’ll just run through the issues that were identified by the PTC and the41
City Council and how those issues identified, have been identified in the draft ordinance. So PTC42
determined that there was a need for a better definition of public benefits, a need for an independent43
economic analysis, a need for a clearer process with specific attention to what the role of the PTC should44
be, adequate disclosure of ex parte communications, enhanced monitoring and enforcement tools45
particularly regarding the duration of public benefits, the use of a development agreement or a precise46
plan in lieu of the PC zoning designation. There was also this idea that perhaps the Comprehensive Plan47
could identify geographic locations in the City that were better suited for these types of PC projects and48
also consideration that perhaps there was a way of capping the degree of variation and the exemptions49 being requested by developers.50 51 The City Council held their study session in October and came up with similar issues that the were52 identified by the PTC. We grouped them into five for the purpose of discussion tonight. Again, a better53
definition is needed for public benefits, placing a cap on the degree of variation from the underlying54
zoning, require submittal of an economic impact analysis, a preliminary conceptual review by the City55
February 11, 2015 - PTC minutes
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 11
Council, and enhanced enforcement in monitoring regulations. And what I’ll do now is what we did is we 1
took all of the identified issues and grouped them into these three categories and then I’ll show you the 2
solution that staff is proposing. And tonight what we ask from the Planning Commission is to look at the 3
draft ordinance and determine if the attempted solutions or revisions identify the issues that we’ve 4
outlined here tonight. 5
6
So if we look at public benefits there are three major issues that were identified. Public benefits are not 7 defined, they are inadequate considering the tradeoffs that are resulting from the exemption that is given 8 to a developer, and the enforcement tool in place right now is not the best. And what we did is if you 9 look at your agenda packet Page 200 and 201 we looked at what the public benefits have been over the 10 last 60 years or so and then looked more specifically to what we’ve gained over the last 14 years. And if 11
you turn to Page 201 I know there was a request or a question about the number of Below Market Rate 12
(BMR) units that have been developed and we estimate that number to be about 1,097. And when we 13
had this conversation with the Council they agreed with PTC and decided that a definition is needed for 14
PCs for public benefits and that’s captured on we’ve included a definition section in the ordinance that 15
identifies what public benefit is. We’ve also required an economic analysis as part of the application 16
process. And we are now requiring a public benefit agreement, at least the way that it’s proposed in the 17
ordinance that would capture the duration of the benefit and how it will be monitored. 18
19
The second issue is the process. There was a recommendation that perhaps the City Council should 20
review these requests before the PTC sees them and we’ve added a mandatory preliminary review by the 21
City Council before it comes to the Planning Commission. And the last group of issues is the applicability. 22 What types of projects should be considered for a PC request or is there an area again in the City that’s 23 most adequate? And one thing that we found is it’s very clear from the Planning Commission and the 24 City Council that a PC request should not initiate a change in the Comprehensive Plan. And so what we 25 think is that there’s existing special requirements in the language of the ordinance now that can serve 26
that and we’ve also added a provision that the application must be consistent with the Comprehensive 27
Plan at the time an application is submitted. And I know I’m going through these very quickly and we’ll 28
have a chance to answer questions if you have them. 29
30
What we didn’t address in the ordinance the PTC made a note that the disclosure of ex parte 31
communications should be in there. When we took that comment to the City Council they determined 32
that there are existing policies in place that address this concern and they don’t need to be specifically 33
outlined in this ordinance. The discussion again was around the eligibility criteria and whether we should 34
designate an area in the City or limit the parcel size and there was no decision one way or another which 35 way to go an in discussing this with staff we felt that establishing criteria could potentially remove the 36 flexibility that’s innate in this PC process. And the Council did acknowledge that future needs are 37 unknown and if we limit it to a one acre parcel we just don’t know what the needs will be in the future. 38 39
And the last comment was regarding placing a cap on the degree of variation from the underlying zoning 40
district standards. And what we found was that there’s density in place that’s set by the Comprehensive 41
Plan; for instance, in the Comprehensive Plan there’s one designation for multi-family housing, but there’s 42
different categories of residential R-1, R-2, RM-15, RM-30 and so if a parcel is has a land use designation 43
of say multi-family there is room there for us to go from an RM-15 to an RM-30 without really violating 44
the zoning ordinance. 45
46
Similar to concerns raised about the lack of predictability in the PC process concerns were raised about 47
the application of the development project preliminary procedures. This is a voluntary process that’s 48
currently in our zoning ordinance, but some found that it’s not applied equally and there’s a vagueness as 49
to what projects are subject to this process. Because of that the City Council directed the Policy and 50 Services Committee to review these and staff took this item to them in December and they identified a 51 number of changes. Specifically they require, they recommended a mandatory program for specific 52 projects and they’re listed here PCs, development agreement, general plan amendment and specific plan, 53 district map amendments, and zoning text amendments. So any of those types of projects would require 54
under this draft ordinance would be required to go through this mandatory program of a preliminary 55
screening. And this is the process here. The City Council could either have a mandatory meeting with 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 12
the applicant before they actually file an application, this would then potentially go to the City Council 1
and any invited boards or the initial review could happen at the PTC and then make its way to the City 2
Council. The voluntary process was updated to allow other types of projects that could request that the 3
City Council look at or process their preliminary screening, but the actual process remains the same. 4
5
So with that staff recommends that the PTC conduct a public hearing to review and recommend adoption 6
of the draft ordinance to City Council. Again staff is here if you have any questions. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Tanaka: Thank you. 9 10 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Chair I’m sorry if I could just add? The, so Jonathan Lait, Assistant 11
Director with the Planning and Community Environment Department. As part of the Commission’s 12
request we published a question on Open Government and we received some 19 responses and I just 13
want to make sure that you had those with you at the dais and they are also available at the back of the 14
room. Thank you. 15
16
Chair Tanaka: Thank you. Ok, so if anyone in the public wishes to speak on this item you should fill out a 17
card and submit it. And can the Vice-Chair maybe read off the first item? 18
19
Vice-Chair Fine: We have one speaker on this item. Mr. Bob Moss. 20
21
Chair Tanaka: Since we only have one speaker you have five minutes. 22 23 Bob Moss: Thank you Chair Tanaka and Commissioners. Well, I’ve been saying that PC zoning is a racket 24 in Palo Alto for decades and it actually is because the public and private benefits are almost never 25 described by the developer. They try to conceal it or they’ll inflate the value of the public benefits and 26
ignore the private benefits. So I was glad to see that one of the things that staff is recommending is to 27
define the public benefits and do an economic analysis so you actually can get a balance. That is very 28
important, but there are some other things you should be considering also. Some zones as the staff 29
report touches on shouldn’t be impacted by PC zoning. The low density residential R-1, R-1, I think the 30
RM-15, RM-30 probably should be kept off the table also. The industrial zone GM there’s I can’t see any 31
reason why you want PC zoning there and you might want to consider prohibiting it in a low density 32
commercial zones like CN. That’s kind of dicey, but I think it ought to be at least considered. 33
34
The public benefits should be something that the public actually says they want. And I gave you an 35 example of the proposed PC at the corner of El Camino and Page Mill where they offered as a public 36 benefit putting in better lighting in the underground passage that goes from one side of El Camino to the 37 other that almost nobody ever uses. So why is that a public benefit? And if you’re talking about public 38 benefits that don’t relate to an area near the project it’s awfully hard to relate this benefit to that project. 39
So there should be some consistency and there should be some let’s say meeting of minds between the 40
public benefit, the private benefit, and the area involved. 41
42
Enforcement, staff talks about enforcement. I could give you dozens of examples where the public 43
benefit was either never provided or over time was removed from the site. And there has never, ever 44
been any enforcement. No penalties, nothing. And so there is no reason for the project developer or the 45
project leader on owner to honor the public benefit. That’s got to be changed. The staff talks about it, 46
they talk about better enforcement tools, but they don’t talk about how we’re going to do it and how 47
we’re going to really enforce it. 48
49
They do touch upon relaxing the limits from the existing zoning and I think that’s important. As 50 examples, I’ve seen PC projects coming in where the side yard setbacks are reduced to zero. Why do we 51 have to give them zero? Allow them to reduce it from say 20 feet to 10 feet or maybe 5 feet if it’s a 52 really marvelous project, but have some limit known in advance so that you don’t have these projects 53 which come in which are totally out of character with the surrounding neighborhood and the surrounding 54
buildings. The same thing with heights, the same thing with Floor Area Ratio (FAR), put a limit on what 55
percentage you can exceed the existing zoning and adhere to it. that makes it a lot easier for everybody, 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 13
it makes it a lot easier for the staff when they’re evaluating it, a lot easier for you, the Planning 1
Commissioners, and if it goes to the City Council a lot easier for the City Council members because you’ll 2
be able to see if there’s a limit on what should be done and this project complies with it. If for some 3
reason an applicant wants to come in with a project which doesn’t comply with those limits they have to 4
make a very sound argument why they should be given a relaxation. So that gives everyone an 5
opportunity to concentrate on just those aspects of the project which are really unusual. 6
7 Finally, I think it would be really nice if somebody came in with a PC zone and the staff or the Planning 8 Commission would steer them back to a standard zone because it’s a lot easier to live with existing 9 zoning and understand what those comparisons and what those requirements are then dealing with all 10 the PCs. If you look at a map, zoning map of the City there are all these I think it’s close to 100 PCs. 11
You can’t tell what’s allowed there versus what’s allowed in the standard zone next door and that’s 12
awkward. So let’s try to define things carefully, keep control, and try to prevent these PCs from 13
overtaking the quality of our community. 14
15
Chair Tanaka: Ok, thank you. So I’m going to close the public hearing and take it back to the 16
Commission. So maybe just kind of try to frame this meeting so we could go through this efficiently. 17
What we’re trying to do here is we’re not necessarily trying to wordsmith the actual amendment. I think 18
staff could do that. We could give direction to them on how to do that, but I think what we want to do is 19
we want to talk about the issues. So what staff has done in the presentation on Slide, slide Number 7 is 20
talk about a few issues that they would like us to expound upon. So before we do that though what I’d 21
like to do is open it up to the Commission here to first talk about any general thoughts that they have 22 about the PC process, about this, about this item, and more importantly also talk about what other issues 23 besides the ones that staff has recommended that we should talk about tonight to also list them. And 24 then what we’ll do is we’ll go through each item one by one where every Commission member would 25 have a chance to talk about the item should they choose to and we’ll get through the list. And if the list 26
is long we might take two meetings, but we have a budget for that. So which Commissioner wants to go 27
first? Ok, so Commissioner Rosenblum, please. 28
29
Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you. I’ve been looking forward to this discussion so this is great. 30
Thank you so much. Just a couple of statements before we go into the item by item; I don’t have any 31
items to add. I think that these are the major issues that you’ve drawn out. I think it’s important though 32
that even though this report that you put together is 200 plus pages there’s a few things I think are 33
missing that the public would benefit from. And it is good solid analysis of data you’ve already collected 34
tabulated in a way that is easier to make sense of and some of it’s already been done. So number of 35 BMR units by type, but I think it’s important to note just how many square feet are we talking about? 36 How often does this come up? And it can be done much more simply. I spent time literally plugging 37 each of these into an Excel spreadsheet and tagging them by type and it was useful for me to say oh, I 38 guess the new ones post this date were one every other year and furthermore this were the number that 39
were for BMR. It was very informative. It took me a few hours to do it, so it’s not a huge amount of 40
work. I can give you what I already have, but I only have it back to 1990, which is a good start. I think 41
the public would benefit from a simple presentation of what are we actually talking about. And secondly 42
to Mr. Moss’ point mapping it too. Where are they and of what type? I think that a couple of very simple 43
charts would help the public understand how big an issue is this, since when, and which project 44
specifically? And so that’s my ask is after this I think that would be really helpful, but I think you did a 45
great job laying out the major issues and the package is quite comprehensive so thank you. 46
47
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias, go ahead. 48
49
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have so the question is what’s not on Page 7? I have 50 a couple of those comments, but let me just maybe mention first one so in the package there is a 51 comment that it’s on Page 4 that majority of the Council members didn’t feel that identifying geographic 52 location within the City would work for PC districts. So this is something that we discussed at the last 53 meeting. I just wanted to make sure that that whatever I couldn’t, I didn’t get to the discussion, which 54
may be in the package on the Council on this geographic interest, right, but just to remind what the 55
discussion was about we pretty much talk that there would be designated areas of economic interest that 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 14
would be part of the Comprehensive Plan and those areas pretty much would outline where the PCs are 1
allowed and are not allowed. And also they would designate some areas where we pretty much have 2
certain interest of allowing more dense development like for example certain nodes on El Camino 3
corridor, which would be from City perspective just manipulating with for the purpose of the good 4
development triggering more buildup in those areas. So if you could just comment on the discussion that 5
either you or somebody else had with the Council I just want to make sure that that truly Council is not 6
going to just take this if, if that there is was just a lukewarm discussion I’d be willing to repropose it 7 again because I think it’s a reasonable comment. And also I just received some, some e-mail from 8 somebody and it just talks about the similar subject. Just there’s the person, it’s not signed, just talks 9 about the certain zones would be excluded from, from PC regulation. 10 11
Chair Tanaka: I think you’re talking about the letter from Bob Moss? 12
13
Commissioner Gardias: Yes. 14
15
Chair Tanaka: The last (interrupted) 16
17
Commissioner Gardias: Oh, is it Mr. Moss’ letter? Ok, thank you. So I agree with your comment, but I 18
think about this from a different perspective that not as an exclusion this would be only part of this, but 19
as opposed to just directing the interest of growth to certain areas. But it would serve that purpose as 20
well. Thank you. 21
22 Chair Tanaka: So you said you had an item to add? Was there an item to add? 23 24 Commissioner Gardias: I’m sorry? 25 26
Chair Tanaka: You wanted to add an item to the list to talk about? 27
28
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, I mean first I would like to understand right what was the Council’s 29
perception because if Council’s already has discussed this to death right I’ll ask just putting this back in 30
the on the list would serve no purpose, right? But if there was just some exchange that maybe they 31
didn’t explore this to death that maybe there is a possibility of just readdressing this. 32
33
Mr. Lait: So I think that certainly I mean this body is going to be making a recommendation to the 34
Council and if it’s an item that you think is worth recommunicating or rerecommending I think you should 35 feel free to do so. That’s a conversation with your colleagues and your ultimate motion on the matter. 36 37 The Council I believe it was in their October meeting most recently and I’ll look to Consuelo to confirm 38 this for me where they had suggested as we reported in the staff report that they didn’t find that 39
geographic boundaries would necessarily be a measure or determinate for where the PC zoning should 40
take place. And so the comments that you’re talking about with areas where there might be economic 41
interests or increased or nodes where increased development might take place I think that that dialogue 42
if it’s to take place, takes place as part of the Comprehensive Plan update which is ongoing as you know. 43
And I think you may have received your colleague Mark Michael’s e-mail where he also presents a similar 44
question about the timing of the PC reform relative to the Comprehensive Plan effort and I think that’s a 45
conversation that can be had, but this is something that we, we’ve drafted, we’re prepared to go forward 46
to Council with it. I don’t know that waiting for the Comp Plan effort is helpful at this point. I mean we 47
could always come back and revisit the PC reform based on feedback that we receive from the 48
community and the Council on the Comprehensive Plan. So I don’t think that that conversation is over, 49
but I also don’t know I also believe that with the provisions that we put in place or are recommending as 50 part of the ordinance I think we’re capturing some of those opportunities. 51 52 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you very much Mr. Lait. So if I may just from address it from my 53 perspective just as I understood. So I think that based on this what you just said I would propose to 54
readdress it and add it to the list. From perspective of the regulation we may address it just pretty much 55
by just inserting a point or paragraph that boundaries of the PC areas or some other appropriate wording 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 15
would be our subject of the Comprehensive Plan and that would address both issues, right? We would 1
not have to wait for the other one; we could pass this without waiting for Comprehensive Plan. 2
3
Chair Tanaka: Ok, let’s have Vice-Chair Fine. 4
5
Commissioner Downing: Ok. So since there’s, since there is an idea on the table about substantively 6
changing what we’re looking at I’m going to make general comments kind of about what I see when I 7 read this ordinance and forgive me for taking a bit of time here because this is my first time commenting 8 on this. But let me go through my own commentary and then I think that will give us a little bit more 9 context and a little bit more to play with as a Commission instead of just addressing necessarily one idea 10 at a time maybe we can kind of address a confluence of ideas together. 11
12
Ok so what I want to say about this is people when they talk about zoning and they talk about projects 13
out of zoning they talk about it usually in the sense of like a crime is being committed like we’re violating 14
the law when we’re doing something outside of zoning. But in reality zoning is really different from law, 15
from many other kinds of law; for example, right, criminal law. Murder is bad. Even if tomorrow all 16
statutes prohibiting murder were repealed we would still think murder is bad, right? Zoning is a little bit 17
different than that. Zoning partially has to do with safety. It partially has to do with let’s make sure 18
we’re not putting our kindergarten next to the hazardous waste site, but huge portions of zoning are 19
really about aesthetics and they’re about cultural preferences. And that’s the reason why we update the 20
Comp Plan all the time because our own aesthetics and cultural preferences change over time. 21
22 So this is where I think PC zoning comes in. So we have notoriously been bad at updating our Comp 23 Plan. We are now five years behind in updating our Comp Plan and then on top of that as a charter city 24 we don’t have a requirement to update our zoning ordinances when we update our Comp Plan. So you 25 could potentially be looking at a zoning ordinance that is 20 years out of date from what we decided to 26
do about it, right? So this is where I think that PC zoning comes in because PC zoning in many ways it 27
bridges that gap. It allows you to build the things that maybe we’ve already agreed that we like or that 28
are going in a direction where we like and we haven’t had a chance for all of our processes to catch up 29
with it. So that’s kind of where I see zoning coming in and I’ll say more to that. 30
31
I think that zoning should be about the maximum of what we allow. Zoning should be about this is the 32
biggest we’re willing to go and that’s it for any reason. This is it, right? I actually think that being said I 33
actually think that when we’re talking about PC zoning we really need to be talking about 1) intrinsic 34
benefits and 2) something you would truly not be able to do without PC. So what do I mean by that? So 35 what I mean is that it should be intrinsic in the sense that the thing that you’re building is good in and of 36 itself, right? You’re building affordable housing; you’re building a community center, what have you. I 37 don’t think that the benefits should be extrinsic. I don’t think the benefits should be something like 38 money and the reason why is because if we say that zoning is for sale then that’s an incentive for us to 39
under zone everything. It’s an incentive for everything that we do in the City to become a huge 40
negotiation like you’re buying a used car. And I don’t think that’s good for our processes and that makes 41
everything we do here more expensive and most importantly makes our housing more expensive. So 42
that’s why I support PC zoning only for intrinsic benefits and not extrinsic benefits. 43
44
And then what do I mean by something that could not have been done before? So what I mean by that 45
again is it’s something that let’s say for instance you decide to turn what should have been a commercial 46
property into multi-family residential affordable housing. That literally could not have been done before 47
without the PC zoning. Things like somebody donating money to widen our intersections that could have 48
been done; it’s just a matter of our City and what our priorities are. So those are kind of my comments 49
and where I think this needs to go. And I am glad for the work that the staff has done so far, but I 50 actually don’t think it goes far enough and where we need to go and I think that all this time we spend in 51 looking at PC zoning and deciding whether or not we’re going to approve something, not approve 52 something, go back and forth to PTC and Council on it numerous times that’s actually effort that we 53 should be spending on updating our Comp Plan and updating our zoning. 54
55
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 16
So if I could continue I’ll try to keep it brief. Ok, and to that end one of the most important things that I 1
think we should be looking at is the one thing that everyone seems to agree on with regard to PC zoning 2
is that we should be using it for affordable housing, but my question to you is if we know that we need 3
PC zoning in order to build affordable housing because the economics of it don’t work otherwise then why 4
are we putting this into the category of something that’s an exception, right, that’s a special occurrence? 5
Why aren’t we fixing our zoning so that it’s easy to build affordable housing within our city? So that’s 6
where I’m going from, where I’m coming from with this. And so with that I hope a launch a good 7 discussion. 8 9 Chair Tanaka: So just to make sure I think you maybe wanted to add one item to the list of issues maybe 10 which is what is the nature of a public benefit? Is that a fair? 11
12
Commissioner Downing: Right, the definition of what a public benefit is. 13
14
Chair Tanaka: Ok, ok. Great. Ok, so let’s keep going on. Commissioner Alcheck, please. 15
16
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I’ll start with the idea that I think it would be nice to discuss tonight in 17
addition to what we have on the board some of the “regulations” that are being proposed. So I’m going 18
to just walk through generally I think that the changes for with respect to the public benefit definition are 19
good. Taking out the word significant you’ve reinserted that word when you define public benefit, you’ve 20
taken out significant from the determination that the benefits have to be significant public benefits, which 21
I think is good because it’s sort of complicated to determine whether something is A) a public benefit and 22 then whether it is a significant public benefit. I can’t tell you where that is… I think that must be under 23 where the criteria or for the findings that must be made. So it’s, so I think that’s a good thing, but we’ve 24 reinserted it in the definition of public benefits where we say that significant monetary or in kind 25 contributions. Now I’m not suggesting that the monetary contributions should be insignificant, but I just 26
don’t like the use of the word significant. It’s undefined. It’s not appropriate to say that the monetary 27
contributions should equate to X dollars, but that’s a problem. What is a significant monetary 28
contribution with respect to the size of the project? The money the developer is making? I mean how 29
do we determine that? So that’s an issue and that goes to sort of the definition of public benefit. 30
31
I disagree with my fellow Commissioner here about whether or not monetary contributions are should be 32
included. We have such a long list of infrastructure needs and I think we’ve kind of gone through this in 33
the past in past debates so I’m glad you’ve included that. I think I’m just noting that I’m on that side of 34
the table on this issue. 35 36 I continue to think that this economic analysis requirement is a red herring. I’ve said it before, I’m not 37 winning that debate on this Commission, but the relevant equation here is the value of the public benefit 38 versus the anticipated negative impacts created by the elements of the proposed development that 39
exceed the current zoning requirements. Not the entire project because in theory there would be a 40
project that could be built there that would also have negative impacts. And like to demonstrate by 41
example here if a very generous developer proposed a project that made no economic sense at all. He’s 42
going to build a massive preforming arts center in Downtown Palo Alto and donate it to the City. Like it 43
doesn’t even make sense. It’s just a big red X on his economic analysis. I don’t think that would make a 44
difference to our Palo Alto citizenry. I think they would still say ok, what is the benefit? The benefit is 45
this theatre and how bad is it going to make traffic and parking? And it won’t make a difference to them 46
that this person is not making a dime off the project. 47
48
And the flip side of that coin is if a developer is going to make a killing on a project that has absolutely 49
very insignificant impacts would that mean that we would, we’d be willing to take a very small monetary 50 fee? No. Sorry, I don’t believe Palo Alto will go for that. I think Palo Alto will say stick it to the 51 developer, make him pay. He’s making a killing; we’ve got this economic analysis that shows it. Even 52 though this is literally an impactless development we should still require a greater public benefit. So I 53 just I think it’s a red herring. I think it’s sort of a lose/lose for the developer. It’s and actually it’s not 54
even relevant that it’s a lose/lose for developers. It’s not the underlying concern is the degree of 55
disruption caused by the proposal and whether the community is willing to accept that disruption in 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 17
exchange for an improvement for a public benefit for something that would enhance our lives, right? We 1
would commute it’s a personal decision whether you would commute father for a better job, right? And 2
it’s like in the same it’s the same relationship. Would we suffer a negative impact for an improvement 3
that met a certain criteria? 4
5
If I could have just like another minute or so? I want to give staff an opportunity tonight to sort of touch 6
on a few things. On Page 3 of our I guess it’s not Page 3 because it’s on so once you start the 7 Attachment A, Page 3 of the Attachment A, Item D on that page says “A project seeking residential 8 density bonus or zoning concessions or incentives shall not be eligible for a PC zone.” Can somebody 9 spend a few minutes after I’m done sort of explaining to me how that would change the projects that 10 we’ve seen in the past? I’m thinking like does this mean a multi-family affordable housing complex that’s 11
seeking extra unit space now is no longer eligible for potentially exceeding our height limits because it’s… 12
that seems like a, that seems to target affordable housing in a way that I don’t think makes sense if 13
affordable housing is such a big public benefit. So I’m not sure why that what that is. And then I would 14
also sort of like to see an example of maybe what we’ve had in the past that would not be allowed as a 15
result of that addition. 16
17
I want to say that I think the City Council’s involvement from the beginning is smart. They’re going to be 18
making the decision so I’m excited to see that. And then in the action by Commission which is on Page 8 19
or of the exhibit there’s a sentence it says “In no event shall the maximum height exceed 50 feet.” I 20
would like to take a poll tonight, I’m not suggesting we take a poll, but I would be very happy if the 21
Commission weighed in on this because my sense is that the Commission feels that exceeding the 50 foot 22 height limit or the majority of members of this Commission that’s my assumption here is that exceeding 23 this 50 foot height limit is something that we think the PC zone should allow for. So I’m not, this is sort 24 of a confusing thing because it says here that “The specific regulations may modify those regulations 25 contained as appro… in the underlying base zoning as appropriate and shall include the following.” So it 26
sort of it suggests that these are things we can exceed, but then it says “In no event shall the maximum 27
height exceed 50 feet.” So is that I’d like staff to sort of clarify whether this change would suggest that 28
no PC moving forward would ever exceed 50 feet and then if that is the case I’d sort of like to hear what 29
my fellow Commissioners have to say about whether or not they like that idea that all future PC zones 30
would never exceed 50 feet. 31
32
And then the last thing I want to say is we had a proposal that came before us on California Avenue. 33
Fergus Garber Young were the architects. It was a commercial property that was adjacent to a single-34
family home that was the sort of single-family lot that should never have been there in the middle of the 35 Cal Ave. Downtown. Do you guys remember this? There was a daylight plane; the guy said he’s never 36 going to have shade anymore and right. So right here in Page 10, “Sites sharing a lot line with one or 37 more sites in the RE, R-1, R-2, RM or any residential district shall be subject to a maximum height 38 established daylight plane,” so I don’t want to get into the specifics here, but what I’m trying to 39
determine and it’s complicated is whether if there was a site like the one that we’re talking about right 40
now, the one I’m referring to what did you say it was 555 Park? 255 Park or whatever that property was 41
if that current if that project, which I don’t was not a PC it was just in I guess the commercial, I don’t 42
remember exactly why we were evaluating it. Maybe it was the negative dec, but it complied with our 43
zoning regulations. So if the height plane there if that exceeded these limitations and then a PC couldn’t 44
exceed it just because it’s next to that same residential that would seem incongruous, right? We would 45
allow you to exceed the daylight plane restrictions if you didn’t exceed any zoning, but if you are applying 46
to exceed some sort of zoning limitation then in that case you can’t have a so I just want to clarify that 47
you get my question? I mention that specific project, I don’t mean to put you on the spot about that, but 48
(interrupted) 49
50 Mr. Lait: No, I can I don’t know that much about it because I’m still trying to get my familiarity with the 51 multitude of projects that are going on in the City, but I also understand that’s a pending application. 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 54
55
Mr. Lait: And so we’re not going to talk about that (interrupted) 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 18
1
Commissioner Alcheck: I guess the question really is, is the gist of the question is fine. If a commercial 2
project that did not attempt to exceed zoning did not have such restrictive daylight plane requirements 3
because it was next door to a residential project then it doesn’t really make sense to me why a project 4
that was attempting to apply as a PC would have a greater limitation than what the existing zoning might 5
be for that site. That’s what I’m trying to say. So if for example that commercial site could build within a 6
daylight plane, but then later the PC says well you can’t because you’re next to an R-1 that seems 7 incongruous. That’s all. 8 9 Mr. Lait: So… 10 11
Commissioner Alcheck: I’ll let you get, you don’t need to answer that right now. That could be our follow 12
up session. Last comment, really last comment; the agreement, there’s this enforcement and monitoring 13
issue where the agreement shall contain a monitoring and enforcement plan and shall require the 14
property owner to establish and maintain a fund to support the City’s review for compliance on an annual 15
basis. That makes sense when you think about your hypothetical café or plaza public benefit that never 16
really execute and you’re annoyed that we can’t guac that public benefit and that’s one of the examples 17
of a failed public benefit. That doesn’t really make sense to me in affordable housing. The Opportunity 18
Center to have to maintain some annual fund so that the City can make sure that they’re it just seems a 19
little burdensome and I just think part of the equation of whether the public benefit is worthy enough 20
should be that we actually have to enforce it. And putting the onus on especially a nonprofit affordable 21
housing provider forever or for however long the term is seems a little burdensome. These entities are 22 barely, these entities are operating in the red already. So that component of the enforcement monitoring 23 I’m not such a fan of. That’s it’s. 24 25 Chair Tanaka: Ok. 26
27
Commissioner Alcheck: Sorry. 28
29
Chair Tanaka: So here’s kind of like what I’d like to try to do. I know that there’s a couple lights so I’ll 30
get to everyone. So I’ve made kind of I’ve been making a list of issues that people have been talking 31
about so it’s on my list to go through each and every item of that, but what I was trying is I was trying to 32
keep kind of preserve the thread so to speak so I think I wasn’t, it was the intent of at least the first 33
round is to talk about general comments or questions and then talk about what items you wanted on the 34
list and I got a bunch. I think I got a whole bunch from you, from Commissioner Alcheck. So, so 35 because otherwise, otherwise it’s hard to keep, keep the context as a thread. So we will talk about each 36 one of these items in depth, but I just wanted to kind of preserve the thread so that we can have a 37 coherent conversation. And we’ll get through every item whether it takes we do it tonight all tonight or 38 we take another meeting. We’ll get through everything. I just wanted to kind of frame that up. 39
40
And let me just read the list of items so far and then I will go to the other Commissioner members that 41
have lights on. So from Downing we have what is and what is the nature of a public benefit? Gardias 42
has identifying geographical location restrictions with the sub item of monetary. Should monetary be a 43
public benefit or not? So that’s from Commissioner Alcheck. From Commissioner Alcheck is enforcement 44
forever or not. Alcheck is also about the concept of should it be more restrictive zoning from a PC or not. 45
The 50 foot height limit also from Alcheck. Economic analysis and affordable housing all from Alcheck. 46
So those are the items I have listed and we don’t have to talk through all of them if you don’t think those 47
are some of those aren’t worthy we could take those off the list, but those are some I have captured. Ok 48
with that said, I’d like to give first before we go to Commissioner Gardias Vice-Chair Fine to say a few 49
words. 50 51 Vice-Chair Fine: Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you to staff for this report. I also thought it was 52 pretty well done, a lot of good work done on the changes to the regulation. I do want to note something 53 that the previous sessions of the PTC and the City Council who initiated these talks and have and their 54
minutes are in here were different PTC and different City Council I think myself included. So although I 55
don’t like to drag things out there is value in taking our time and getting this right. It’s a pretty hot topic 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 19
issue and I believe at the moment there’s only one project in the PC pipeline, which is frozen. So it may 1
be time maybe it’s worth taking it. Just want to suggest that to my fellow Commissioners. 2
3
I’ve been speaking with various cities, a few city managers, and doing some research on PCs and similar 4
projects. There’s no one way to do this. Everyone is doing it differently, which is good and bad. I think 5
it comes down to a balance of what the community wants and what developers are willing or able to do 6
in some ways. And I think a lot of the public comment we’ve received around this issue both on Open 7 City Hall and just in chatting with people in public is that in Palo Alto it’s caused a lot of consternation and 8 people are pretty fed up with it, many folks are. There also seems to be quite an appetite for a menu of 9 benefits, excuse the pun, or at least a linkage of public and private benefits. As Commissioner Downing 10 noted I think that might be something to focus on. I would add that to the list. Public benefits, what 11
constitutes a public benefit and yeah, I know from Commissioner Downing. 12
13
I have two quick questions, one this I’m not sure how to phrase this exactly. What about zoning 14
variances when might a developer go for a zoning variance over a PC or vice versa? And then the other 15
question is about enforcement. I felt the language around enforcement and the fund was a little vague 16
so I was wondering how much, how often, who owns that money, what fund is it in, and what best 17
practices there might be around that kind of enforcement of public benefits. I really couldn’t find 18
anything in my research so, hoping you guys might know something. 19
20
Mr. Lait: So the distinction between a variance and a PC the variances are provided for in state law and 21
our local zoning and that’s really to address a some kind of a hardship associated with the property so it 22 may not be a grand project, it may be a relatively modest development, but for some reason or not can’t 23 comply with the basic zoning standards and so the classic example that people cite in these situations 24 and we have a lot of trees here so somebody’s got a protected redwood tree in the middle of their lot 25 and we have policies that limit your ability to remove healthy trees like that. They might ask for a 26
variance for setbacks or height or something so that they can still achieve some floor area that is 27
diminished because of some feature about the property. 28
29
And a PC is more open or at least it had been more open where you could it’s not about hardship. It’s 30
about wanting to extend beyond zoning because of the type of project that’s being contemplated and of 31
course then the consideration of the public benefits that go with it. So it’s a completely different 32
dialogue. 33
34
Mr. Lait: Great. And as far as the enforcement fund language I think this is and we can and let me just 35 take one step back and we absolutely agree with the Commission and the comments that we heard here. 36 We came into this meeting fully prepared that there would be perhaps another meeting that we’d have to 37 come back to the Commission. We wanted to put together an ordinance to give you something to 38 respond to and we’re here to support the Commission and recognize that we may not have gotten it right 39
the first time, but we support the dialogue and the continuation of the dialogue as we need to move 40
forward to the Council. So we support that effort. 41
42
As far as the fund language this is a, this is an effort and you’ve seen this comment in at the Council 43
meetings and here on the forums that enforcement is a key issue. And our enforcement staff is 44
somewhat limited and so the ability to establish an escrow account that a developer or applicant would 45
pay into to fund an individual to ensure that they are meeting the conditions of approval, are ensuring 46
that the public benefit is being maintained could be a nominal cost to do that investigation and reporting 47
or it could be significant depending on how much, how much work needs to be done and how much 48
reporting would need to take place. So I think it’s somewhat variable to the project and that would be 49
negotiated and vetted out through that PC effort. But the objective here is that we have a means and a 50 mechanism to fund and ensure enforcement activities. 51 52 Vice-Chair Fine: Do you know any other examples of how other cities are doing this enforcement? Is it 53 the same process? 54
55
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 20
Mr. Lait: Typically, typically there’ll be an escrow account and developer would provide X dollars in that 1
account that the City holds and draws down on that and then when you reach a certain limit you contact 2
the developer and you say we’ve reached the limit that we’ve agreed to, you need to replenish the 3
account. And it’s just this continual process of drawing down. 4
5
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so we have one light left on this phase of the discussion which is suggesting items to 6
discuss or particular question you have for staff. So with that said Commissioner Gardias why don’t you 7 go ahead? 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’m going to address two issues. So one is very 10 simple, but I would like to just get your response about this. It’s about process. So on Page, one second 11
I will get to it in a moment, on Page 5 of the proposed policy there is a sequence of the events that 12
pretty much talks that after preliminary screening then there would be architectural review and then after 13
architectural review there would be our Commission’s review if I read this correctly. I believe that it 14
should be the other way that after preliminary review there should be PTC review and architectural 15
review afterward. 16
17
Mr. Lait: Yes, thank you for that comment. And that actually is the way that we have it set up. If you go 18
to the bottom of Page 4 after the preliminary screening the first step is actually to the PTC then to the 19
Architectural Review Board (ARB) then back to the PCT and then forwarding on to the City Council. That 20
is the intended process as we’ve drafted it. 21
22 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, so pretty much that the second step, but you’re talking about the initial, initial 23 preliminary review, right? So pretty much there is there are two steps of the preliminary review, which is 24 Council and then PTC then there is the Architectural Board and then which is not the preliminary it is 25 already full review, right? 26
27
Mr. Lait: So let me make sure I’m understanding your question. So I want to make a distinction between 28
the preliminary screening requirement, which is also before the Commission this evening and the process 29
after having gone through the preliminary screening process, which is what this section of the ordinance 30
that you’re speaking to addresses. So if I so and we can talk about the preliminary screening, but let’s 31
say applicant has gone through that preliminary screening requirement, that’s closed out, they file a 32
formal application. That application comes to the PTC first. 33
34
Commissioner Gardias: Ok. 35 36 Mr. Lait: Secondarily it would then go to the ARB, comes back to the PTC, and then on to the City 37 Council. There’s an exception called out for in here where if a project is not typically subject to ARB 38 we’re not going to send them to ARB. That the PTC would serve, would have their hearing, have their 39
discussion, and then be able to forward it on to the City Council. 40
41
Commissioner Gardias: Ok. 42
43
Mr. Lait: So that answers the second half and let me know if you want me to answer the first half, which 44
is the preliminary screening part. 45
46
Commissioner Gardias: No, I understand the distinction, right? 47
48
Mr. Lait: Ok, thank you. 49
50 Commissioner Gardias: So pretty much it looks that this is us. I hoped it would be, right? So it’s the 51 right sequence. So thank you very much. 52 53 So let me just go to the second point, right? So I’d like to focus on the, on just go through this, through 54
this regulation cross section and just point your attention to the cost. And I will start with the comments 55
of my colleagues about the enforcement and fund, but it’s going to take me to the other steps. So my 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 21
propensity or my perspective is that it should be as lean as possible. I made a comment the last time we 1
met that we should arrange the process there is, that there is no monitoring and it’s possible. Of course 2
I understand and I heard comments from various parties including my colleagues and I know that they 3
would like to that they are inclining to have this monitoring process, but still I believe that we either 4
should not have it at all, remove it monitoring process and then resolve it this way that whatever value or 5
the property’s created it’s pretty much it’s assigned to the ownership that takes responsibility for 6
maintenance and future expenses. So pretty much the process is just cut off very cleanly and this would 7 work pretty much for everybody. We would avoid the confusion of the funds of monitoring of reports 8 (interrupted) 9 10 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias? 11
12
Commissioner Gardias: I believe that this will just take us to the (interrupted) 13
14
Chair Tanaka: Can I interject for a minute? So I think, I think we’re going to talk about that in particular, 15
but I’d like you to do is just so that we don’t lose the thread here can we just if you want to talk about 16
enforcement, talk about enforcement, but just say what it is you want to talk about and we’ll put it here. 17
18
Commissioner Gardias: Ok, so pretty (interrupted) 19
20
Chair Tanaka: That sounds very similar to Commissioner Alcheck’s. 21
22 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. 23 24 Chair Tanaka: So I’ll put that down, but I want to just try to keep this all (interrupted) 25 26
Commissioner Gardias: Very good idea. So it’s just, just finishing this very quickly so if it’s not possible 27
we at least should have some sort of terminal value. It’s a normal value that you assess for net present 28
value calculations and allow pretty much just to stop this process at certain point of time. 29
30
Let me just take you too to some other comments that I would like to just have throughout, right? So 31
my general comment to this, to this regulation is that we would like to just have it as lean as possible, 32
not to introduce further burden even on the developer that’s deciding just to go through this process. So 33
for example so please scrap through the entire proposal and try to remove requirements that are not 34
needed. There is a requirement about recycling storage, which I don’t know if it belongs there and a few 35 others. I can just talk about this later on, but then also there is a when there is a preliminary hearing or 36 preliminary review I thought that we should just explicitly recommend very slim amount of the 37 documentation because otherwise it’s going to cost the developer tons of money and I think that this 38 should not be the objective just to explode unnecessary paperwork. So from this perspective, right, 39
please just look through the documents. Thank you. 40
41
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I’m just going to recap I’m not going to go in each in-depth in any of these. I just 42
want to recap all the listed items. 43
44
Commissioner Alcheck: I asked staff a couple of questions. I’m not sure all of them they can answer, but 45
to the extent that some of them they can answer can we get like for example I may or may not be 46
correct about how I read the 50 foot height limit thing. So like to the extent that they could answer 47
some of those questions it may inform our discussion later and may save us time. 48
49
Chair Tanaka: Ok. I think we could do that. Let’s do that as we go through each item and if staff tells us 50 hey, there’s no issue here we’re done, right? Unless someone really wants to talk about it more, right? 51 I’m just trying to get us through so we’re not here all night. Ok, cool. 52 53 So, so we have from Vice-Chair Fine, Downing what is or nature of a public benefit, restricting geographic 54
location restriction from Gardias, monitoring what the monetary could be part of the public benefit, 55
removing extraneous items from Gardias, enforcement, a lot of issues around enforcement, should 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 22
enforcements be forever? How should the process be? From Alcheck basically should the PC have more 1
restrictive zoning than different than regular zoning of the lot? Fifty foot height limit from Alcheck, 2
economic analysis from Alcheck, and affordable housing from Alcheck. So and then there’s a list of items 3
from (interrupted) 4
5
Commissioner Downing: Can I add one more real quick? 6
7 Chair Tanaka: Sure. 8 9 Commissioner Downing: The nexus to the local community or local neighborhood of the public benefit. 10 I’d like to talk about that as well. 11
12
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so one more item on the list here. So we have oh, 15 items here. Ok so I think here’s 13
what I’d like to try to do on this. To make some headway I think what’s important is for us to talk about 14
each item one by one and not have to go back. So we’re not like flipping around through 15 different 15
items all at the same time. And I’d like to have it such that we give staff clear direction so that as they 16
take our comments and edit this document they are able to figure out what we want and for items that 17
are not clear so if in the course of the discussion it’s not clear as to what the Commission is thinking 18
about we can do a straw poll if we have to, but if it’s pretty like if you don’t disagree you don’t have to 19
say much, right? If you disagree about something or you think it should be differently say something and 20
we’ll go through each item one by one and hopefully get through this quickly. 21
22 Ok. So I’m going to start off with the items which got multiple comments on. So I think the two that got 23 multiple comments or people have some criticism was first I think what is the public benefit probably 24 followed by enforcement. Is enforcement forever, what’s the process, all that kind of stuff. So, so let’s 25 see… I guess Commissioner Rosenblum did you have something to talk about on this? Your light’s on. 26
Yeah, we’re going to go item by item. So I’m going to go over the first item first, which is what is the 27
nature of a public benefit? Ok from Commissioner Downing and Vice-Chair Fine. Ok and so I think what 28
would be good is for the person that is asking for this item to be discussed in this case Commissioner 29
Downing just to quite quickly frame it up and talk about in a concise manner what is the decision you 30
want this body to be making on this particular item so that we have kind of a bounded conversation. And 31
then we’ll follow up with Commissioner Rosenblum. 32
33
Commissioner Downing: Ok so I think that the number one question in terms of the definition of the 34
public benefit is 1) is it intrinsic or is it extrinsic as in does it have to be something that’s attached to the 35 property it’s part of the property itself. I think the second one is do we want to talk about can a public 36 benefit be monetary? That’s probably the other question that comes from that. And I think I’m not sure 37 if this is kind of a separate one, but for me this kind of goes together because it’s literally in the definition 38 of public benefit, but it’s the it’s talking about whether or not the befit it has to be for the local 39
community, neighborhood or whether or not that can be broader for our City. So that’s how I would 40
frame that up and I don’t know if you want, if you want me to make more comments on that now or 41
have other people make more comments and I’ll come back. 42
43
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I think what we should do is I think you framed it up really nicely so its intrinsic 44
versus extrinsic for the local area or for the broader area and monetary. So it’s those three categories. I 45
think what would be great is for you to actually state your opinion on all three and say here is what I 46
propose and if everyone here shakes their head yeah that sounds, that sounds good I think we’re done, 47
right? If like we don’t agree we’re like whoa, no way, then this is when we will have a discussion on it. 48
So go ahead. 49
50 Commissioner Rosenblum: I don’t know if this is a point of order or what this actually is, but I think 51 there’s one more dimension. Should I add it now? Because otherwise we’ll go through each. No, she’s 52 named three dimensions. I think there’s a fourth dimension. I think there’s a dimension of a menu or 53 not a menu. So she has intrinsic versus extrinsic, in kind so cash or not, for the immediate area or the 54
general group, or is it bounded? Is there a list of benefits that we believe are acceptable public benefits? 55
56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 23
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so here’s what I’m going to do. Since there are four sub items to this big item maybe 1
we’ll do one at a time. So we could kind of talk about each and every item like the sub items and so and 2
it’s because we’re going to be doing this if we all take five minutes to talk about every little item it’ll take 3
forever so I think we will if you agree with it you don’t have to say a lot. If you disagree you should say 4
something. And so for the first item which is intrinsic versus extrinsic Commissioner Downing why don’t 5
you start first and say what is your opinion on this concisely? 6
7 Commissioner Downing: Ok, so these things are a little bit tied together, but I think for intrinsic versus 8 extrinsic for me it’s really important that the benefit be intrinsic. It has to be because you’re offering 9 community meeting space, because you’re offering affordable housing, because you’re offering an art 10 space or studio or something like that. Something that is going to be a benefit, but by zoning cannot be 11
there, right? Either because you can’t be, you can’t build something that’s a proper size space for that or 12
because the use is not permitted in that space. So I think that that’s where I am on the intrinsic. I think 13
yeah. 14
15
Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. Ok so Commissioner Alcheck please give your concise opinion on this. 16
17
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok so there’s a few reasons why I don’t agree with that position. Among them is 18
for example this issue with the 50 foot height limit. This depending on what staff says about how I read 19
the definition this is our only avenue for exceeding 50 feet. And frankly I think that we should create an 20
avenue for buildings in our Downtown and other areas that make sense to exceed 50 feet and they don’t 21
have to be for example affordable housing buildings in the middle of Downtown. They could be 22 commercial office buildings that in exchange for exceeding that limitation contributed massively to our 23 infrastructure. And so I think it would be a mistake. 24 25 I get it. I get the idea that you feel like its zoning for sale. All development is any developer will tell you 26
the process is burdensome and costly and you either play the game or you don’t play the game and the 27
game is expensive. And whether or not there’s an actual price tag listed or whether that price is sort of 28
hidden is I think irrelevant, right? Because at the end of the day you’ve got to spend the legwork to 29
convince the community that this project makes sense and I think if the if we can if someone 30
demonstrates that the project makes sense then they will have convinced you that maybe that monetary 31
and extrinsic benefit justifies they still have to make that convincing argument. So it’s not as if you don’t 32
get to still weigh it. That’s sort of my opinion. 33
34
Chair Tanaka: Ok, any other opinions about this? Yeah, so if you’re in agreement with the person who 35 proposed this, in this case Commissioner Downing who says it should be intrinsic, ok? Which was 36 countered by Commissioner Alcheck; if you agree with Commissioner Downing don’t have to say 37 anything. If you disagree as Commissioner Alcheck did, say something. 38 39
Commissioner Downing: Can I add one more point if that’s alright? So one more point I’d make is I 40
definitely understand that there’s a lot of infrastructure projects that need to get funded in the City and 41
we definitely could use that money, but I’ll posit two things about this. So first of all if that’s important to 42
us then we can always increase our development fees and the upside of doing that is you’re treating 43
everyone fairly. Bob and Eric who come and propose the same thing should get the same result and you 44
do get that under development fees. You don’t get them, necessarily get that under PC. The other thing 45
is that if we have a list of projects that we want to get done we the City should be the ones who prioritize 46
which of those is most important instead of letting the developer essentially prioritize it for us. And I 47
think that’s the difficulty you get into when you rely on PC zoning as a way of building up your 48
infrastructure. 49
50 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 51 52 Commissioner Gardias: So quick, quick vote in the interest of extrinsic. Shall I argue why I have this 53 preference or not? I mean (interrupted) 54
55
Chair Tanaka: Only if you have different arguments than (interrupted) 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 24
1
Commissioner Gardias: No, I think that’s my perspective, thank you. 2
3
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Any other comments? Commissioner, Vice-Chair Fine. 4
5
Vice-Chair Fine: Just a quick question to staff. Do we have any idea how many this is kind of related to 6
the extrinsic value and monetary in kind donations. Do we have any idea of the hundreds of projects 7 that have gone through PC how many have opted to go that route if they’re making a donation to 8 another fund or some project outside of their property? 9 10 Ms. Hernandez: There really isn’t. It’s a mix. Some projects have monetary contribution and some other 11
type of benefit like an open plaza or a BMR, 1.5 more BMR than is required. So there is no real pattern in 12
the benefits. 13
14
Vice-Chair Fine: Sorry, do you have any idea of the proportion that are making an in kind contribution? 15
16
Mr. Hernandez: No. 17
18
Vice-Chair Fine: Ok. 19
20
Chair Tanaka: Ok seeing no other lights I’m going to give my opinion. So I think that the City certainly 21
does have an infrastructure shortfall. This is certainly one way to help for that, but I don’t think that’s 22 the reason why it should be extrinsic. But I heard what my fellow Commissioners said in terms of 23 Commissioner Alcheck said and I think I largely agree with that. I think ideally it should be intrinsic. I 24 think ideally, but that can’t always be the case and I think there could be a lot of good that could come 25 from a potentially extrinsic type of public benefit. So that’s, that’s my opinion. 26
27
So and in this case I think in the system we kind of know what, where the votes are, right? We have 28
three people who, well one person who proposed it, Downing, plus two who didn’t comment against it 29
and then three who commented against it. So we have a split. We have a tie here just actually on this 30
particular item. So, so… 31
32
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m curious to know if you wouldn’t mind assessing whether or not a combination 33
of the both, of the two would be also unappealing to the individuals who support strictly intrinsic benefits. 34
35 Chair Tanaka: Yeah, I actually think that’s kind of what I think anyone that talks about extrinsic and I 36 don’t think we’re saying at least for me what I’m thinking is not that it can only be extrinsic, cannot be 37 intrinsic. I think everyone here would probably agree that intrinsic is good, right? And generally if it can 38 be intrinsic that’s great, but I think what Commissioner Downing is saying is it should only be intrinsic, it 39
should not be extrinsic. 40
41
Commissioner Downing: Well, I think that at least some portion of it has to be intrinsic. That’s what I’m 42
saying. So if you want to add extrinsic to intrinsic, great, but I think that at least some portion of it 43
should be intrinsic; some portion of the PC why are you here has to be tied to the land and something 44
about the land that’s making you come there. 45
46
Chair Tanaka: Ok, let’s have Commissioner Rosenblum. Please. 47
48
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, just to answer that question I feel pretty strongly about this. I feel like 49
we don’t want to sell zoning and I know that it’s an attractive thing because everyone likes the money, 50 but I think it’s a very slippery slope. And so I feel like the project should be intrinsic. I would agree with 51 Commissioner Downing only to the extent that the intrinsic benefits already qualified for the PC zoning 52 burden of proof to be passed and if there is some additional extrinsic value then I think there’s no reason 53 to turn that down, but that it’s not some formula of this intrinsic value is not quite enough but then 54
there’s a payment of cash plus the funding of a bridge somewhere else and other considerations that 55
together equal the paying for the zoning exception. And I would also agree with Commissioner Downing 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 25
if we need the money through other ways and you budget it into the development fees. So at any rate I 1
don’t think my position on the intrinsic versus extrinsic in this case is fairly firmly held. I don’t, I think it’s 2
a dangerous road to go down. 3
4
Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 5
6
Vice-Chair Fine: I just kind of want to put this to everyone. Is it fair to say some moderation of our 7 opinions is that we might be value the extrinsic benefits differently in one of the later topics which is the 8 economic analysis? I mean we’re all happy if there are extrinsic benefits, but in the economic analysis of 9 the public benefit we just consider those that are intrinsic to the property? I just want to put that out 10 there. 11
12
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 13
14
Commissioner Alcheck: So you know look I also feel very strongly about this. You build a plaza or a park 15
in a residential neighborhood as your public benefit for some sort of plaza that you build that’s going to 16
immediately improve the vicinity around and we’re going to get to vicinity in a minute, but that does very 17
little for the community at large. Your extrinsic, your monetary in lieu payment would improve the entire 18
community. So again, I would abandon this notion that it’s zoning for sale. What it is is creating an 19
opportunity for exceptional enhancements of our community. And frankly I’m going to use past 20
definitions public little plazas are public benefits in past examples and frankly I don’t think residents 21
across town are going to feel the same way about that and they may say it seem inequitable that certain 22 neighborhoods seem to benefit from public benefits and ours doesn’t whereas everybody would benefit 23 from an enhanced security building. Again, I think a big part of this is also the notion that certain parts 24 of our town may be more suitable for taller buildings and I think that sort of redevelopment, that sort of 25 infill development should be encouraged and we should, we should create an incentive for the City to 26
accept it. So it is in theory you could argue it’s zoning for sale, but it’s also a way for us to encourage 27
our residents to maybe be more amenable to changes in our skyline. 28
29
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I think that we should move on became I think we have an impasse here. I think 30
we have we’re evenly split. People feel pretty entrenched to their opinions and I don’t think we’re going 31
to resolve it tonight. So let’s table this item. So let’s go to the next item, which is should the benefit be 32
broad or local? And this is proposed by Downing so Downing why don’t you give your opinion? 33
34
Commissioner Downing: So I hesitate about having this sort of requirement because of the few things 35 that are explicitly listed here as public benefits affordable housing is one of them and I don’t think any 36 local neighborhood would actually say that affordable housing is a benefit to them personally. The 37 reason is because they all have housing and they live there, right? So it’s not actually a benefit to them, 38 it’s a benefit to other members of our community who need affordable housing who may not live in that 39
community, but may live in other parts of our City. So I’m not, I don’t really like this restriction. I think 40
there’s lots of things that could be done, lots of things that could be created like if you have a dance 41
studio for example that’s a nonprofit or something (interrupted) 42
43
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Downing? 44
45
Commissioner Downing: Yeah? 46
47
Chair Tanaka: Can you help frame it for us in terms of what we, I see what maybe your point is, but I’m 48
not sure all the other Commissioners know, but can you just? 49
50 Commissioner Downing: Oh, I’m sorry. Sure. 51 52 Chair Tanaka: And also maybe for the members of the public can you just concisely say what your 53 opinion is that you want us to consider? 54
55
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 26
Commissioner Downing: Sorry. So specifically I’m looking at the definition of public benefit. It says the 1
first sentence it says “Public benefit means specific improvements or amenities for the local community or 2
neighborhood.” That’s the aspect that I’m speaking to and I’m saying that there are things which I think 3
would be very good for the City, but may not be a public benefit to the local community. Like I said 4
affordable housing is actually the perfect example because everyone in that local community is not taking 5
advantage of it. They already have housing. Likewise if you had a nonprofit dance studio for example 6
you would have kids coming from around the entire City and maybe no kids from that specific 7 neighborhood, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a benefit to the City. So I would ask for the removal of that 8 limitation. That’s what I’m positing. 9 10 Chair Tanaka: Ok. I can you say in one concise statement what precisely you’re proposing? 11
12
Commissioner Downing: I am proposing cutting the words “for the local community or neighborhood.” 13
14
Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. So let’s we’ll start with so the process is simply if you agree don’t need to say 15
anything. With, in this case it was proposed by Commissioner Downing and if you disagree press the 16
light. So we have Commissioner Gardias. 17
18
Commissioner Gardias: Well I toggled the switch for the prior item so you may either disregard it. I don’t 19
have any strong opinion. I would not know what the legal implication is. I think it’s none so I’m 20
indifferent about this. Thank you. 21
22 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Chair if I could just chime in on that? I think that we used 23 that phrase to local community would mean overall Palo Alto as opposed to regional community and then 24 neighborhood we recognize that there could also be benefits that may not apply to the whole City, but 25 could just benefit the neighborhood. So maybe it’s just a question of redefining what a local community 26
is as opposed to striking the whole concept. 27
28
Commissioner Downing: Well I think that if you just got rid of those words “for the local community or 29
neighborhood” then it leaves it open ended, right? It’s a specific improvement or amenity period, right? 30
So at that point for the City, for the neighborhood, it doesn’t really matter. 31
32
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 33
34
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I would suggest potentially just swapping local community for Palo Alto. 35 And I want to just say that I understand that there will be the opposing view, which is to say that the 36 local neighborhood bears the brunt of the negative impact and they don’t bear any of the benefit, but 37 again I think that adding local community or this and out I don’t think that it’s going to change the 38 evaluation. I think the evaluation will still evaluate those things. So I think this is a good change, but I 39
wouldn’t delete it I would just put Palo Alto or neighborhood because I think in certain situations it could 40
be either. 41
42
Chair Tanaka: Ok. I see no other lights. I think in general it seems like people agree with changing it to 43
Palo Alto. Ok, let’s go to the next item which is actually something that’s added by Commissioner 44
Rosenblum so which is (interrupted) 45
46
Mr. Lait: I’m sorry Chair just so, so I heard one comment about Palo Alto reference, but I heard five 47
others silent on the idea of striking local community or neighborhood from the definition. 48
49
Chair Tanaka: Yeah, so I guess we should do this more in public. So ok so (interrupted) 50 51 Commissioner Downing: I accept Commissioner Alcheck’s idea of making the language read 52 “improvements or amenities for Palo Alto or the neighborhood.” And then I think we are in consensus. 53 54
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 27
Chair Tanaka: Let’s move to the third sub item which is a menu of items. And this is actually proposed 1
by Commissioner Rosenblum. So Commissioner Rosenblum why don’t you propose your precise idea and 2
get people’s opinion? 3
4
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I don’t have the precise language on this. I apologize in advance, but 5
I’ll lay out the theory and then maybe we can come up with the precise language. I think that PC zoning 6
again should be used very rarely, which it is. So that’s good. By its nature it goes against existing zoning 7 codes and so it should be used with a lot of deliberation. And the specific items I think in Palo Alto are 8 hard to get through because of the nature of Palo Alto does have to do with BMR or some elder care 9 which is been what it has been used for in the last decade. So if you look at why PC zoning is being used 10 and why people are leery of cutting this off it’s because it’s been done to promote a benefit that’s very 11
difficult to do otherwise. And so the item about should there be a menu or not I don’t think there should 12
be a menu, but I think that it should be stated there is a strong preference for a couple of uses and those 13
uses should be things that otherwise could not be feasibly built. And I think that there should be a 14
preference or Council should come up with a list of the priorities they have for the City. I think they have 15
to include greater economic diversity and care for our increasingly elderly residency. So. 16
17
Chair Tanaka: Ok so the proposal is no menu but some sort of strong preference. Anyone that disagrees 18
press the button for light. Ok, so I’ll make a comment on this. I actually feel more about a no menu 19
because I think by nature this is an exception. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a PC. So I think having a menu 20
is kind of a tough thing because if we wanted something we would have put it in the zoning code. It 21
wouldn’t be an exception. So that’s my opinion. Commissioner Alcheck. 22 23 Commissioner Alcheck: I support that comment. 24 25 Chair Tanaka: Um. 26
27
Commissioner Downing: So I support that comment, I agree that there should be no menu; however, I 28
would encourage you to perhaps take advantage of the language that is here. So the language that says 29
“public benefits shall include” so this doesn’t mean that we were listing everything here, but it means that 30
we’re giving some ideas. And I support the two things that Commissioner Rosenblum put forward and I 31
would put forward two more of my own, which is that we have a certain mix of land uses that we think 32
are good and make sense for this community. And for instance right now we’re looking to encourage 33
retail. So if a PC zone can be used to save a local market that’s been there forever that might make 34
sense especially because it’s harder for us to retain retail now given the economic market, right? 35 Similarly things which encourage housing, which is another thing that we’re missing in Palo Alto could be 36 on this list in general, not just affordable housing, but housing of things that we’re willing to make PCs 37 for more often. So I think this list of what it includes could be broadened. 38 39
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so just to be clear are you saying you are in favor of having a list as recommended by 40
Commissioner Rosenblum or you’re more in the camp of no menu? 41
42
Commissioner Downing: Everybody here says no menu. I don’t think anyone has said menu. Did you 43
say menu? 44
45
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, so I don’t want a menu, but I’m asking for a much stronger language. 46
So I don’t like “shall include” as examples. I’m saying specifically that I would like Council to have strong 47
preference for uses that are very difficult for us to achieve in Palo Alto otherwise. I recognize by nature 48
they’re all exceptions, but I’m saying that many things so for example electronic vehicle, Electric Vehicle 49
(EV) charging station I think that we as a public benefit that is something that could be provided to other 50 means. There are some things that just economically are hard to exist in Palo Alto and those are the 51 reasons that I would be most supportive of continuing the PC zoning and to put those as a strong 52 preference not just a list of examples. 53 54
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 28
Commissioner Downing: But how do you propose actually adding that to this ordinance? Because the 1
including language that’s the tool I’m offering you is to say including things which, which are whatever it 2
is that… 3
4
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, so I would suggest I mean we can do it now, but I would suggest that 5
Council have their priorities that are actually listed. Say preferred uses. 6
7 Ms. Silver: Through the Chair, maybe I can help on this one. We did spend a lot of time on the staff level 8 talking about this menu issue and one of the thoughts that we had was that this list is something that’s 9 obviously subject to change over time and so what we thought would be a good process to do that was 10 to have a resolution that would be updated on an annual basis or something like that to reflect change in 11
Council priority. So that was the mechanism that we were proposing. 12
13
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I wanted to get back to light system so if everyone has something to say press the 14
light just so that we give people equal time. So we’re going to go to Commissioner Gardias. 15
16
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. So it’s in regards to the menu. I in the past 17
I supported menu because I thought that there was some reason, but of course you can I can recognize 18
argument against menu because it will bring more work, but I would agree with Commissioner 19
Rosenblum about preferences. And I think that there could be either Council or public preference for 20
certain projects as opposed to developer’s projects. So either resolution would fit my perspective. 21
There, if there is a menu I think it would serve its purpose, but of course it would mean more work. But 22 if there is some other mechanism to make sure that benefit is per Council and public preference that 23 there should be a language specifically stating this in this, in the zoning to make sure that pretty much 24 that this is that it’s public priority first; if there is none that could be developer’s proposal. 25 26
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I would like to just make sure I just so it’s clearly for staff. So Commissioner 27
Downing did you support the menu or strong preferences? I wasn’t clear on your opinion here. 28
29
Commissioner Downing: I support striking the last sentence of the definition of public benefit, which says 30
“from time to time the City Council may adopt by resolution a menu.” I think a menu is not a good idea. 31
I think a list of examples is a better idea so that we’re still open to things that are not on the menu 32
because the whole point of this is to have a process for exceptions and if we could think of all the 33
exceptions ahead of time we wouldn’t need a process for exceptions. 34
35 Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. Commissioner Alcheck. 36 37 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I don’t I’m not vehemently opposed to the notion of being more specific, 38 but it’s electric stations now and it’s hydrogen stations in three years. That’s my inherent issue with 39
getting too specific. And I think we should sort of step back for a minute. We’ve just, we went over 40
earlier a process which required like multiple prescreening meetings. I mean the notion that anybody 41
would just like bring a project to the end line and have some public benefit that is completely 42
unappealing to City Council it doesn’t seem likely. And I think that staff and the prescreening process 43
would probably be sufficient to gauge whether the Council is willing to accept the public benefit 44
suggested that I don’t if you want to say shall include air quality improvements to our local affordable 45
housing I don’t know if encouraging technological innovation would be appropriate because it’s just so 46
anyway my point is I wonder if this were overthinking it? Because by getting really specific you’re going 47
to scare away I mean I don’t know the process is so segmented that they’ll probably get eliminated 48
unappealing public benefits before they’re even mentioned to the City Council meeting. 49
50 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 51 52 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, so I just wanted to make I think that I could make this more specific. 53 What I’m proposing is that we give guidance to Council that there’s a framework for putting their strong 54
preference that I’m proposing that that strong preference are for items that are otherwise difficult to 55
achieve in the economic climate of Palo Alto, which so for example public benefits have included certain 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 29
public meeting spaces or electronic EV charging stations included donation to nonprofits for workspace. 1
I’m arguing that those things would be put under more difficult scrutiny because there are other options 2
whereas certain things like again certain kinds of senior homes or BMR housing are very difficult to 3
achieve otherwise. And so I’m suggesting that we give guidance to Council saying we don’t think there 4
should be a menu, but here’s how we would think about structuring preferences. 5
6
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so here’s where I think we are on this. I think we have kind of like three people who 7 are saying no menu and three because Vice-Chair didn’t say anything that agree with the proposed 8 approach from Commissioner Rosenblum. So let’s leave it at that. I think that’s another one where I 9 think there’s a bit of an impasse although I don’t think people feel quite as strong about it, but it’s a bit 10 of an impasse. 11
12
Let’s go to the fourth sub item, which is monetary. We kind of talked a little bit about it in terms of 13
intrinsic versus extrinsic, but can Commissioner Alcheck please frame that up in a precise proposal? No, 14
we’re talking about the, we’re talking about the nature of a public benefit and monetary. So we talked a 15
little bit about it, maybe it’s a redundant because I think we’ve already shown it to be an impasse. Ok, 16
so let’s table that then. Ok. 17
18
Ok, so let’s go to the next item that came up, which was enforcement. So this one is a bit fuzzy; I think 19
there’s one which was should enforcement be forever? Like so I’ll let rather than try to rephrase it I’ll let 20
Commissioner Alcheck put the proposal about enforcement on the table. 21
22 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I didn’t, I think there’s a some confusion here. I actually didn’t comment 23 on whether enforcement should be forever or not. I think there’s a I didn’t get to that, but I did talk 24 about the idea that requiring developers of certain parcels or owners of certain parcels to continually 25 contribute to a fund to monitor their compliance seemed a little overly burdensome. A good example and 26
maybe potentially redundant so for example if in the example of affordable housing the affordable 27
housing units in theory would have a timeline if not indefinite, I don’t know what is it? Last time we 28
talked about this it was like 60 years, 50, whatever it is. Fifty? Fifty years. So those legal requirements 29
are so embedded in it that would enforcement really be necessary? So this I appreciate that this is a 30
draft, this is a stab at trying to figure out like how will they budget for it, I’m a little concerned that we’re 31
going to be asking the projects that are again like Commissioner Rosenblum so difficult to develop and 32
obtain in this market to take on another burden and I’m concerned with that. So… 33
34
Chair Tanaka: I think we got it. So basically the same process; if you disagree hit your light. If you 35 agree you don’t have to say anything. Vice-Chair. 36 37 Vice-Chair Fine: Thank you Mr. Chairman. So I thought some of the language in the enforcement and 38 monitoring section on Page 11 was a little weak. It says “The agreement shall contain a monitoring and 39
enforcement plan.” Well, we’re the Planning Commission, what’s in that plan? What about the frequency 40
of enforcement, what happens if it’s out of compliance? I just I’m also not sure about whether it’s 41
indefinite or the funding, but I just want to add that I think there should be something to that Section B 42
there about what is in the monitoring and enforcement plan. 43
44
Chair Tanaka: Just to clarify so do you agree with the proposed statement or not? 45
46
Vice-Chair Fine: Commissioner Alcheck can you restate it very briefly? Sorry. 47
48
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I would eliminate the portion of Section B that requires the property owner 49
to establish and maintain a fund; staff used the word escrow fund. My concern is that that would be too 50 burdensome on some of the owners or operators or developers. 51 52 Vice-Chair Fine: Thank you. I’m sorry I actually disagree with that position although I’m not sure it has 53 to be annual. 54
55
Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. So let’s have Commissioner Gardias. 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 30
1
Commissioner Gardias: So I will restate my position which is pretty much that I would eliminate the 2
monitoring and any enforcement whatsoever and structure the contract this way that pretty much the 3
property or the goods are changing hands to the owner that’s going to continue carrying them for 4
perpetuity and the contract ends at this time. And of course right those are the same reasons that 5
caused confusion, right? It would be on both sides on the developer’s side we just going to pass it on to 6
the public, right, will cost City more and so forth, right? 7 8 Chair Tanaka: Ok, to me it sounds like you are largely agreeing with Commissioner Alcheck then. Is that 9 correct? 10 11
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, but I would even go farther. 12
13
Chair Tanaka: Ok, ok. Ok, great. Commissioner let’s see, who was first? Commissioner Downing I think 14
you were first. 15
16
Commissioner Downing: So I support enforcement by complaint. So if someone complains then we 17
enforce. I don’t support going out and hunting these things down or having someone do this as a full 18
time job. I don’t think that’s a really good use of our resources. I also don’t support the property owner 19
establishing and maintaining a fund because what happens when that property owner changes? Where 20
does that go, right? I would prefer an upfront fee that is set at the discretion of Council when they 21
approve the PC. This fund sounds onerous and a really hard thing to track. 22 23 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner oh, so just to summarize so Commissioner Downing sounds like you largely 24 agree with Alcheck’s proposal. Ok. Commissioner Rosenblum. 25 26
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I now agree with Commissioner Downing. It is close to what 27
Commissioner Alcheck is proposing. The key difference to me is I do think there needs to be a fund put 28
up front for all projects even though we’re talking about like difficult to fund projects, but part of the 29
project funding needs to be something for enforcement. I do agree that keeping escrow in perpetuity for 30
the project is onerous. That should just be part of the fund that goes to the City for their occasional 31
check and I agree with Commissioner Downing that it should be on request and not a continuously 32
monitored process. 33
34
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I think on this item the Commission largely agrees with Alcheck’s proposal. Ok, 35 great. So let’s move on to the next item, which is let’s see… is actually Commissioner Gardias, which is 36 about identifying geographical location restrictions. Do you want to talk about your proposal? 37 38 Commissioner Gardias: Sure. So the purpose of this is that of course there would be some 39
Comprehensive Plan that would be addressing certain areas of growth, right? So, but in some zoning 40
areas or some other geographical areas Downtown along El Camino we would we should allow this PC 41
zones to be executed because we understand there could be further growth later on in those areas, right, 42
as opposed to residential areas for example, right? Which we don’t want to start putting five stories or 43
seven stories building. So, so this would just serve the purpose of Mr. Moss’ memo he handed out to us 44
that he, we would pretty much screen certain areas and this way we would avoid travel because it would 45
be black and white and then residents would know where we, they may expect PC zone to pop up, right? 46
It would not be their neighborhood if they don’t agree with it, but then also we will be able just to focus 47
on certain areas where we truly believe that there would be continuing planning and economic interest. 48
49
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I think your proposal is simply yes there should be some geographic restrictions on 50 where PCs can be. Ok, so folks that disagree with that should hit the lights. Let’s have Commissioner 51 Downing. 52 53 Commissioner Downing: I disagree with that. I don’t think, the whole point of PC zoning is to have 54
exceptions and now you’re cutting down the places where we can have exceptions. You’re essentially 55
freezing the zoning in place in perpetuity for a certain number of places and I disagree with you and my 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 31
number one example of my disagreement is that there are probably tons of neighborhoods that would die 1
to have a little deli down the street. Small, doesn’t attract a ton of people, really just serves its local 2
neighborhood, but would defiantly not be within the zoning of that neighborhood and yet I could totally 3
see neighborhoods wanting that. Because that’s a perfect example and those R-1 neighborhoods are 4
probably the first ones you would go to to say oh, there can never be a PC here. 5
6
Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 7 8 Vice-Chair: I also want to disagree with the geographic restrictions. I think PC zoning in many ways is 9 the release valve that is hopefully well controlled by Council and our Commission, but I don’t believe it 10 should have geographic restrictions. 11
12
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 13
14
Commissioner Rosenblum: I also disagree for the same reason. 15
16
Chair Tanaka: I also disagree. So I think overall the Commission disagree, sorry. 17
18
Commissioner Alcheck: I forget I have to something to be counted. I share the view that the geographic 19
limitation is unnecessary. 20
21
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so there you have it. Ok let’s go on to the next item. The next item is 50 foot height 22 limit. So Commissioner Alcheck why don’t you frame that up? 23 24 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, this will be Page 8 of the attached resolution, ordinance or whatever. So 25 let’s, let me just clarify with staff. Is, am I correct that Section C of 18.38.110 would restrict any PC from 26
exceeding 50 feet? 27
28
Mr. Lait: So you’re on Page 8 and… 29
30
Commissioner Alcheck: It’s Page 16 of the 250 page packet, Page 8 of the ordinance. And it’s the small 31
letter C and it’s the last line of that letter. 32
33
Mr. Lait: So it’s actually on Page 8 and 10. And I was looking at Page 10 before so if you can just give 34
me a second on Page 8. 35 36 Ms. Silver: So while Jonathan’s looking at that the language on the 50 foot height requirement appears in 37 two places, one on Page 8 and then also on Page 10. On Page 10 it’s limited to certain areas and 38 interestingly we have not adjusted those two provisions. So in (interrupted) 39
40
Commissioner Alcheck: What section on Page 10 just so I can find it? 41
42
Ms. Silver: Section 18.38.150(b). And in that case there is a 50 foot height limit only when (interrupted) 43
44
Commissioner Alcheck: That’s actually a varied height limit, right? Thirty-five when it’s near R-1, R-2 and 45
then fifty when you’re near RM 4 and 5. 46
47
Ms. Silver: Yes. 48
49
Commissioner Alcheck: It’s like a conditional height limit? 50 51 Ms. Silver: Yes. 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: I can address both, but I just want to make sure is so are you suggesting that the 54
initial inclusion of that limit is unintentional? 55
56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 32
Ms. Silver: No, I’m (interrupted) 1
2
Commissioner Alcheck: The one on Page 8 is much more (interrupted) 3
4
Ms. Silver: Broad. 5
6
Commissioner Alcheck: Applies to all zones. 7 8 Ms. Silver: Exactly. And I do believe that that has been an embedded policy with respect to the PC zone 9 for quite some time. And I think for the most part it has been fought (interrupted) 10 11
Commissioner Alcheck: I guess the question is I’m reading it right? Ok. Alright, so then my… should I 12
continue? Yeah, so what I’m suggesting here is that we eliminate that limitation that PCs should be 13
permitted to make the case for exceeding even the height limit. And actually let me just be a little more 14
specific. I would also suggest that the Section 10 be adjusted so that the special requirements would not 15
be more onerous then the existing requirements meaning that if (interrupted) 16
17
Chair Tanaka: Oh, hold on. We actually have a (interrupted) 18
19
Commissioner Alcheck: Is that a separate? Ok. 20
21
Chair Tanaka: Yes. 22 23 Commissioner Alcheck: So then I just the, I would eliminate that section. 24 25 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so Commissioner Alcheck’s proposal is simply not to have a 50 foot height limit on the 26
PC. So (interrupted) 27
28
Mr. Lait: Chair, could I clarify? So Commissioner would you retain the 50 foot limitation in the other 29
section? 30
31
Commissioner Alcheck: I think we’re going to get to that in a separate topic. So for now it’s just whether 32
or not there should be a 50 foot restriction broadly applied to all PC projects. 33
34
Mr. Lait: Ok, so Sections 18.38.110 on Page 8 is what we’re talking about? 35 36 Commissioner Alcheck: That last line of that C section. 37 38 Mr. Lait: Thank you. 39
40
Commissioner Alcheck: I would eliminate that line. 41
42
Chair Tanaka: Ok, same process. If you agree you don’t have to say anything; if you disagree or even 43
want to expound some comment that hasn’t been or some idea that hasn’t been said before than press 44
your light. So we’re going to start off with Commissioner Downing. 45
46
Commissioner Downing: Just a really quick question. So I do remember the former Mayor talking about 47
the theatre of the local high school being more than 50 feet. If this has always been the case how did 48
that happen? What was the mechanism for that? 49
50 Mr. Lait: We just have to look at that. 51 52 Ms. Silver: I think it’s been an overall policy and there may have been exceptions, but I think that the 53 community as part of this overall PC reform initiative has wanted to get back to the original intent behind 54
the ordinance. 55
56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 33
Mr. Lait: So, so that’s to suggest that prior PCs could have amended this section, is that? 1
2
Ms. Silver: Yes. 3
4
Mr. Lait: Ok. Because PC zoning is an ordinance to change the underlying zoning. So. 5
6
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I since Commissioner Downing didn’t say anything against it I assume she’s 7 supporting no height, no 50 foot height limit. This could I have Commissioner Gardias? 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: So I have a little bit different perspective on this, which I would like to sell to you. 10 So I understand the reason why my colleague may want to just waive this requirement and I would be 11
fine either to keep it or to or to remove it as he suggested, but I think it should be considered in the 12
conjunction with the with this item that we have on issues not addressed pretty much on the cap of the 13
degree of variation from underlying zoning district standards. So in the past we talk about this and I 14
think that there was some agreement from my colleagues although I spoke about this that more larger 15
build up should be more costly incrementally. So this would if we put this in the language and maybe it’s 16
your intent of this discussion on this slide then it would address this going over 50 limit height. So I 17
would agree on the comment that Commissioner Alcheck said giving that we will have incrementally, 18
incremental cost of on the PC zone. So more do they go beyond the limits then cost more costly it 19
becomes. 20
21
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so it’s not a disagreement just a variation to what Commissioner Alcheck said then. 22 Ok. 23 24 Commissioner Gardias: Correct. 25 26
Chair Tanaka: Ok, I see no lights on this so I assume that means that in general Commission agrees with 27
Alcheck’s opinion. Ok, so yeah, actually I was going to recommend that. So let me just kind of count the 28
number of items we have left. We have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. Ok, we 29
have ten items left. So I think we should take a break and then when we get back together we should I 30
think because there’s one that there’s one item which is a very important one the intrinsic versus extrinsic 31
we have an impasse on I think by default we’re going to have to probably continue this because we have 32
an impasse. We need one more, we need odd membership here. So but we can still make more 33
headway tonight. So maybe we all take a five minute break so come back here at 8:43 and then maybe 34
we plow through a few more items and then we might have to continue this item. Ok. 35 36
The Commission took a break 37 38 Chair Tanaka: Ok, I want to call the meeting back to order. We have 10 items left on our list and it’s 39
8:47. I think the rules say that we have to kind of agree that we’re going to keep going. I think the 40
advantage of keep going is we could give clearer direction to staff. There’s a few items that we have an 41
impasse on which have to wait for when we have odd membership. So that’s the advantage. The 42
disadvantage of course is that we’re all here later. So maybe can I get a quick indication from like the 43
folks of keep going or should we like leave early? What do you guys? Ok, I see some nods of keep 44
going. Ok, we’re going to keep going then. 45
46
Ok, so let’s talk about the next item then. So the next item is from Commissioner Alcheck which is about 47
whether it makes sense for this to have well, actually Commissioner Alcheck why don’t you talk about the 48
motives to zoning clarify height limit, but basically I think it’s the idea of you had some idea of whether 49
this thing should be more restrictive than the underlying zoning. So why don’t you talk about your 50 proposal? 51 52 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok so again this stems from that idea that you might be a commercial lot 53 bordering an R-1 lot and there are certain restrictions on the development. The whatever the zoning 54
restrictions are and the real question here is whether the suggested changes here are actually more 55
restrictive than what it would be available to somebody who developed in accordance with the zoning. 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 34
So what I would suggest is that we add a section, that we add under the opening paragraph or 1
somewhere I’ll leave this to staff, but we add a modifier here which essentially states that these special 2
requirements apply unless existing zoning is less restrictive or something to that effect that these 3
restrictions would not further restrict a development that would otherwise be possible under the current 4
zoning. So for example if the commercial height limit is 50 feet and the individual was going to develop 5
something under current zoning and then they decided to try PC and now they’re limited to 35 feet 6
because they’re next to an R-1 that doesn’t make any sense. So a modifier that would not, that would 7 curtail these limitations if the zoning currently in place is not as restrictive and then I’m also I would also 8 eliminate this 150 foot component. So it’s the sharing a lot line and also I would eliminate the where is 9 that? 10 11
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck do you want to just keep it more broad and staff could figure out 12
the details in terms of (interrupted) 13
14
Commissioner Alcheck: It doesn’t make sense to me that if someone applied for a PC zone on a 15
commercial lot that they would be able to do less than they would have otherwise been able to do on a 16
commercial lot. 17
18
Chair Tanaka: Ok, perfect. 19
20
Commissioner Alcheck: That’s the comment. Sorry. 21
22 Chair Tanaka: That’s Commissioner Alcheck’s proposal. PC should not be more restrictive then the 23 underlying zoning on the lot. Ok. So same process here; if you agree you don’t have to say anything, if 24 you disagree hit the light or if you have some comment you want to make on it hit the light. Ok, seeing 25 no lights I think we all agree. Ok, let’s move to the next item. Ok, so the next item is also Commissioner 26
Alcheck’s which is the topic of economic analysis. Commissioner Alcheck can you speak to that item and 27
talk about your proposal? 28
29
Commissioner Alcheck: I think that I would rather not take up any more time. I think everybody 30
understands that if someone has some enlightened way of explaining to me how they think that this 31
would actually affect a project it would impress me, but I’m really convinced that the equation that 32
matters is not how much a developer may or may not make, it’s how burdensome the effects are versus 33
how great the benefit is and it’s really difficult to measure a benefit and it’s really difficult to measure an 34
impact. I think that the money is going to cloud the judgment. I would suggest eliminating that 35 requirement. That is from the general, this I would just highlight that up there issue the public benefit 36 and the second bullet point is require an economic analysis I would suggest eliminating that requirement 37 from the solution and I don’t think it’s a specific page. 38 39
Chair Tanaka: So Commissioner Alcheck’s proposal is that we eliminate the necessity of an economic 40
analysis. Same process, if you agree don’t say anything. If you disagree or have a comment hit the 41
light. Commissioner Downing. 42
43
Commissioner Downing: So I agree that there is no surefire analysis that’s going to give us an answer 44
and I agree for, I agree for the exact same reasons that Commissioner Alcheck is saying. Not everything 45
is just about comparing the extra square footage and then the value of the benefit. There are some 46
values of benefits that can’t really be compared because they simply would not be possible, would not 47
happen in this universe without a PC. So I think it’s really hard to make that kind of comparison and I 48
think a perfect example of that is what’s the value of saving a retailer that’s been here for 50 years, 49
right? That value is not really measureable. It’s not really about that retailer’s revenues; it’s about how 50 the community feels about that retailer being able to stay in its location. So there’s no really good 51 monetary analysis around that. I agree with that; however, I think it is useful to at least know the 52 market value of the thing that you are allowing. So if you’re allowing an extra floor or two floors or 53 whatever it is, it’s always useful to know how much that’s worth to you even if you don’t apply a specific 54
formula. Even if it’s just something to keep in your back pocket to give you context. 55
56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 35
Chair Tanaka: Ok so one person disagreeing. Vice-Chair. 1
2
Vice-Chair Fine: I’m going to concur with Commissioner Downing. I do think a lot of these things are 3
hard to value especially the example she just gave and I admit Commissioner Alcheck that some of these 4
burdensome effects are terribly hard to evaluate. I still think it’s helpful and it is somewhat incumbent 5
upon the developer to try and value what these are first the public benefit actually is the other portion I 6
would add in terms of how much they might be spending for the public benefit they are providing and 7 what the market value of the private benefit that they’re receiving. I think it’s just incumbent upon them 8 and helpful for the community at least as we move forward we can see what the value of these are. 9 10 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 11
12
Commissioner Gardias: I believe we should have economic analysis for all the projects that are coming to 13
this Commission. 14
15
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 16
17
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I actually agreed with Commissioner Alcheck until Vice-Chair Fine and 18
now Gardias. I think they’re basically right that projects need economic analysis to be put in front of the 19
Commission. Some that will not be inherent economically beneficial then that would be considered at the 20
time of that proposal, but now that I think about it relaxing our requirement altogether would be a 21
disservice. 22 23 Chair Tanaka: I was also like Rosenblum. I was actually thinking we should eliminate it, but I’m 24 convinced the other way now. So I think in general the Commission thinks that the economic analysis 25 should stay. 26
27
So the next item is Commissioner Downing, which is should there be a nexus to local, to the local area? 28
So Commissioner Downing if you have a proposal? 29
30
Commissioner Downing: I think we already went through that one. 31
32
Chair Tanaka: Ok, then we’re done on that one. Let’s see, oh, another one from Commissioner Alcheck, 33
which is Page 3(b) affordable housing. 34
35 Commissioner Alcheck: Sorry. So this is another inquiry for staff. Am I reading this correctly that 36 projects seeking to obtain a density a residential density bonus or zoning concession would not be able to 37 use the PC process and then I guess more specifically does that mean Maybell would have not been a 38 qualifiable PC project? 39
40
Ms. Silver: So let’s see, PCs I think that the thinking behind this overall comment or provision was we had 41
received some comments from the community that developers should not be able to double dip by 42
getting a density bonus advantage as well as concessions through the density bonus law and then also 43
get additional concessions through the public, through the PC process. So that was the reasoning behind 44
this particular provision. 45
46
With respect to Maybell I can’t, it was a PC and I can’t recall whether they were also taking advantage of 47
the density bonus. I think they were just doing a PC without a density bonus. And it’s really not 48
necessary to get the to do a density bonus if you have a PC so assuming that Maybell didn’t have a 49
density bonus it was able to proceed with the concessions that were given as part of the PC process. 50 51 Mr. Lait: And the only other thing I would add is that in addition to that in our zoning code in the state 52 density bonus section of our zoning code there’s the very explicit restriction that says such projects shall 53 not be permitted to take advantage of the PC zone district. So we have another section of our code 54
that’s also reflecting that policy. 55
56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 36
Commissioner Alcheck: So my follow up is I need to ask you a follow up question. Can you give me an 1
example of a project that just a hypothetical that you received feedback that people didn’t like this 2
concept of double dipping. Can you give me an example of what they were afraid of? Hypothetical or 3
real. 4
5
Mr. Lait: I don’t know of a specific case where that was in effect. I think it’s in the establishment of 6
regulations the City adopted the state density bonus ordinance locally about a year ago and so January 7 2014 is when we adopted the local state density bonus standards. So it presumably was part of the 8 dialogue that was going on at the time. 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: Alright well (interrupted) 11
12
Mr. Lait: But I mean (interrupted) 13
14
Commissioner Alcheck: Adopting the state bonus… the suggest, the state bonus standards wouldn’t have 15
touched upon the concept of PC zoning. So at some point we had this discussion where we said we’re 16
going to adopt these state bonus standards and oh, which I think we’re required to do and then we’re 17
going to restrict their use in a PC zone process and I’m trying to understand what whoever supported 18
that was worried about. And I look, I guess my point is I’m a staunch advocate of affordable housing 19
development, which has earned me the title of poster child of developers in this community. But I guess 20
I don’t know enough about the density bonus process and or I haven’t understood clearly what the 21
concern is and the red flag is are we suggesting that one less affordable housing unit would get 22 developed because a PC project couldn’t max out on some sort of residential density bonus as a result of 23 affordable housing so if that’s the case I would advocate for the elimination of Subsection D so that 24 projects that are seeking to enhance the number of affordable housing units in our community don’t have 25 as much opportunity as other projects through PC zoning. And again I also want to add like in theory it’s 26
not as if you get a PC zone approval and then after the fact you’re like and we’re throwing in an extra 27
unit. Ideally that whole project would be proposed and the evaluation it’s up front. It’s not as if 28
someone would sneak this in after the fact so the City would sort of have to get comfortable with I guess 29
what you’re referring to as double dipping and still approve the project. so I’m not sure, I guess what 30
I’m saying is Number 1 this scares me so I’d like to eliminate it and Number 2 it might be redundant so I 31
would like to eliminate it. But (interrupted) 32
33
Chair Tanaka: Ok, ok. So I think this is a bit of a technical question, right? So maybe if Cara can answer 34
this one because maybe we don’t even have to talk about it. Because maybe it may be superfluous, it 35 may be necessary so maybe can Cara talk about this item quickly? At least the proposal which is 36 eliminate Section D so that do not penalize for doing a below BMR or affordable housing, please? 37 38 Ms. Silver: You know in further thinking about this I believe where this came up was with a as we 39
discussed earlier there are certain limitations on a PC. You can’t have if it’s adjacent to a residential area 40
there’s a 35 foot height limit. So I think the concern was that the density bonus could be used to 41
override a limitation that had been established in the PC ordinance. And so that so the Council thought 42
that that was a form of double dipping by getting the PC ordinance but then by waiving the limitations of 43
the PC ordinance through concessions allowed through the density bonus program. Again this is really a 44
policy call and if you think that it’s needed in certain situations you could pass that recommendation on to 45
Council. 46
47
Commissioner Alcheck: Can I rephrase my comment then? In light of your comments what I would 48
suggest is I would encourage our City Council to enhance the opportunity for affordable housing projects 49
by reducing the roadblocks and potentially allowing exceptions to even our strictest restrictions in an 50 effort to enhance affordable housing in our community. And since this is a policy decision I think it might 51 make sense for the Commission to weigh in on it and for Council to just digest that whether we as a 52 group encourage it or are not supporting my encouragement of it. 53 54
Chair Tanaka: Ok, before we have a discussion on this proposal it’s kind of broad. I mean it’s almost 55
outside even the PC and so I don’t know whether this is the right… 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 37
1
Commissioner Alcheck: You want to stick with my idea of deleting that? 2
3
Chair Tanaka: Why don’t you, let’s do that. That’s more. 4
5
Commissioner Alcheck: So I don’t need to repeat it. 6
7 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so proposal here on the table with Commissioner Alcheck is eliminate Section D. So 8 we have three lights on so let’s start with Commissioner Downing. 9 10 Commissioner Downing: I just have a quick question. If an affordable housing project applies to the PC 11
for whatever reason gets denied through BPC is the path for BMR still open? Can you still go that way? 12
13
Mr. Lait: So BMR is a local program that we require for any housing development over five or more units. 14
And commercial? Not yet. We’re doing the and there’s the in lieu fee for the commercial. So that is 15
distinguished from a project that would be a qualifying state density bonus project. So projects are 16
subject to the BMR standard if they meet the local threshold. 17
18
Commissioner Downing: No, I’m not talking about the BMR restricting I’m talking about the density. The 19
bonus density you get. 20
21
Mr. Lait: So state dense, so you’re talking about the state density bonus law? That is the provision for 22 increased density that exists in our local ordinance. So I’m sorry if you can repeat the question? 23 24 Commissioner Downing: Ok, so if I’m trying if I have some sort of housing project and I’m trying to build 25 it bigger than the zoning requires I go through the PC process I get denied for whatever reason. Can I 26
still go back and follow the other path? 27
28
Mr. Lait: Yes. And with caveats (interrupted) 29
30
Commissioner Downing: And to that end I think what you were also trying to say is that with the state 31
density bonus law you would not necessarily be subject to the limitations like the 50 foot height limit 32
because you’re not subject to our Comp Plan. It’s state law. Right, this is what you were trying to say? 33
34
Mr. Lait: Yes. State density bonus project would qualify could request for height that exceeds our local 35 zoning and Comp Plan. The, those are not items on our menu of concessions and an applicant would 36 need to demonstrate that those concessions were needed for the project for the provision of providing 37 affordable housing for that development. It may not be an equal one to one; it may not be the same 38 project that one might be seeking through a PC zone as they might be then seeking through the state 39
density bonus project just depending on how they put that project together. 40
41
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I assume then Kate means she agrees? Ok. Let’s go on to Commissioner Gardias. 42
43
Commissioner Gardias: So I had the exact same worries about this paragraph and I had a conversation 44
with Mr. Lait when he phoned us before this meeting on Monday we talk about this, right? Because I 45
think this is a legal aspect that needs to be resolved so I would recommend that the action item is on 46
Cara’s side. We would probably need to have some sort of research because we got the projects of 47
course may be a composite or the public benefit may be a composite of various benefits plus affordable 48
housing. And then of course there is a question, right, when does the density bonus starts and when 49
does it start when does it stop? How, what sort of component of this planned zoning PC would be 50 related to the density bonus which not, right? We can envision that pretty much if we going to just wait 51 or just modify the requirements for the affordable housing we will go with some other benefits we can 52 just face litigation because somebody or some agency may claim that pretty much we didn’t provide 53 enough affordable housing that we were skewed by some other project benefits. So I think those are 54
real risks. My recommendation would be that we would ask our attorney just to conduct research and 55
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 38
then provide us with options what can be done here if they are those two applicable laws are in this 1
language or how we should be handling this. 2
3
Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 4
5
Vice-Chair: I also agree with Commissioner Gardias. I think we need some more clarification on this just 6
quickly reviewing the density bonus law at least as it’s locally applied. It looks like the City can grant 20 7 and 5 percent bonuses with certain affordable features, which to me almost sounds like its own kind of 8 PC thing within a certain building. You build us five affordable units and under these conditions and we’ll 9 give you 20 percent density bonus. If that’s how it works it does sound a little bit like double dipping to 10 me if that’s what in a PC project, which is somewhat problematic because I think the PC zoning itself 11
should be or the PC discussion itself should be discrete onto that project without separate laws, but I 12
leave it to you whether that’s how it works. 13
14
Chair Tanaka: Ok, I… sure. 15
16
Commissioner Alcheck: Here’s a hypothetical you have a project that’s trying to succeed through the 17
state density bonus options that would not there would not be an avenue for which that project could 18
succeed at exceeding the height limit in our town, right? Because we don’t allow that as a menu or we 19
restrict that as a menu item, right? 20
21
Mr. Lait: Yeah. 22 23 Commissioner Alcheck: I mean you could demonstrate some (interrupted) 24 25 Mr. Lait: Yes, but I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but we have we try to steer development towards a 26
certain set of concessions. 27
28
Commissioner Alcheck: So if you wanted a hypothetical you could think of a if someone brought a project 29
that exceeded the 50 foot height limit and also had enhanced density because of the bonus law they 30
theoretically would not be able to accomplish that because they wouldn’t have access to the PC process 31
although in theory they could try to fight for it, but it’s a highly unlikely is sort of the premise. So I guess 32
what I’m trying to say is no one’s going to sneak in a project that’s really unappealing like without us 33
being aware that there’s trying to accomplish all of these goals and the City Council will still be in a 34
position to say we don’t think this public benefit is worth these exceptions and I guess what I’m trying to 35 say is by eliminating D we’re giving us the opportunity to at least review that idea as opposed to not 36 being able to review the concept of “double dipping” to see if that really is a problem. And if we’ve never 37 had a project that double dipped then I don’t know if we can really assume that it’s a bad thing. And so 38 that’s the impetus for deleting it just so we’re clear. 39
40
Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. Commissioner Gardias. 41
42
Commissioner Gardias: I still think that some clarification would be needed regardless deletion, but there 43
needs to be clear distinction, right, when one applies or the other one does not. It may be a simple as 44
saying that Housing Element would be governed by the density, bonus density law and then everything 45
else would be a subject of PC. Maybe not. So for this reason I would again just ask Cara just to provide 46
us with some research and recommendations. Thank you. 47
48
Chair Tanaka: Seeing no other lights it looks like overall the Commission agrees with Commissioner 49
Alcheck on this item. So let’s go to the next item, which is ok it’s actually getting to ok there’s actually 50 one which is was recommended by one of our fellow Commissioners, Commissioner Gardias, which was 51 to remove extraneous; it’s a very broad one so I’ll have to have you precisely describe what your 52 proposal is, but it was basically to remove extraneous items from this ordinance. So why don’t you go 53 ahead. 54
55
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 39
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, of course I will do so. But I would like to just clarify this what was just said 1
in a moment I thought that my understanding was that the majority of the Commission was leaning 2
towards doing more research. 3
4
Chair Tanaka: No, because Alcheck spoke for it. Kate I think spoke for it. 5
6
Commissioner Downing: I spoke both. Taking it out and doing the research. 7 8 Chair Tanaka: Ok, well then sorry I misunderstood. So then Kate, Commissioner Downing, Fine, and 9 Gardias there are three so maybe it’s an impasse. I think myself and Commissioner Rosenblum didn’t say 10 anything so that means we supported it. So that’s it will be three-three then. It’s a split, split vote. 11
12
Commissioner Downing: I go both ways. I think we should strike it and I think we should do more 13
research. So I don’t know. They’re not mutually exclusive. 14
15
Ms. Silver: So I’m not understanding what, what was the additional research on? 16
17
Commissioner Gardias: I think that there is a risk and then regardless what we put in here, right, we 18
need to address the risk. So it’s like from the perspective of any risk can link we need to record it. We 19
need to just address it and we need to close it, right? So I would like to ask you just to if possible just to 20
look into this and advise us the best possible avenues how this should be handled. How those two laws 21
should be reconciled or our PC versus state bonus. 22 23 Ms. Silver: Ok, I see. That’s typically not I think that it really comes down to a policy issue. It’s your 24 able legally to draft it either way. You can have both laws apply or you can have both laws be mutually 25 exclusive. There’s no legal prohibition. It’s just a policy issue. 26
27
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Downing. 28
29
Commissioner Downing: Well I understand that it’s a policy choice, but I think we want information about 30
the effects of that policy choice, right? I think we’re having difficulty wrapping our mind around what 31
you can do with one avenue versus what you can do with the other avenue and when, when it is you’d 32
want to go down one or the other and what are the pros and cons of doing that, right? And when is that 33
situation occur that you would be double dipping and what would be the effects of that? Are those bad 34
or are those good, right? So those things we’re having difficulty parsing and I think I talked to Jonathan 35 about that at our pre-call as well. That’s what we’re looking for. So we get that you can write whatever 36 you want legally. We understand that, but it’s understanding why we would want that. That’s what we 37 need help with. 38 39
Mr. Lait: So that level of analysis is going to be highly dependent on parcel characteristics, project 40
incentives, what somebody’s trying to accomplish. I mean that’s a really complex analysis where we 41
would need to get a consultant onboard to assist us with that. I mean there’s just so many variables at 42
play. 43
44
Commissioner Downing: Ok, I mean in the absence of us being able to have that analysis I would rather 45
err on the side of being conservative and taking out the provision. 46
47
Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 48
49
Vice-Chair Fine: Just a quick question. Would the two be exclusive in discussions with the City? For 50 example if I’m the developer and I get my PC zoning through and then I suddenly can come back and 51 say oh, and doing the bonus, the density bonus and that would go ahead just as of right? 52 53 Mr. Lait: So, no it would go ahead as of right. A density bonus project what’s the standard on that, do 54
you know? Ok, so it has to go to the City Council also for a density bonus project. 55
56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 40
Vice-Chair Fine: Ok, so they would also be evaluated exclusive so I get my PC and then if I apply for the 1
density bonus that’s also evaluated in front of the City Council in a separate discussion? 2
3
Mr. Lait: Yes. 4
5
Ms. Hernandez: Well then you would be requesting an amendment to the PC, to your existing PC and 6
then have to go through (interrupted) 7 8 Vice-Chair Fine: And that would be considered in the discussions of the PC itself? 9 10 Ms. Hernandez: The PC when you adopt a PC you actually identify the uses that are permitted. 11
12
Vice-Chair Fine: Ok. 13
14
Ms. Hernandez: So if you come in here and request a change to that that’s an amendment to the PC and 15
you have to go through the process again. 16
17
Mr. Lait: And I guess just to carry your example a little bit further if you wanted to keep that entitlement 18
in place and then try to also get that state density bonus entitlement likely there would be some kind of 19
condition or restriction that would invalidate the previous approval or a revision or something to that 20
effect. 21
22 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so then it’s yeah, majority still favors Alcheck’s proposal. Ok, so let’s move to the next 23 item, which is removing extraneous items. So Gardias why don’t you give us a concrete proposal? 24 25 Commissioner Gardias: There is throughout this regulation there are some items that are not clearly 26
defined or they are subject of some future regulations. There is some discretionary items for the Director 27
of Planning. There are some submittals for the preliminary hearing. I would like to generally ask you 28
just to go through the entire verbiage, make sure there is nothing that is a subject of the future vague 29
resolution. The process should be clear, black and white for all of us. There should not be anything that 30
would be a subject of interpretation because on the developers side it costs unbelievable dollars and 31
would farther probably distract people from just doing concrete work about benefits as opposed to just 32
resolving some aspects that are not in here and a couple of items I already pointed out to you. I mean 33
first of all if you have a preliminary review we talk about, you talk about the application for PC district, 34
right? I would understand or just propose that this would be some sort of very lean application, that 35 there is not a full-fledged set of plans because otherwise it would be costly and then a variety of different 36 paragraphs throughout. 37 38 Chair Tanaka: So Commissioner Gardias, I think in general I think probably most people would agree that 39
we want less bureaucracy and more streamlined and I think, I don’t think anyone here would disagree 40
with that. But I think with your proposal though I think it’s I’m not sure it’s concrete enough for us to 41
actually deliberate on. So I don’t know if you can make it a little bit more rooted? 42
43
Vice-Chair Fine: So sorry, I totally echo that. I think the one that might be you thinking about this and 44
me as well is on Page 11 of the ordinance about recycling storage on the developments including 45
approved modifications shall have some area for enclosures for recycling storage. Doesn’t really seem 46
linked up to PC. That’s a separate issue. That’s letter F on Page 11. 47
48
Commissioner Gardias: I totally agree. I used this as an example, right? So we’ll leave it to the staff. 49
50 Chair Tanaka: I think we can’t do that. I think if we don’t give clear direction we can’t expect, we can’t 51 expect something for it to come back to us as we expect. So I think we need to be pretty we don’t have 52 to be wordsmithing the document, but I think we have to at least be clear in our direction and I’m not 53 sure, I don’t think staff deliberately says oh, we’re going to pack stuff in here that’s not needed. I think 54
they’re trying, right? And so I think we have to be clear as to what we mean by extraneous or not 55
necessary or… 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 41
1
Mr. Lait: So Chair if it helps the Commission I think I understand what the Commissioner is getting at and 2
we certainly, I think you’ll appreciate that we did try to make an effort to streamline it. We removed 3
whole sections dealing with the detailed application requirements. We’re happy to take another pass at it 4
and see where we can just clean it up and make sure that it’s clear. 5
6
Commissioner Gardias: That serves the purpose. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Tanaka: Ok. So I don’t know if we have to talk about this one, but it’s basically clean up the 9 section so it’s less redundant and more streamlined. I don’t know if we have many comments on this, but 10 Vice-Chair has a light. Ok. So seeing no lights I think in general the Commission agrees let’s streamline 11
it, let’s clean it up. Ok, good. 12
13
Ok, so that’s all the items that the Commission has recommended. So let’s start going through the items. 14
Commissioner Downing. 15
16
Commissioner Downing: Sorry, I want to speak for an absent Commissioner really quick. He did provide 17
a list of changes to the ordinance directly and most of these are about how we define things and how we 18
capitalize things. So he’s not here to include this are part of the motion to fix these things, but I would 19
like to on his behalf because I was also highlighting all these things and ripping my hair out. So that 20
would be good. 21
22 Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Downing can you, can you basically maybe let’s do it this way. How 23 many items are there? 24 25 Commissioner Downing: So Commissioner Michael put in quite a few items, but they’re mostly along the 26
lines of (interrupted) 27
28
Chair Tanaka: Not the wordsmithing, the substantive items. The issues. 29
30
Commissioner Downing: I’m going to call this one issue, which is just fixing definitions. Ok, and then 31
there’s one more that I think is worth talking about where and he brings out this sentence right here 32
“Because a PC district should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.” I think it’s worth it for us to 33
talk about what that means in the context of PC zones. 34
35 Chair Tanaka: Ok. So let’s why don’t you channel our absent Commissioner Michael and suggest what 36 you would propose for us to consider? Commissioner Alcheck. 37 38 Commissioner Alcheck: So I think one of the issues here is this notion we wanted to be consistent with 39
the general plan and then should be more clear substantially or significantly consistent. I think one 40
option here in light of the fact that sometimes objectives in the Comprehensive Plan can be conflicting 41
would be instead of consistent with the general plan or Comprehensive Plan, excuse me, we revise the 42
language to read to further the objectives in the Compressive Plan. So as to suggest that if the PC 43
proposal furthers objectives in the Comprehensive Plan that would be sufficient. It doesn’t have to 44
further every objective and if it, and if there are some objectives that it doesn’t further that doesn’t 45
necessarily that’s not fatal. So the idea here is that it may not be consistent with every element of the 46
general plan and we want to eliminate that requirement. 47
48
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so Commissioner Alcheck has a proposal that we basically further that the PCs further 49
the Comp Plan, the objectives of the Comp Plan. Ok, so anyone that… basically to kind of make it clear 50 it’s to further objectives of the Comp Plan not consistent with the Comp Plan. So kind of a subtlety. 51 Anyone that disagrees should hit their light. Ok, the Commission agrees so let’s move on. 52 53 Ok, so we’re now on the list of items from staff. There’s four main items and it’s a few simple. So we’ll 54
walk down the list here. So the first item is disclosure of ex parte communications and the sub bullet 55
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 42
here is existing policies in place, address this concern. So I’m going to ask staff now since these are 1
staff’s issues to what you propose concretely, concisely what you think it should be. 2
3
Ms. Hernandez: Actually we just wanted to identify that these issues were not addressed in the 4
ordinance. They did come up through the three study sessions, but we did not add any language into 5
the ordinance that addressed these. And we just wanted to let the Commission know that. 6
7 Chair Tanaka: I understand, but what I want to do is I want to address these issues. So did staff have 8 particular way of addressing these issues that we should a proposal that we should, we should consider? 9 10 Mr. Lait: Yeah we addressed it by not including it in the ordinance. So there is no requirement for ex 11
parte communications explicitly for PC reform; however, as part of the rules and procedures for the 12
Commission and also for the Council that would be expressed through the existing tools or mechanisms. 13
14
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 15
16
Commissioner Rosenblum: I would suggest that if we wanted to continue the format then the question is 17
were they correct to leave this out? Their identification was that these issues were non issues and they 18
shouldn’t be addressed even though they came up. And so I’d suggest that if we are to follow the format 19
then someone would raise like I think we should have disclosure of ex parte communications specifically 20
addressed as follows. But anyway so procedurally I understand what they did. They looked at that it 21
came out of PTC review, Council review, they looked at it and decided it’s not, it didn’t rise to the 22 occasion of being specifically included. 23 24 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so this is simple then. Essentially then it’s if we agree with staff’s approach, which is 25 basically take it out then, don’t say anything. Keep quiet. If you disagree hit your light. So 26
Commissioner Gardias. Didn’t see your light. Ok, so Commissioner Alcheck. 27
28
Commissioner Alcheck: The clarification isn’t that they didn’t include it, it’s that they felt our existing 29
policies that are in place already addressed this concern, right? So ok just correct? 30
31
Chair Tanaka: Correct. Ok, so Commissioner Gardias. 32
33
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, I think this is pretty much for the purpose of this was the concern from the 34
citizenry that process was before secretive and then the question to ask is pretty much have we changed 35 it, is it going to be open and transparent. If we believe that yes, that addresses the issue. 36 37 Chair Tanaka: So Commissioner Gardias are you saying that you agree or don’t agree with what the staff 38 recommended? 39
40
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, I agree. 41
42
Chair Tanaka: Oh, ok. 43
44
Commissioner Gardias: Even that we still think that we are designing transparent process. I believe that 45
we are. 46
47
Chair Tanaka: Ok. 48
49
Commissioner Gardias: If somebody disagrees with this that’s a different story. 50 51 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Great, so then seeing no other lights I assume the Commissioner agrees. Ok, so let’s 52 go on to the next one which is and there’s two sub bullets is eligibility criterion and the first sub bullet is 53 establishing criteria removes flexibility. So maybe can staff expound upon that in terms of what that 54
recommendation was? This is on the slide. 55
56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 43
Mr. Lait: So no eligibility criterion ought to be required for PC zoning or PC districts. That’s the 1
question/statement if that’s such a thing. To follow your format what we’re stating is that an eligibility 2
criterion is not required for PC reform. 3
4
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so staff says let’s not have a criteria. Ok, so (interrupted) 5
6
Mr. Lait: And geography was one of the criterion that was discussed. Criteria. 7 8 Chair Tanaka: Ok. So anyone that disagrees should hit their lights or if anyone has comments on this. 9 Ok, seeing no lights we’re going to move on. Means that the Commission agrees. Future needs are 10 unknown. Maybe that’s redundant, I don’t know if staff has anything else to say about future needs are 11
unknown. Ok. So we’re done with that bullet. So let’s go on to the next one, which is a cap on the 12
degree of variation from the underlying zoning district standards. And the sub bullet here is density cap 13
set by the Comprehensive Plan. So what is staff’s proposal here? 14
15
Mr. Lait: The degree of variation is capped by the Comprehensive Plan. 16
17
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so staff’s proposal is that there is a cap to the variation to the zoning district standards 18
and it is set by the Comp Plan. 19
20
Mr. Lait: You got it. 21
22 Chair Tanaka: And so if Commissioners disagree with this you should hit your lights. Commissioner 23 Gardias. 24 25 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. So I proposed the copy in a different way. 26
I proposed a mechanism that would allow to exercise PC zone but then in such way that farther 27
development departs from the existing zoning then more benefit is sought and then of course it’s going 28
to increase the cost on the developer. So it’s just a question is about how to put it in writing if you would 29
agree that this would be the mechanism on capping. I’m not a proponent of any cap per se for like a 30
numerical cap, but I was just proposing that with economic reasons we would allow variation but then 31
more they want to build up then more costly it would be. 32
33
Chair Tanaka: Great. Commissioner Rosenblum. 34
35 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I agree with this issue not being included, but I disagree or am not sure 36 of the sub bullet that the density cap is set by the Comprehensive Plan. I’m just not sure that’s true. 37 The larger bullet the cap on degree of variation I think refers to if you’re going to go over the height limit 38 then you can only go 20 percent above the height limit or if you’re going to violate FAR you can only 39
violate FAR by 15 percent. I don’t think that that’s actually in the Comp Plan and so I agree with not 40
addressing this meaning that I think if we’re going to have a PC zone definition then putting in these 41
brackets is not that helpful, but I also think it’s just that you’ll get yourself in trouble by saying this is 42
already in the Comp Plan when it may not be. So I wanted to confirm is it actually in the Comp Plan? Is 43
that, are there variances anticipated by the Comp Plan that handle this? 44
45
Mr. Lait: So density and floor area may be different between the base zoning and the Comprehensive 46
Plan, but you’re correct that it doesn’t get into details about setbacks for instance. There’s a height I 47
believe there’s a height cap in the so you’re right we are blending it a little bit there. So if and I guess 48
what we’re suggesting is that there is no cap for what you can ask for vis-à-vis development standards 49
except for those that are governed by the Comprehensive Plan, which would be floor area, height, and 50 density. 51 52 Commissioner Rosenblum: I’m not sure I get this though. The Comp Plan certainly gives guidelines for 53 all for those things, but I don’t think and I may just have to go back and look at the Comp Plan that 54
there’s additional language that says for special PC zones that exceed this they can only go 20 percent 55
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 44
above the rates that have already been set forth here, which I think is what you’re implying here for all 1
these dimensions. And I just don’t think that that’s what the Comp Plan does unless I’m mistaken. 2
3
Mr. Lait: Right and so if I, so I think if I’m understanding the question and reconciling that the Comp Plan 4
already has some variations to its standards those that represents a practice that we’ve seen play out 5
previously. The suggestion here though is that you don’t file a, so prior to this one could file a PC district 6
application and a general plan amendment so that you’re amending the general plan to comply with the 7 PC district. What we’re suggesting here is that when you file that PC district application you got to 8 comply with the Comp Plan the way it’s written and you can’t also submit an application for a Comp Plan 9 amendment to match your PC district project. Does that make sense? 10 11
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, but now I would probably be against this bullet if that’s what you mean. 12
Because I think we just removed the height restriction for example in an earlier discussion and that 13
seems to be in contradiction of this. 14
15
Mr. Lait: Yes, we would want to look at that. 16
17
Chair Tanaka: Ok, I see no other lights. Ok, I see lights now. So Commissioner Alcheck. 18
19
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah I agree with the comment. The last part of the last comment. Again I think 20
this process has so many interactive steps that no one is going to slip some insane project by all the 21
members of the decision making team, namely City Council. And I think that if I have a hard time 22 believing staff would let somebody come through the process who had some uncanny proposal that 23 seemed to exceed all exceptions. So I sort of feel like it’s redundant to create all these limitations on the 24 potential. Limiting the degree of variation from underlying zoning, common sense will help guide these 25 developers. I know there are probably members in our community who don’t think that developers 26
operate with any constraints, but I think that the marketplace and common sense and our Planning staff 27
are probably so involved in this process that we don’t really need to worry too much because at the end 28
of the day the City Council is here to protect the interests of this community and I imagine that they will 29
with great degree of community input in the event that the degree of variation is just so severe that no 30
one wants to tolerate it. 31
32
Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Gardias. 33
34
Commissioner Gardias: So as I mentioned I was approaching it from a different angle. I think that there 35 should be a cap or some ceiling maybe that would serve as a benchmark and clarification otherwise we 36 would have reappearing issues like we had with 27 University that pretty much it’s just the gap between 37 the Council and the developer and John Arrillaga is so large they pretty much don’t come to the 38 consensus. So if we have some sort of mechanism that would allow the developer to estimate how much 39
he can add of additional square footage or space, whatever it will be this will serve that person this would 40
serve the developer as well as well it will serve the community. So it’s for the purpose of clarification 41
how much of the limit, how much we can go beyond the limit. 42
43
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Downing. 44
45
Commissioner Downing: I hear what Commissioner Gardias is saying, but I’m not really sure how much 46
predictability that really offers because even if what you’re asking for is within that limit, let’s say 20 47
percent or whatever even if you’re within that limit nothing here says that a PC within that limit has to be 48
approved, right? At the end of the day whether or not they have to be approved or not is completely up 49
to Council’s discretion and whatever it is that they think is a public benefit that day of the week, right? 50 So I’m just not sure how much that actually helps in practice and adding that in I think does the opposite 51 of what you want, which is it will in face lengthen the ordinance. 52 53 Commissioner Gardias: Right. So that was exactly the discussions that we had in the past and this was 54
pretty much that if the reaction of the public which we had with the Proposition B, D about Maybell that 55
process was not clear to public and for this reason it just stirred all this confusion and anger. So if we 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 45
have clarity in this regulations I know that it would probably limit Council, but it would serve the public 1
well because it would be transparent. So for this reason it’s this, whatever would be the purpose of this 2
cap I think would be would serve all the parties including community, Council, this Commission, and 3
developer. 4
5
Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 6
7 Vice-Chair Fine: Thank you Mr. Chair. I think there’s a bit of confusion among us here, but I do want to 8 say I think I kind of agree with Commissioner Downing that this does eventually go to Council. The 9 screening requirements seem pretty well established. It’ll come to us if Council chooses and I think in 10 the spirit of what PC zoning is meant to accomplish we’d rather see a picture painted and then say the 11
canvas can’t be large or you can’t use these colors rather than capping it to begin with. There is no way 12
somebody’s going to get through with a 50 story tower here. So I’d rather see this stuff first and then 13
evaluate it I guess. 14
15
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I also don’t agree with staff’s recommendation on this. I think by definition PCs are 16
exceptions and if we really knew what degree of variation from the underlying zoning district we would 17
put it in the zoning code, right? But we don’t and so it’s an exception. And so for that reason I think it’s 18
really hard to have a cap because of that. Because it’s an exception, it’s unknown. 19
20
So I’m going to see if I got this right. I’m trying to listen carefully to everyone, but I would say that the 21
majority disagrees with having a cap. Is that a fair assessment in my colleagues’ opinion? Ok. Press the 22 button. Commissioner Rosenblum. 23 24 Commissioner Rosenblum: I’m not sure that’s the action. This is a confusing one because in the staff 25 report they’re saying that we will adhere by the density caps as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. So 26
there’s nothing in they just said they didn’t put anything into this ordinance around this so we’re not 27
asking them so in some ways I guess what I’d be asking for maybe is proactive language that says 28
something like shall these dimensions shall be considered on a case by case basis according to the merits 29
of the PC zone application not to be restricted by contradictory language in the Comprehensive Plan. So 30
I think that that is what I’m saying that if what they really mean is oh it’s going to be governed by strict 31
limits as put forth in the Comprehensive Plan then in some ways its contradictory. It makes the sort of 32
whole PC zoning process irrelevant. Do you see what I’m saying? I’m not even sure that was what that’s 33
why I challenged it, I wasn’t sure if that’s what they actually meant, but… 34
35 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so ok so maybe in terms of let me rephrase this right? I think the majority of the 36 Commission agrees that having a density cap set by the Comprehensive Plan is not the right idea. Ok, so 37 that’s clear to staff. We could deliberate this item more (interrupted) 38 39
Mr. Lait: So to that end you would be looking for changes to the required findings on Page 4, Section 40
18.38.060, Subsection C. You would not add the, you would strike the added text. 41
42
Chair Tanaka: I wasn’t able to page fast enough. 43
44
Mr. Lait: Oh, I’m sorry. Page 4 on the Attachment A, packet Page 12. 45
46
Chair Tanaka: Yeah. I would say that for the Commission today, yes that is true. 47
48
Mr. Lait: Thank you. 49
50 Chair Tanaka: Commission saying no. Ok. It’s 9:42. Are there any other ones that we want to talk 51 about tonight? Otherwise what we could do is we could say we could ask staff to take the, I think we 52 tried to give very clear direction on every single one of these issues. I think what staff could do is go 53 back tabulate these issues and there are some where we had a split vote on which means that, which 54
means that we’re going to have to wait for the next meeting to really resolve it and we could resolve it at 55
the next meeting. And there’s some that we had clear direction on, we had a majority vote or unanimous 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 46
on and for those then we can, staff can actually make the edits and maybe next to the issue we talked 1
about they could point out where the change was in the document so that by the time when it hits when 2
it comes to next time around we have solved most of them. There’s going to be some that we still need 3
to deliberate because there were split votes and perhaps staff could propose language both ways and 4
that way we’ll let the Commission kind of figure out where to go. 5
6
So I’m not ready to close the item yet. I see some lights. So what I guess, kind of one general question 7 I have for the Commission at this point is are there additional items that we want to talk about tonight? 8 If not these items we can start with more items at the next meeting. So I don’t think we have to say this 9 is it, no new items. And in fact maybe what might be a good process to us to e-mail them into staff and 10 have staff like add them to a new list of things that we could talk about, but (interrupted) 11
12
Mr. Lait: So just on that point if there are ideas we’d like to have them here in the public forum so that 13
we’re not doing work that one Commissioner may be interested in but the balance may not be. 14
15
Chair Tanaka: Agreed, agreed. Ok. So we have a light from Commissioner Rosenblum. 16
17
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, sorry I know that we’re almost out of here, but I don’t think that the 18
recommendation was correct about striking on Page 4, Item C under 18.38.060 because this refers to 19
compatibility with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in general, which includes where development is 20
encouraged, where certain kinds of uses should be encouraged, etcetera. And if you strike that then I 21
think that seriously compromises this document. What I’m saying specifically is what had been claimed is 22 that PC zone projects because of the sub bullet point will have to adhere to the height limits, FAR, 23 etcetera as set out in the Comprehensive Plan or the exceptions that were already set out there and I’m 24 saying that shouldn’t be correct. 25 26
Mr. Lait: And thank you and just for clarification I wasn’t proposing I wasn’t suggesting that the 27
Commission was saying to strike C, but to strike the added language that’s shown in underline in the 28
strikeout underlined version of the ordinance which is (interrupted) 29
30
Commissioner Rosenblum: There just needs to be work done on that section (interrupted) 31
32
Chair Tanaka: Yeah, so (interrupted) 33
34
Commissioner Rosenblum: I don’t want to wordsmith it right now, but just saying that I think that there 35 was some confusion by your issues not addressed sub bullet that if you eliminated that you probably 36 would have solved this problem as well. 37 38 Chair Tanaka: Yeah, so I think the direction of the Commission was clear that the density cap set by the 39
Comprehensive Plan the majority of the Commission said no. But do we have a proposal on the table of 40
how we want, if… so there’s a couple things we could do. We could also deliberate on should there be a 41
cap at all and maybe that’s something that we should talk about. But ok, well we did to the extent that 42
density cap set by… I think we kind of mixed them. There’s the idea of a cap and the idea of a cap with 43
the Comprehensive Plan. I think majority of the Commission said no to a density cap set by 44
Comprehensive Plan. I think we didn’t talk very clearly about should there be a cap at all and maybe 45
that’s something we should talk about. So Commissioner Alcheck. 46
47
Commissioner Alcheck: I think I appreciate the notion that we need to maintain language that suggest 48
that we’re furthering the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. I think that what and I don’t know if we 49
need to come up with that language specifically now because I think what we’re saying here is in this 50 packet they did not address the idea of including the density cap set by the Comprehensive Plan. And I 51 would suggest that they don’t include it in their next attempt that that issue should remain unaddressed 52 so that we don’t create further speed bumps or I don’t know we shouldn’t call it speed bumps, like 53 further restrictions for applications. I don’t know if we need to adjust the language that we’ve already 54
adjusted that essentially suggests that it further the objectives because it I don’t know if we need to kind 55
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 47
of go into adjusting this language and so I sort of think where we left it is fine. I think you haven’t 1
addressed the example is density cap and I don’t think you should. 2
3
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 4
5
Commissioner Gardias: So I strongly believe that there should be a cap because we just for sheer 6
listening to the community. So if hearing discussions in the newspapers and voices of the community I 7 believe there is a concern about the development and for this reason there should be a cap. So by 8 simply connected with the community I would argue that there should be some sort of cap. When we 9 talk about 50 feet limit I was under the impression that we will have the cap, economic cap that I talked 10 about around the cap on the degree of variations because my colleagues decided not to have either one 11
I’m coming back to my prior notion and I’m saying that I still believe there should be a cap. If we are 12
saying that there should be not a cap in regards to the Comprehensive Plan zoning districts then there 13
should be some other cap maybe 50 feet limit or some other. I still believe that there should be some in 14
writing explicit capping of growth. 15
16
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so Commissioner Gardias so this is an issue we should probably deliberate and I 17
realize Vice-Chair you have your light on so we’ll get back to your issue, but I’d like to close this thread 18
out first which is should there or should there not be a cap on PCs? And Commissioner Gardias’ proposal 19
is that there is some sort of cap on PCs. So everyone that disagrees with this or has a comment on it hit 20
your lights. Commissioner Downing. 21
22 Commissioner Downing: I feel like we’ve kind of already spoken to this to some extent, but again I feel 23 like if we could come up with a cap that made sense beforehand we wouldn’t need an exception policy it 24 would just be a different kind of zoning, right? So I actually I don’t think the cap makes sense and I also 25 don’t think that a cap is appropriate because you should really what happens if you write this cap today, 26
we make some changes to the Comp Plan tomorrow and now these two things are out of alignment, 27
right? The Comp Plan goes a little bit further than this does, right? And then we have to come back to 28
this and we have to rewrite it. So there’s also logistical issue to this like we can’t rewrite this every time 29
we rewrite other parts of the zoning ordinance or we rewrite parts of the Comp Plan, right? So I think if 30
you’re going to have any sort of metric the Comp Plan that’s your metric and in this case as we’ve had 31
that discussion I support what Commissioner Alcheck has said which is that I believe that we should be 32
furthering the objectives of the Comp Plan, but that no project can possibly meet every objective of the 33
Comp Plan at once. And so I think we’ve already kind of covered that when we talked about changing 34
that language to say instead of shall be consistent shall further the goals or objectives of the Comp Plan. 35 So I don’t agree with the cap. I think functionally it does not work for us. 36 37 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 38 39
Commissioner Alcheck: I would just suggest this is not zoning by right. This is not going to allow anyone 40
to develop anything that Council doesn’t approve. So if a project does suggest an exception to a density 41
cap set forth in the Comprehensive Plan then they would have to, they would the project would still have 42
to demonstrate that that was appealing based on the other components of the analysis. So again, I think 43
that’s enough. That limitation is overarching enough. 44
45
Chair Tanaka: Ok, just to make that clear basically you disagree with having a cap. Vice-Chair. 46
47
Vice-Chair Fine: I also disagree with having a cap. And in fact I think it might almost be worth us 48
promoting the fact that in this ordinance that there should not be a cap on these PCs to make it clear 49
instead of just leaving it as an issue not addressed that we should actively make it an issue addressed 50 that we do not believe a cap is appropriate for these projects. So I disagree with Commissioner Gardias. 51 52 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 53 54
Commissioner Rosenblum: Same as Vice-Chair Fine. 55
56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 48
Chair Tanaka: Ok, I’ll also speak on this item. So I also believe that there should not be a cap mainly 1
because PCs are exceptions and exceptions you by definition you don’t know what’s going to happen and 2
there’s a lot of checks and balances already. So I also disagree with that. So I think Vice-Chair you have 3
another comment? 4
5
Vice-Chair Fine: Yeah, I’m just wondering if the Commission believes we should make it explicit or ask 6
staff to write something explicit to that effect? 7 8 Chair Tanaka: I tell you what, let’s close this item out first and then you could propose that. So on this 9 item in terms of cap/no cap the Commission believes that the majority of the Commission believes that 10 there should be no cap. Vice-Chair you had a proposal. 11
12
Vice-Chair Fine: So sorry to drag it out everyone, but the last proposal just to make this clear should 13
there be some kind of language that we can leave to staff where we say PC zoning is not capped by 14
other plans? 15
16
Chair Tanaka: So to make your thing a concrete proposal versus a question it’s your proposal is? 17
18
Vice-Chair Fine: My proposal is that within this PC zoning staff writes something to the effect that the PC 19
ordinance should not be capped by other plans. 20
21
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so if anyone disagrees with that you should hit your light, which is basically saying that 22 you do not want staff or basically if you don’t if you don’t agree with Vice-Chair’s proposal which is to 23 explicitly have staff get rid of the thing of having a cap hit your lights. Ok. Seeing no lights that’s the 24 direction of the Commission unanimously. 25 26
Ok, so we have made it through every single issue. So yes thank you for everyone’s support on this. So 27
I think what we need now is a Motion, right? And so I proposed a process which was have staff 28
summarize this into a table. There’s a few things where we had a split vote on, which I think there were 29
two split votes where staff needs to basically write language maybe two different ways that we can 30
review later, but the rest of the items we had a either a consensus on or we had a majority vote on and 31
staff I think should in a table talk about where they made that change to implement the Commission’s 32
thoughts and so and I think we probably should continue it. So does anyone want to make the motion 33
on this? 34
35 Ms. Silver: Through the Chair can I just make one clarification? So we will prepare the table and we’ll 36 prepare an updated ordinance. What we have typically found when we take different versions of the 37 ordinance to Council is that there’s a lot of confusion with multiple versions and so our past practice has 38 been to take an updated ordinance with all of the Planning Commission and staff’s concurred changes 39
and then highlight the areas where there is a disagreement between staff’s recommendation and the 40
PTC’s recommendation. 41
42
Chair Tanaka: Yeah, so I don’t think tonight we’re going to because I think we have split votes. So I 43
don’t think tonight we could actually vote to move forward and I think in the end probably that’s what 44
will happen is there will be, that will happen, but I think we have at least two items that I know of and 45
maybe we’ll have more next time around. We have these two items that are split votes on where we 46
need to have an odd number to resolve and then there’s a lot of things that staff has to implement still. 47
So maybe next time we’ll do that, but Vice-Chair. 48
49
MOTION 50 51 Vice-Chair Fine: So I’ll make a Motion that we continue this to our next meeting, February 25th, with this 52 table of changes by staff acknowledging that the new ordinance will have some changes from us, 53 somewhere staff might have differences. 54
55
Chair Tanaka: Is there a second? 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 49
1
SECOND 2
3
Commissioner Rosenblum: Second. 4
5
Mr. Lait: So before you call the vote on that so that’s going to be difficult for us to come back in two 6
weeks. We’re certainly not coming back with an ordinance in two weeks that reflect these changes. We 7 can put together a table that reflects the dialogue that you’ve had here today. You’re still going to have 8 six Commissioners because you don’t have your seventh Commissioner coming back until late March. So 9 but we can so I guess I would like a little more clarity as far as what exactly are you? I mean is it 10 literally just a table summarizing how this would play out in an ordinance or? 11
12
Chair Tanaka: Yeah, so let’s let the Maker speak to the exact specifics of the Motion. 13
14
RESTATED MOTION 15
16
Vice-Chair Fine: I totally acknowledge thanks for letting us know maybe two weeks is too soon. I think 17
personally it would be helpful for me to have a new ordinance and our changes on these 10, 15 issues 18
we’ve highlighted tonight. If that takes longer than the March 11th meeting so be it as well. 19
20
Chair Tanaka: So that might actually allow our other Commissioner to come back, but does the Seconder 21
of the Motion agree with the Maker of the Motion’s clarification? 22 23 RESTATED MOTION ACCEPTED 24 25 Commissioner Rosenblum: I do, yes. 26
27
Chair Tanaka: Ok and does the Seconder want to speak any more about seconding this or? Ok, so is 28
there any oh, we have a light. Commissioner Alcheck. 29
30
Commissioner Alcheck: I just, I wanted to suggest that let’s say you revise everything in accordance with 31
the way the majority kind of indicated tonight. In the two instances where we have a conflict I think it 32
would be better instead of a table I think it would be better to sort of draft the way staff thinks it would 33
work under the one side and draft and like just have them next to each other as like A versus B. it’s only 34
a couple of instances and I think when we see those maybe we can have a little more debate on those 35 two items and then move on. And I imagine that if we give them more time the next meeting could 36 actually be pretty quick on this topic because I think we’ve really done a great job tonight. 37 38 Chair Tanaka: So Commissioner Alcheck do you want to make that as a friendly amendment? The Maker 39
might accept it. 40
41
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 42
43
Commissioner Alcheck: Sure. I think in addition to seeing I think the key here is to see it drafted exactly 44
as we’ve described in those few instances actually have the writing the way staff would do it if they 45
thought we went one way or the other so that we don’t have to sort of deliberate on this specific, 46
specifics and we have something that we can either accept, modify, or reject. 47
48
Chair Tanaka: Does the Maker of the Motion accept? 49
50 Vice-Chair Fine: Are you referring to the two items we haven’t agreed on yet? You want to talk about 51 those again and then bring the whole ordinance back? 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m suggesting when they bring the ordinance back let’s say can you give me an 54
example of one of the items? Intrinsic/extrinsic. Have the rubric say in one paragraph intrinsic only and 55
the other one will say intrinsic or extrinsic and then when we meet again we have to choose. 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 50
1
Vice-Chair Fine: Yeah, I accept. 2
3
Commissioner Alcheck: We can ask for public input and then we have to choose and move on. Move this 4
thing on. 5
6
Mr. Lait: So I just want to get you the date. So I think it is good to continue to a date certain. So we 7 believe that we can come back on March 11th with an updated ordinance as Cara had indicated that 8 reflects the areas of concurrence between the Commission and staff and then in our report we can detail 9 language that we think reflects the Commission’s objectives and we can use that as the dialogue for 10 saying go with the ordinance or go with the alternative language that would be forwarded on to the City 11
Council. 12
13
Commissioner Alcheck: And I would just suggest that this Commission during that meeting work towards 14
eliminating any standoffs, right? We figure out how to compromise and get the ordinance perfected in a 15
way that we can all unanimously accept or majority accept so that we don’t have any stalemates. 16
17
Chair Tanaka: I think that’s ideal and if we have an odd number of people that will happen. So if 18
Commissioner Michael is back by then we can make sure that happens. So I heard a concurrence from 19
the Maker and what about the Seconder? 20
21
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 ACCEPTED 22 23 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes. 24 25 VOTE 26
27
Chair Tanaka: Ok. So I see no other lights for deliberation so I think we should take a vote on this. All in 28
favor? Ok, it’s unanimous. Item 3 is closed. 29
30
MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Commissioner Michael absent) 31
32
Commission Action: Commissioners voted to continue the item to March 11th with an updated 33
ordinance and a rubric of suggestions made. Motion by Vice-chair Fine, seconded by Commissioner 34
Rosenblum. Commissioner Alcheck made a friendly amendment that at the March meeting the 35 Commission finalize the 2-3 items which the Commissioners disagreed upon. The friendly motion 36 was accepted. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Michael absent. 37
38
Minutes Approval: January 14 and 28, 2015 (Commissioners received electronically) 39
40
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Did you want to go over the back page of the agenda? 41
42
Chair Tanaka: Yes, definitely. So if we could flip (interrupted) 43
44
Mr. Lait: Oh, and I’m sorry, there’s minutes also to be (interrupted) 45
46
Chair Tanaka: Oh yeah, minutes. Sorry. Do we have anyone who is willing to make a Motion to approve 47
the minutes? 48
49
MOTION 50 51 Commissioner Rosenblum: I make a Motion to approve the minutes. 52 53 Chair Tanaka: Anyone seconding it? 54
55
SECOND 56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 51
1
Commissioner Downing: Second. 2
3
VOTE 4
5
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Motion made by Rosenblum. Seconded by Commissioner Downing. All in favor raise 6
your hand. Ok, unanimous. 7 8 MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Commissioner Michael absent) 9
10
Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner Rosenblum second by Commissioner Downing to approve 11
the Minutes of January 14th and January 28th. Motion passed unanimously 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner 12
Michael absent. 13
14
Commission/Staff Announcements & Future Agenda Items: Members of the public may not 15
speak to the item(s). 16
17
Chair Tanaka: And then let’s see we’re now oh, Commissioner Alcheck? 18
19
Commissioner Alcheck: So I have a question. I know we’ve signed up for months of Council is there any 20
update on that and I think I’m March so I just want to know what’s? 21
22 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so that’s actually on the agenda so we’re going to get to that. Yes, on the back side. 23 So let’s all take the page and flip it over, your agenda. So next meeting is February 25th. Staff do you 24 want to talk about the next agenda, what’s on the docket there? 25 26
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Yeah, so on the 25th we will be coming back to the Commission with 27
the list of the City Council general priorities for that will guide workplans for the 2015 year. We will also 28
present to you a draft of our the department’s work program and that will also be an opportunity as we 29
were speaking I think at the beginning of the agenda for the Commission to have a dialogue about the 30
types of topics it would like to see added and then perhaps we would have a running topic list on our 31
agenda and we can talk about when we might consider those discussions. 32
33
Chair Tanaka: That’s correct so I think the basic idea on top of well how do we get things on our agenda, 34
get things agendized. I think the idea is and so I think it’s on all of us to think about what are our issues 35 that we want to be talking about and so and next meeting we’ll add it to kind of a backlog if you guys 36 ever done scrum or anything like that it’s kind of like a product backlog, this is an issue backlog and we 37 could and the idea is like going forward from the 25th we’ll have this kind of backlog either on a Google 38 doc or paper where we’ll essentially prioritize it and the ones that are on the top of the list and we have 39
time on our agenda we’ll basically take it off the list and actually talk about it. So that’s that. I think 40
March 11th is further out. We don’t have to go into that one right now. 41
42
And then to the topic that Commissioner Alcheck asked about Commission liaisons. So Commissioner 43
Fine has tried to put together a Google doc which says like who is signed up when. Could be primary 44
and secondary and I think maybe Vice-Chair Fine could talk a little bit about where we’re at on that. 45
46
Vice-Chair Fine: Sure. So the only one we’re missing is May for primary we have Commissioner 47
Rosenblum as a second. So I was planning to send this out to Robin and have her forward it on to all of 48
us, but yes you are March as the primary. 49
50 Commissioner Alcheck: Has anyone not been assigned anything? 51 52 Vice-Chair Fine: Gardias and Commissioner Michael. You are the primary for March at the moment. And 53 Commissioner Gardias and Commissioner Michael we would love to have you guys if there are months 54
that are good for you. 55
56
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 52
Commissioner Gardias: If I may pick up couple of dates right? So what’s open? 1
2
Vice-Chair Fine: So May as the primary, June as the secondary. 3
4
Commissioner Gardias: Sure. Could you put my name over there? Thanks. 5
6
Commissioner Alcheck: Can I ask a question? 7 8 Vice-Chair Fine: And I’ll send this around tomorrow and we can check with Robin if we really need. 9 10 Chair Tanaka: Let’s go back to lights. Anyone have comments/questions hit their light. Commissioner 11
Alcheck. 12
13
Commissioner Alcheck: So a quick question. Is there a process because we haven’t really done this for 14
like a year now, so is there a process by which Chair or Vice-Chair will reach out to the individual up and 15
give them a head’s up on because not every meeting is relevant. And so I’m just hoping that it’s some 16
sort of communication loop that… are we responsible for contacting Planning or? 17
18
Chair Tanaka: I think that’s a good question. I actually think staff should tell the Commissioner who is 19
the primary that this is a relevant Council meeting and when and I think in order for us to be more 20
efficient as a Commission I think we should actually be part of the Council for that topic. Be part like 21
maybe five minutes or whatever is appropriate amount of time to actually speak on that topic whoever 22 the representative might be and we should whoever is going there should read up on the minutes, be 23 able to encapsulate what the Commission thought about that topic because I think it’s important for us to 24 raise our profile and I think it will make our work here more useful to the Council. That’s what I think 25 should happen. And so if staff could take on the role of when not just when there’s a Council but when 26
there’s a Council meeting that’s involving something to do with the Commission you tell us and you tell us 27
what time we should have to be there. And actually make sure we’re on the agenda so that or at least 28
we’re not just sitting in the audience taking notes, we’re like participating somehow. 29
30
Mr. Lait: During the Director’s Reports I try to highlight at that moment when items are coming where we 31
think Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) representation would be good or strongly 32
encouraged, not necessary and perhaps also in our pre-meetings we can quickly peruse the Council 33
agendas and see if there’s anything there. And we can certainly reach out to the individual who might be 34
the head for that or the lead for that particular month. 35 36 As far as the practice of having Commissioners have a time to speak in front of the Council I’m not 37 entirely familiar with the process. I think that in the past there maybe was an opportunity. That seems 38 to have gone away and I’m not sure if it’s? Ok, so we just need to have a conversation perhaps with the 39
City Manager’s Office in consultation with the Mayor to find out how that could happen. 40
41
Chair Tanaka: Great. Commissioner Alcheck. 42
43
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I just want to sort of throw out a suggestion there. I think it makes sense 44
especially since sometimes the item being discussed at City Council may not have appeared on the 45
Commission’s agenda for a few months that the City Council’s agenda gets set what two weeks in 46
advance? I wonder if it would make sense if we had an opportunity to and maybe this doesn’t need to 47
be agendized and it would just be an opportunity for the Chair and the Vice-Chair to have a discussion 48
with the person that’s going to have be in attendance. My understanding was in a not too distant past 49 we would be available to comment on behalf of the Planning Commission so like a staff would have made 50 a presentation and if the Planning Commissioner had made themselves present and known then the City 51 Council would sometimes give them the opportunity to stand up and summarize some of the key 52 takeaways that occurred on the Planning Commission’s meeting and I sort of think that it would be 53
helpful for me if before even I had that opportunity, which I think we should arrange or at least 54
communicate that there was some chance for us to have a discussion about well, what was the synopsis 55
City of Palo Alto February 11, 2015 Page 53
of that meeting? I think it’s a little too I don’t want to say risky it’s just I think it would be imprudent to 1
sort of just encourage the Commissioner to go figure out what we talked about or go search the minutes. 2
Some coordination on the part of leadership and staff to facilitate like here are the minutes from that 3
meeting by the way, here’s the staff report from City Council, cc us, send us an e-mail with that in 4
advance of the meeting so that when we come we can review that stuff and then be able to participate 5
because I do think that’s going to be, there’s going to be an added benefit. We will prove our worth to 6
Council and so I just wanted to throw that in there. 7 8 Chair Tanaka: Let’s see, Commissioner Rosenblum. 9 10 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, it’s again as much as this makes me shudder because I do think we want 11
to wrap this up I’m wondering if this is like an un-agendized meeting item right now that talking about 12
our participation at Council versus the timing because I completely agree with you Commissioner Alcheck. 13
I think there actually should be for items that were already viewed by the PTC perhaps months before 14
that they should actually have a short synopsis from a PTC member saying these are the issues, here’s 15
why we thought what we did, but I think we should actually just vote on that and say like have a motion 16
say, Motion PTC is that Council should do X and I’m not sure we’re allowed to do that right now. So I say 17
I strongly agree with you. If we’re allowed to do that I would just say let’s make the Motion and then do 18
it. 19
20
Mr. Lait: Chair if I may? I think one of the things we’ve talked about since I’ve been here is on items such 21
as the one we talked about most recently is that the Chair and Vice-Chair would help draft an executive 22 summary of the Commission’s topics and that would be embedded in our staff report, so I think that’s 23 probably the go to document that would reflect the Commission’s direction. 24 25 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 26
27
Vice-Chair Fine: I agree. I think we might not have an executive summary for every item we talk about 28
at the Commission here, but ones which do go before City Council and you’re a rep for I think it would be 29
helpful that yes, we will absolutely help you go over the minutes and write up a paragraph or a short 30
blub that you can take to them on behalf of us. 31
32
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so let’s move on to the subcommittee representatives. So basically all these 33
subcommittees have gone away. So this will be updated. And one of the outputs of this kind of issues 34
backlog that I’m calling will be to set up either items on our agenda or subcommittees depending on 35 what makes sense. So with that it’s now 10:13 and unless there’s other comments and seeing no other 36 lights I think we are done. 37 38
Adjournment: 10:13 PM 39
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5573)
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 3/11/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Draft Revisions to PC and Preliminary Screening Regulations
Title: Planned Community (PC) Zoning District and Preliminary Screening
Requirements: Review of updated Draft Revisions to PC Planned Community
District Regulations and Development Project Preliminary Procedures in Palo
Alto Municipal Code Chapters 18.38 and 18.79.
From: Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner
Lead Department: Planning & Community Development
Recommendation
That the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council consider
amendments to the Planned Community District and Pre-Screening Chapters of the Zoning
Code as described in the Draft Ordinance (Attachment A) and this report.
Executive Summary
The attached ordinance would enact changes to Chapters 18.38, PC Planned Community
District Regulations (PC), and 18.79, Development Project Preliminary Procedures (Pre-
screening), of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The proposed changes are based on previous
direction from the City Council and have been informed by concerns expressed during three
study sessions held in August and October 2014.
At its meeting on February 11, 2015 the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
discussed proposed changes to the PC and Pre-screening regulations. There were several topics
discussed, which are summarized in the background section and more fully evaluated in the
discussion section. There were two specific topics related to public benefits where the PTC was
unable to reach agreement: the nature of public benefits (intrinsic versus extrinsic) and
monetary contribution.
Many PTC comments will be incorporated into the updated draft ordinance forwarded to the
City Council, including:
Removal of extraneous items;
Use of consistent terminology and other stylistic conventions;
Clarification on enforcement and monitoring;
PTC Packet Page 1 of 67
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Public benefits as it relates to the nexus of the benefit to the neighborhood; and
Clarification that certain public benefits should be given a preference over others.
The updated draft ordinance, however, will not include PTC recommendations to remove the:
Maximum 50 foot building height limit for development;
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan requirement; and
Provision that prevents state density bonus projects from being eligible for rezoning to a
PC.
Staff has included language for the PTC recommendations not supported by staff and, if there is
agreement, will forward that language on to the City Council for its consideration when this
item is considered in Spring 2015.
Background
On February 11, 2015 the PTC discussed changes to the PC and Pre-screening regulations.
Members of the PTC focused their discussion on the issues related to the PC regulations and
whether the revisions contained in the draft ordinance addressed the identified issues. First,
members of the PTC started by providing general comments and questions about the PC
process and any other issues staff may not have addressed. A list of issues was generated from
the discussion. Each of the issues and how the draft ordinance did or did not address the issue
was then discussed. A copy of the draft excerpt minutes from the PTC’s discussion is appended
to this report as Attachment B.
The following catalogues the issues as discussed by the PTC and summarizes the main points.
Public Benefits
The draft ordinance includes a definition of public benefits. The PTC discussed that
definition and suggested changes to reinforce the idea that benefits serve the
community. After some discussion there was consensus that replacing “local
community or neighborhood” with “Palo Alto” resolved the issue of a nexus between
the neighborhood and the location of the benefit. The Commission also discussed the
intrinsic and extrinsic value of a benefit, but was unable to reach agreement on that
concept. The PTC also did not reach agreement on whether a monetary contribution
ought to constitute a public benefit, but there was some discussion about preferring one
benefit over another.
Enforcement
Proposed revisions to the PC regulations introduced a public benefits agreement that
would contain a monitoring and enforcement plan. The Commission agreed that an
enforcement agreement should be required but more specificity was requested (i.e.
content, frequency of enforcement, amount to be collected). In addition, they noted a
distinction should be made for certain projects proposed by non-profit developers that
should not be subject to the same enforcement and monitoring requirements.
PTC Packet Page 2 of 67
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Geographic Location
A member of the PTC felt that identifying geographic locations in the City should be
revisited. The majority of the PTC felt identifying a geographic location removed the
flexibility the PC regulations provide and determined it should not be included in the
ordinance.
50 foot Maximum Height Limit
Sections 18.38.110(c) and 18.38.150(b) of the existing PC regulations state that “in no
event shall the maximum height exceed fifty feet.” The PTC felt placing a maximum
height limit on PC projects defeats the purpose of the ordinance and determined it
should be removed; an applicant should be permitted to make a case for exceeding the
height limit.
Zoning Incongruity
Members of the PTC acknowledged that the special requirements contained in the PC
regulations should not impose greater limitations than what the existing development
standards might prescribe for a particular zone. The PTC also felt an explicit provision is
needed stating the special requirements apply unless the existing development
standards are less restrictive.
Economic Analysis
One member of the PTC felt that an economic analysis should not be a component that
is used to measure the merits of the public benefit component of a PC project. The PTC
determined an economic analysis is an important tool and should be maintained in draft
ordinance.
Density Bonus Provision
The draft ordinance includes a provision related to Density Bonus that is consistent with
Chapter 18.15, Density Bonus, of the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. In summary, the
provision states that a projects seeking a residential density bonus or zoning concession
shall not be eligible for a Planned Community Zone. The PTC recommended removing the
provision related to Density Bonus and requested that staff provide additional information
behind the intent of the limitation.
Extraneous Items
General changes contained in the draft ordinance included the elimination of provisions
which are more suitable as application checklists. The PTC directed staff to go through
the ordinance and both remove any extraneous items and ensure a consistent use of
terminology and other stylistic conventions.
Comprehensive Plan Objectives
Concerns have been raised about PC projects not complying with the Comprehensive
Plan. This was mostly directed towards a consistency with the land use designation.
PTC Packet Page 3 of 67
City of Palo Alto Page 4
One recommendation was to not allow a developer to seek a concurrent zone change to
a PC and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. As such, the draft ordinance
strengthened the existing language to ensure future requests for a PC are consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The PTC suggested rephrasing the
language with “furthering the objectives of the Comp Plan.”
Limit on the degree of variation from the underlying zoning regulations
The PTC did not favor establishing a limit on the degree of variation from local zoning
that could be achieved through a PC district.
As noted above, the PTC could not arrive at an agreement on two components of public
benefits. Three items (enforcement, zoning incongruity, and limit on the degree of variation
from the underlying zoning) required additional clarification. There were three PTC
recommendations that staff is unable to support (50 foot maximum height limit, density bonus
provision, and comprehensive plan objectives).
Discussion
There were a couple of issues the PTC required further information and/or clarification from
staff and two impasse items that were tabled for further discussion. Several items have not
been included below since the PTC agreed on these issues and staff will incorporate them into
the ordinance forwarded to Council without a need for further discussion (economic analysis
and the elimination of extraneous items). To facilitate the PTC’s continued discussion, the two
impasse items related to public benefits are outlined along with clarification on the remaining
issues that warranted further discussion. Finally, staff has provided a brief explanation on the
three PTC recommendations that staff is unable to support and draft language capturing the
PTC’s ideas.
IMPASSE ITEMS
Nature of the Public Benefit
The PTC discussed the intrinsic and extrinsic value of a public benefit, but was unable to reach
agreement on the concept. An intrinsic benefit is related to the project components and effect
that benefit the community (i.e. affordable housing, art space, dance studio). Extrinsic benefits
are considered the incentives or benefits provided by the developer to offset the impact of the
development in exchange for flexibility in meeting the intent of the development standards (i.e.
infrastructure improvements, funding to support city programs). Some members of the PTC
felt that if the project has no inherent public benefit, then no PC should be approved. While
others felt that extrinsic benefits should not be ruled out.
Monetary Contribution
The PTC was also unable to reach an agreement on whether a monetary contribution ought to
constitute a public benefit. Some felt that public benefits for PC projects should not take the
form of payments to the City. A few members of the PTC felt that the City should prioritize
PTC Packet Page 4 of 67
City of Palo Alto Page 5
infrastructure improvements and not rely on a PC project to do that. PC projects should
support things that give back to the community in a more intrinsically valued benefit.
Below is the relevant text of the proposed definition of public benefit:
Section 18.38.015(b) “Public Benefit” means specific improvements or amenities for Palo
Alto by the developer in exchange for uses, densities, and/or a development
configuration specific to the PC district that would be unattainable in general zoning
districts or combining districts. Public Benefits shall include affordable housing,
significant monetary or “in kind” contributions towards meetings goals of the City’
adopted infrastructure plan or human services needs assessment with a nexus to the
proposed project, or other similar amenities or improvements identified by the City
Council. From time to time, the City Council may adopt by resolution a menu of public
benefits that represents current City priorities.”
ITEMS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
Enforcement
Staff agrees with the PTC's position that more detail is needed on the proposed enforcement
and monitoring plan. The objective of this element is that the City has a means and mechanism
to fund and ensure enforcement activities. The following provisions will be incorporated into
the draft ordinance:
Section 18.38.160: Enforcement and Monitoring
“Each PC district shall remain in compliance with the PC district regulations and the
conditions of the ordinance under which the district was created in perpetuity, or until
modified by ordinance.
(a) A Public Benefits Agreement containing all requirements of the ordinance shall be
executed between the City and the applicant following approval of a new PC district and
shall be recorded as a covenant on the affected property.
(b) The Public Benefits Agreement shall contain a monitoring and enforcement plan
appropriate to the development project that may include the following components:
frequency of inspections, establishment of a funding mechanism for inspections;
penalties for enforcement, procedures for replacement of lost or diminished community
benefits and other similar provisions. Council may elect to waive enforcement costs for
non-profit developers.”
Zoning Incongruity
The PTC requested that staff provide additional information to determine whether a zoning
incongruity exists between the special requirements outlined in Section 18.38.150 and the
development standards for the various others zones. Staff has compared the special
requirements against the development standards for the various zones and does not believe
that an incongruity exists. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a situation where the
special requirements contained in the PC regulations are more stringent than those contained
in the zoning ordinance.
PTC Packet Page 5 of 67
City of Palo Alto Page 6
The special requirements outlined in Section 18.38.150 of the PC regulations refer to height,
setbacks, and daylight plane for sites abutting or located within a certain distance from a
residential use. For instance, the following provision is listed for the Neighborhood
Commercial Zone as it relates to maximum height:
“within 150 feet of a residential zone district (other than RM-40 or PC Zone, abutting or
located within 50 feet of the side. For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district
or PC district [the] maximum height may be increases to 50 feet.”
Similar provisions are in place for setbacks and daylight plane. The special requirements
provisions are consistent with existing provisions contained in the Zoning Ordinance for sites
abutting a residential use. Based on the foregoing, staff believes that the special provisions
contained in the PC regulations should remain in place.
Limit on the degree of variation from the underlying zoning
While the PTC did not support a limit be placed on the variation from the underlying zoning.
Moreover, the PTC requested that explicit language be added to reflect that a limit is not in
effect. Staff has compared the densities contained in the Comprehensive Plan against the
densities in the Zoning Ordinance. Table 1, Land use Densities Comparison, summarizes the
land use densities prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan as compared to the corresponding
zoning district densities contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
Table 1: Land Use Densities Comparison
Land Use Comprehensive Plan Densities Zoning Ordinance
Densities
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family Residential 1 – 7 units per acre
14 units per acre where second
units or duplexes are allowed
R-1: 1 du
R-E: 1 du/acre
R-2: 5 du/acre
RMD: 8 du/acre
Multiple Family Residential 8-40 units per acre
RM–15: 15 du/acre
RM–30: 30 du/acre
RM – 40: 40 du/acre
Village Residential Up 20 units per acre VR: 12 du/acre
Transit-Oriented Residential Up to 50 units per acre PTOD: 40 du/acre
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial Non-residential:
Up to .04:1
CN: 0.4:1
CD-N: 0.4:1
Regional/Community
Commercial
Non-residential:
Range: 0.35 – 2.0:1
CC: 2.0:1
CD-C: 1.0:1
Service Commercial Non-residential:
Up to 0.4:1
CS: 0.4:1
CD-S: 0.4:1
Mixed Use Retail & Housing: CN: 0.9:1
PTC Packet Page 6 of 67
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Up to 1.5:1
Close to transit:
Range 2.0 – 3.0:1
CC(2): 2.0:1
CS: 1.0:1
CD-C: 2.0:1
CD-S: 1.0:1
CD-N: 0.9:1
Commercial Hotel Up to 1.5:1 CC(2): 2.0:1
CS: 2.0:1
OFFICE, RESEARCH, & MANUFACTURING
Research/Office Park Range: 0.3 – 0.5:1 RP: 0.4:1
Light Industrial Up to 0.5:1 GM: 0.5:1
Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, February 2015
The table illustrates opportunities in certain land uses for additional FAR between the densities
allowed under the Comprehensive Plan and the existing Zoning Ordinance. Based on the
foregoing, staff recommends retaining the proposed language that any new project seeking a
designation to a PC must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in place at the time an
application is submitted.
PTC RECOMMENDATIONS NOT SUPPORTED BY STAFF
The PTC identified three issues with the PC regulations and proposed revisions that staff does
not support; 1) elimination of the 50 foot maximum building height limit; 2) Compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan objectives; and 3) a provision that prevents residential density bonus
projects from being eligible for rezoning to a PC. Staff believes that these recommended
changes do not reflect the direction of the City Council or the concerns raised by the
community. The 50 foot height limit has been a time honored community value. Departure
from this policy should be made at the City Council level. With respect to the adherence to the
Comprehensive Plan requirement, Staff believes this strikes an appropriate balance of
facilitating zoning flexibility for worthwhile projects while still following the underlying spirit
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. In requesting PC reform, the Council and community
called for a more transparent process, identified a need for a definition of public benefits, and
expressed concerns for PC projects not respecting the land use designations and densities
contained in the Comprehensive Plan. As for the third issue, in January 2014 when the Density
Bonus regulations were adopted by the City Council, Council made a policy determination at
the time that a project could not seek both a residential density bonus and a rezoning to a PC.
Given the recent adoption of that policy and lack of Council discussion to review or modify that
policy, staff is unable to support this recommendation at this time.
Should the PTC wish to move forward with their recommendations the following changes can
be sent to Council for their consideration.
1. Sections 18.38.110(c) and 18.38.150(b) of the existing PC regulations stating that “in no
event shall the maximum height exceed fifty feet” should be deleted.
PTC Packet Page 7 of 67
City of Palo Alto Page 8
2.Section 18.38.020(d) of the proposed ordinance stating that “a project seeking a
residential density bonus or zoning concession on incentive under Section 18.15 shall not
be eligible for a Planned Community Zone” should be deleted.
3.Section 18.38.020(e) of the proposed ordinance should be rephrased to read as follows
“A use proposed for a PC District should further the objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan.”
4.Section 18.38.060(c) of the proposed ordinance should be rephrased to read as follows
“The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the
district shall further the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and is compatible with
existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.”
(Note additional conforming changes to the draft ordinance would also be required in the event
Council adopted the above suggestions.)
Next Steps
Following this continued public hearing, staff will be moving forward with scheduling a public
hearing by the City Council for Spring 2015.
Environmental Review
The zoning code revision is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15305 (Minor Alternations in Land Use
Limitations). Specifically, the proposed project establishes additional regulatory requirements
that require additional public outreach (pre-screening), requires additional application
requirements (economic analysis) and establishes a public process to review public benefits.
Projects subject to the proposed regulatory changes will continue to require project-specific
environmental analysis under CEQA.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.38 and 18.79 Redline (PDF)
Attachment B: February 11, 2015 PTC Draft Excerpt Verbatim Minutes (PDF)
PTC Packet Page 8 of 67
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 10
Chair Tanaka: Ok, I think we had some really good comments and good work from the staff. Are there1
any other comments/questions/thoughts before we close this? Ok, so we’re going to close this session2
then and we’re going to take a… we’ll come back at 6:45, 6:55. I read the clock wrong.3 4
Commission Action: No action taken, Commissioners provided comments and suggestions. 5 6
The Commission took a break7 8
Public Hearing9
1. Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform and Preliminary Screening Requirements:10 Review of updated draft revisions to PC Planned Community District Regulations and Development 11
Project Preliminary Procedures in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 18.38 and 18.79, and 12
recommend adoption of the draft ordinance to the City Council. Environmental Assessment: Exempt 13
from CEQA pursuant to Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). For more 14
information contact Consuelo Hernandez at consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org Continued 15
from February 11, 2015 16 17
Chair Tanaka: I would like to call the meeting to order. Also want to recognize that Commissioner18
Alcheck has joined us and so we’re about to begin on the first item, which is now the second item, the19
Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform and Preliminary Screening Requirements. Does staff want to20
help kick it off by giving a summary of the topics we talked about last time and then we’ll go into21
discussion first on the impasse items then the enforcement items and then the items that staff does not22 support. Oh yeah, we also have one speaker. So we’ll do that after staff kicks it off.23 24 Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner: Thank you, Chair Tanaka; Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner. As25 you mentioned tonight is a continued public hearing for the PC zoning district and preliminary screening26
requirements and we want to thank the Planning Commission again for all your comments that we got27
last time. I think it really is helping us push this project forward and we hope that we captured28
everything in the staff report accurately. We don’t have a formal presentation, but I’d like to walk you29
through the staff report and our approach in this and really what we tried to do is capture the comments30
that you made and you essentially had about 14 items or issues that you discussed. We catalogued them31
in the background section as 10 items with the public benefits having four different dimensions. And32
then in the discussion section we’ve broken those down into three topics: the impasse items, the items33
for further discussion, and items that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) agreed to but at34
the time staff can’t support them. And what I’ll do is I’ll walk you through them and also mention that35 there were two items that you all agreed with additional information was needed and it’s not captured in36 the staff report. And those are the economic development and then changes to making sure that we are37 keeping a consistent terminology and the removal of extraneous items. We didn’t feel there was a need38 for additional discussion since you agreed to that and those changes will be captured in the final39
resolution or ordinance that’s taken to Council.40 41
So for public benefits you identified four different elements or dimensions that are of concern: whether42
the benefit is intrinsic or extrinsic, whether a monetary contribution ought to constitute as a public43
benefit, whether there should be a nexus between the neighborhood and the location of the benefit, and44
this idea of a menu of public benefits. You agreed to two of them, that there should be a nexus between45
the neighborhood and the location. And if you turn to page, sorry, to Page 4 of your packet the nature of46
the public benefit and the monetary contribution were two of the items that the only two items that the47
PTC had an impasse. And what we’ve done is right below that summarized or actually given you the48
language for the definition of public benefit. You recommended that we replace a word “community”49
with “Palo Alto.” We’ve made that change. And then you also recommended adding maybe some50 stronger language for preferences of special or specific public benefits and that will make it on to the final51 resolution or ordinance that’s taken to Council. So those were the only two impasse items that perhaps52 you can start your discussion there.53 54
And then there were a few items for further discussion. Enforcement we agreed with you that more55
detail was needed. We describe the conversation and then right below that we’ve added the language56
March 11, 2015 - PTC minutes
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 11
that we’re proposing based on the comments that you provided, which was to provide more information. 1
For zoning and congruity what we did is summarized what we found. We went back and we looked at 2
the zoning ordinance and we looked at the special requirements and the PC ordinance as it exists now 3
and the same exact language is captured. So we don’t feel that there is a zoning incongruity and we 4
want to hear from you if you agree with staff’s analysis and if it’s so then there’s no language that’s 5
needed to be added in the ordinance. 6
7 The next item was this idea of limiting the degree of variation from the underlying zoning and we were 8 specifically discussing from a density perspective. And what we’ve done is presented you a table with the 9 different land uses and what the Comprehensive Plan calls for and what the zoning ordinance calls for 10 and if you note there’s some areas where there is a natural cap that is allowed from the difference 11
between the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. And that’s why staff feels that there’s no 12
need to identify or placing a limit on the cap of the variation and that the Comprehensive ordinance plays 13
that role. I think last time the PTC felt that there should be no limit and the Comprehensive Plan should 14
not serve as a cap or a limit on the variation. If you feel that then we would need to add a provision or 15
make that recommendation to Council, but we wanted to give you the information so that you can see 16
where staff was going with that comment. 17
18
And then the items that the PTC recommended but are not supported by staff are in the following 19
section. And the first was the elimination of the 50 foot maximum building height limit, compliance with 20
the Comprehensive Plan objectives, and three, a provision that prevents residential density bonus 21
projects from being eligible for rezoning to a PC. And in that section we describe why we feel that these 22 should not be changed and at the bottom we provide examples or sample language if you do decide that 23 you want to eliminate the 50 foot maximum height limit for instance, what sections would need to be 24 deleted. 25 26
And staff is here to answer any questions and again the impasse items are the two that are related to 27
public benefits, intrinsic versus extrinsic and whether a monetary contribution should be considered as a 28
public benefit. Our recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council 29
consider the amendments to the PC district and the prescreening chapters of the zoning ordinance 30
described in the draft ordinance and this report that you have before you. Thank you. 31
32
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so let’s do the public hearing for this. San the Vice-Chair read off the first name? This 33
person will have up to five minutes if needed. 34
35 Vice-Chair Fine: We have one speaker, Cheryl Lilienstein. 36 37 Cheryl Lilienstein: Good evening. Is this on? Yes, ok. I feel like this is an improvement over the present 38 ordinance, but it still needs some work. And I took a bunch of notes but it was on my computer and it’s 39
hard to do as you know. I don’t have a hard copy. But the problems that I see that are still present is 40
that the ordinance establishes a process for discussing whether a public benefit is actually a public 41
benefit, but I still think it’s fair to call this program zoning for sale. There’s no process for actually 42
delineating the value to the community of a so called public benefit and or what a developer is entitled to 43
trade for what. So I actually would like to see that delineated more clearly. 44
45
In Section 18.3.160 which is about enforcement and monitoring it says “A public benefits agreement 46
containing all requirements of the ordinance shall be executed between the City and the applicant 47
following approval of a new PC district and shall be recorded as a covenant on the affected property.” I 48
believe this means that an agreement to enforce public benefits will be negotiated after the approval of a 49
new PC district, which leaves the City at a distinct negotiating disadvantage. Both parties should accept 50 the enforcement agreements before approval, not after. It should be a condition of approval. 51 52 The same section also states that Council may elect to waive enforcement costs for nonprofit developers. 53 This is unacceptable. If nonprofits are likely to fall short on their commitments to the community they 54
should not be allowed to have zoning exceptions. Beyond this whether or not enforcement is pursued 55
will be dependent on complaints and require the ongoing attention of an enforcement body. Is this what 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 12
we want the City Attorney engaged in? Why not zone for what we want, charge development fees 1
space. It sounds as if Section 18.38.150 would allow them to apply for height exceptions in that case if 2
adequate to mitigate the traffic and congestion problems, and eliminate the problems of enforcement? 3
4
The ordinance also uses words that are not well defined; for instance, the word “residential.” In Section 5
18.38.150 it says in B, all other uses, “The maximum height within 150 feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or 6
applicable PC district shall be 35 feet provided however that for use where the gross floor area excluding 7 any area used exclusively for parking purposes is at least 60 percent residential the maximum height 8 within 150 feet of an RM-4 or RM-5 district shall be 50 feet.” So there are two issues here: one is that to 9 my knowledge we don’t have a 50 unit per acre zone so the RM-5 district shouldn’t even be in the 10 sentence or correct me if I’m wrong about that, but more that an applicant might think that they’re 11
entitled to a height exception even if the entire 60 percent of the non-parked space is just one 12
apartment. That doesn’t seem to align with the intention of PC zoning. So here’s a preposterous 13
example that could arise if this isn’t clarified; a developer is offering a gated public swimming pool to be 14
open to the public from the hours of 10:00 to 3:00 and will use their own staff to man the pool. In 15
return they might want to build a gigantic penthouse that comprises 60 percent of the non-parked space. 16
It sounds as if Section 18.38.150 would allow them to apply for height exceptions in that case if they’re in 17
a good location for a pool. Was this the anticipation for PC zoning? Probably not. So it might be a lot 18
simpler to decide as a City what we want and zone for that. Period. Thank you. 19
20
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I see no other cards so we’re going to close the public hearing. And let me kind of 21
go over the basic format for this meeting. I think we’ll do a similar format as last time. So what I’d like to 22 do is first start off by having kind of a short round where if there’s any other topics besides the topics we 23 talked about already that we should go through as well just hit your lights and I’ll add it to the list. It 24 could be errors in the report, it could be new ones, it could be basically anything but the things that we 25 talked about before. And then after that so after we get kind of a list of issues that we should discuss 26
the second thing we’re going to do is we’re going to go after we’re going to discuss the impasse items 27
and then we’ll go over the enforcement items and then over the items that staff does not support and 28
then we’ll go over these other miscellaneous items that are new for this meeting. And the hope is that 29
we can get a resolution to all the issues and I think because we have the odd number of members 30
tonight we’ll not be at an impasse for some of the, for actually any of the items. And so I want to first 31
start by asking if anyone has issues or topics that we want to discuss that are not currently in this report? 32
Vice-Chair Fine. 33
34
Vice-Chair Fine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just a quick question to staff on that comment we just 35 received. Is the covenant discussed after the approval of the PC district? I mean that’s how it’s worded 36 actually and does that mean that the agreement can change from the original discussions? 37 38 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: So you’re referring to the enforcement piece? 39
40
Vice-Chair Fine: Yeah, 18.38.160. 41
42
Mr. Lait: Great, thank you for the opportunity to clarify that. So that section is speaking about executing 43
an agreement between the City and the applicant following the approval, but the idea is that during the 44
deliberations and the conversation about the PC reform that there’s an actual agreement that is being 45
approved and adopted as part of that approval. It’s, so it’s, it is part of the approval process. It doesn’t 46
get changed after the approval, it just gets executed after the approval and I’ll look to the City Attorney, 47
so that’s the idea so it would not change. It’s part of the conversation. 48
49
Vice-Chair Fine: Ok. 50 51 Chair Tanaka: Do you have any other (interrupted) 52 53 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Yes, I would just add that that is a very good point always in 54
the development process you do look at leverage issues and so it would be in the City’s interest to have 55
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 13
those negotiations take place as Ms. Lilienstein said before the Council approves the PC, but then the 1
agreement legally cannot be recorded until it’s executed and the PC is approved. 2
3
Mr. Lait: And if I can just take that opportunity to respond to another comment that was made regarding 4
18.38.150 Section B dealing with references to the RM-4 and RM-5 and so those are part of some of the 5
extraneous fixes that we will be making in the clean up as it goes forward to the Council. Those are not 6
zones that we presently have in our district. 7 8 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 9 10 Commissioner Michael: I had a question that relates to Section 18.79.030, which is applicability and 11
initiation. And I didn’t go back and check, but under the current process a PC is initiated by the Planning 12
Commission. So this would be a change such that initiation is likely going to be done via preliminary 13
screening by the Council. And one of the questions I have is I think that over the years PC zoning has 14
been used fairly sparingly. It’s been around for about 50 years. It’s been, it’s been we’ve had PC 15
districts about 100 times. I don’t have the data in front of me. A few of these have been controversial or 16
highly criticized by the community, but a large number of them were successful. So it’s a tool that 17
provides flexibility and can be quite useful particularly when it takes a lot of time and effort to update the 18
zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan which actually I really want to acknowledge the public speaker 19
who talked about the desirability of just zoning for what you want. If it was possible to make that a 20
priority I would think that would be an excellent initiative, but when the change is made such that 21
initiation would be done by Council via preliminary screening my question is what information will they 22 have? 23 24 So for example if a developer or an applicant comes in and says I have a hunch that the City really, really 25 needs a public safety building and I happen to have a piece of land and some capital and I’ll pay for the 26
building and I’ll give you the land if I get a PC that allows me to have a very large building or say a 27
developer comes and says I think the City wants a theatre, I will get you a new theatre if I can build 28
something which is 110 feet tall or is located in such a place. Now when this preliminary screening goes 29
on is the Council going to have any data? Are they going to have economic analysis? What criteria is 30
contemplated for that discussion? And my, my bias coming up in the legal system is that if you have let’s 31
say a, and it’s different, but if you have a Supreme Court, the Supreme Court doesn’t conduct a 32
preliminary review of a significant case. They wait until the District Court does its thing and the Court of 33
Appeal does its thing and there’s a whole record and then when it’s ready it goes to the final decision 34
maker. And I think I’m suspicious that the preliminary screening process particularly with fairly loose 35 policies about ex parte communications with applicants is going to engender as much public concern or 36 suspicion as the old process and I don’t think it’s an improvement. So I’d like it to be clarified and it may 37 well be the right way to go because Council is elected and it’s good for them to get their fingerprints on 38 these projects as early as possible, but what data will they have, what methodology will they follow when 39
they do this preliminary screening? 40
41
Mr. Lait: Thank you, Commissioner Michael, for that, those questions. There’s a number of items there 42
actually that you touch on and the way that we’ve set it up is that the Director would be developing what 43
an application for prescreening would be, preliminary screening. And I don’t know that at least initially 44
that there would be in the prescreening process a fully vetted plan or maybe not even an economic 45
analysis at that point as the idea is being floated for feedback and awareness of issues of conflict or 46
things that are supported. It certainly needs to be of sufficient data that there can be informed dialogue 47
about what’s being contemplated. And so what staff will be working on and we welcome the 48
Commission’s feedback on this and when we go to Council we’ll seek guidance as well, but what we’re 49
interested in is developing a set of rules or a set of application checklist requirements that would take 50 place for this preliminary screening. 51 52 The court analogy, the Supreme Court concept, no decisions are made at the preliminary screening 53 process. This is just an initial vetting of ideas. Is there interest in pursuing and gathering more 54
information and exploring the possibility of this project that has these articulated benefits versus these 55
requested development standards? And should there be a interest in further exploration the formal 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 14
application would be filed and then we would start building that court record of the data and the analysis 1
and when it gets to Council the Council would have, excuse me, all of the data to decide up or down on a 2
project or if there’s changes that need to be made. So it is an iterative process. And another distinction 3
that was made from the current process is that it’s voluntary right now. And the purpose of the proposed 4
change is to make it mandatory for a discrete list of projects. 5
6
And I believe with respect to the disclosure, the ex parte communications, I believe the Council does 7 have policies in place for ex parte communications and that would necessarily be part of that dialogue 8 and that expression. They have rules for how they manage that. I appreciate the challenge of wanting 9 to know as much about a project as possible to see if there’s enough interest and guidance in it, but at 10 some point it’s a concept plan to vet out interest or to gauge interest and if there’s no interest then 11
presumably a developer would pursue another course. 12
13
Chair Tanaka: Ok, hold on (interrupted) 14
15
Commissioner Michael: Well, if I can just follow up? 16
17
Chair Tanaka: Actually hold on. What I would like to do because, what I would like to do is actually stop 18
the discussion right there and I added it to my list; so preliminary screen for Commissioner Michael. 19
What I’d like to do first is accumulate a list of topics that we’re going to deliberate. So this would be one 20
of them. I want to get back to it, but what I want to do is I want to have a discussion where we’re all 21
kind of on the same thread at a time. What I’m looking for at this point and time is really just a list of 22 topics from Commissioners that we want to talk about. So I have from Commissioner Michael the 23 preliminary screening. And we’ll talk about that topic, but does Commissioners have other topics that is 24 not something we already talked about that we want to add? I have the one from Commissioner Michael. 25 Flick your lights if you have something else. Ok. One topic I’m going to add is something I heard from 26
the public speaker, which is should the City approve the public benefit, when should the City approve the 27
public benefit? So that’s the other topic I’m going to add to the list of topics that we’ll talk about tonight. 28
And we can add to this list. So if there are other topics that we should do, we should discuss or 29
deliberate we’ll do that. 30
31
Ok, so seeing no other lights what we’re going to do now is we’re going to talk about the impasse items. 32
This is on Page 2 and what we’re going to be doing is we’re going to be going through each one of these 33
items one by one. We’re going to deliberate the public benefit issues we talked about, and then we talk 34
about the enforcement issues. Let’s talk, let’s focus on the public benefit issues that we discussed and… 35 it’s all on Page 2 of your packet. So, so basically the way we did it last time was the Commissioner, I 36 forgot which Commissioner it was at this point, made a proposal as to how the Commission should go on 37 this item. Does anyone remember who was? Oh, you have that here? Ok. Maybe we’ll start off that list 38 then. 39
40
Mr. Lait: Chair as I recall and Commissioner Fine may correct me when he finds his notes there I think 41
there were two key points that we were talking about. One had to do with a point raised by 42
Commissioner Downing having to do with this idea of intrinsic versus extrinsic public benefits and so I 43
think we would benefit from a conversation on that topic. And then the second point that I believe there 44
was impasse on had to do with the idea of money as a public benefit and whether or not that was 45
whether it should be considered a public benefit or if that was in addition to any public benefit that was 46
equivalent to the development. 47
48
Chair Tanaka: Ok thank you staff. So here’s what we’re going to do then. I think Downing was the one 49
who proposed intrinsic and who proposed the money one? I think it was Commissioner Alcheck, right? 50 Ok. So Alcheck was the one who proposed that one and Downing was the one who proposed intrinsic. 51 So Commissioner Downing do you, would you like to kick it off? So the basic format is this, 52 Commissioner Downing is going to make a statement, a proposal and if you agree with it you don’t have 53 to say anything, ok? That means you agree, but if you don’t agree with it flick your lights and you can 54
speak against it. And everyone that disagrees with her should flip the lights and this is how we’ll decide 55
whether this moves forward or not. Ok, Commissioner Downing. 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 15
Commissioner Downing: Ok, this is going to be a brief summary of what we talked about last time, but 1
it’s important because we didn’t come to a conclusion. So sorry to bore you given you’ve already heard 2
it, but here we go. Ok, so my proposal in terms of the definition of public benefit is that in my opinion 3
the project itself should be an intrinsic benefit to the community or at least a substantial portion of it. 4
And when I talk about what it means to be intrinsic it needs to be something that we find to be a 5
community benefit. And obviously that’s debatable, but at least from my perspective that is something 6
like affordable housing, space for nonprofits, space for afterschool activities for kids, jobs employment 7 centers, right? Any number of things, but something in that sort of category that would be the sort of 8 building that would have a public benefit. Maybe you could even pull like a theatre space into that or an 9 art space maybe that could possibly be part of that as well, but the idea is that the building itself, the 10 land itself provides some sort of benefit. And I think that’s a necessary part of PC zoning and I think it 11
needs to be because if the public benefit is not an intrinsic part of the building, if it’s something you’re 12
providing on the side, like you’re trading it for street improvements or you’re trading it for money you’re 13
going to donate into a fund or something like that. 14
15
My concern was that it discourages us from zoning for the things that we want to zone for. It 16
encourages the City to under zone in order to negotiate for benefits and money. And that in my opinion 17
is a bad way to go because it adds costs to everything that we build in this City and it drives up prices 18
and it makes things more unaffordable, which kind of goes exactly against the point of what the PC is 19
supposed to be about, which is it’s supposed to be about affordable housing for the most part. So you 20
don’t want to create a system that encourages people to negotiate and have prolonged negotiations with 21
the City and ad hoc negotiations all the time. So that’s my statement on that. That’s why I think it 22 needs to be an intrinsic benefit. 23 24 Chair Tanaka: Ok, the first light I saw is Commissioner Alcheck. 25 26
Commissioner Alcheck: The idea that I’d like to suggest here is that a process through which applicants 27
could be eligible for exceeding certain zoning limits would be possible in lieu or in exchange for payments 28
that went towards an identified public benefit that may not be related to the actual development that the 29
project applicant is applying for, right? That’s the flip side of this coin. So allow me to sort of make the 30
case for this in a little bit of an elaborate way, which is to say that we’ve heard tonight about this concept 31
that we should zone for what we want and I’d like anybody that feels like we haven’t done that to 32
consider the following: our zoning code is intensely specific about what is permitted. And nearly every 33
component of development in our City is specified in our zoning code. And the flexibility that’s provided 34
by this PC process is not a loophole, it’s not… don’t think of it as a loophole, think of it as an extension of 35 the concept of the zone for what you want. And how is it an extension? We’re putting together a 36 framework to encourage people to think outside of the box and that is something we want. That 37 thought, that thinking. And so let me rephrase that sort of to emphasize the importance there. We 38 welcome out of the box thinking in our progressive Northern California neighborhood of Palo Alto. We’re 39
not just the epicenter of disruption in technology we want to welcome maybe disruptive concepts in land 40
use. 41
42
And one of the reasons why I don’t think we need to take this issue and eliminate this possibility is 43
because this process should essentially welcome a wide range of possibilities. And at the end of the day 44
our City Council, which is tasked with making the decision whether the offering is acceptable or not and 45
I’m sure with tremendous input from the community despite the low showing tonight they get to weigh 46
that decision. So if we say no, that’s not a type of idea we want to hear then we’ll never hear that idea, 47
but we can, the City Council can always say no, that’s not enough. That’s not enough of a public benefit 48
to justify the added X that this development will cost. And so what I’m suggesting isn’t that I think this 49
framework should allow people to just buy things, I’m throwing in a certain X percent into this parking lot 50 fund, that’s not what I’m suggesting because again they still will have to achieve that hurdle of 51 convincing the community through the City Council that the contribution they’re making justifies the 52 exceptions they’re getting from the zoning code. 53 54
And so it’s, this is really my response is really more philosophical. We want to welcome an opportunity 55
for people to think outside the box. We know what we want and we’ve zoned for it, but we’re also smart 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 16
enough to know that we don’t know everything we want. There’s a world out there of things we haven’t 1
yet realized we might want and we should let somebody make a case for it. We should let someone 2
come to the table and say you guys are going to want this. And if we go no, we don’t want it then they 3
pack up. I mean at the end of the day the City Council is initiating under this current draft they’re 4
initiating the PC. So from the beginning they have that opportunity; no, it’s not going to cut it. Maybe 5
this City Council doesn’t care about infrastructure, fine. Maybe the next one will say, God, you know 6
what? We’re in dire straits and we really need this and this is a good opportunity for us. 7 8 So all I’m suggesting isn’t that we encourage for sale zoning. What I’m suggesting is we encourage an 9 approach which allows people to make the case for something we may not realize we will want in the 10 future and so I don’t think after we’re finished changing this we’re going to see like 100 PC applications. 11
This is not the mode of development in Palo Alto, right? We’ve done the numbers, we know it’s like 12
however many projects in the last 10 years. We know they’re small in number the number of PC’s. So 13
again, what I’m suggesting is let’s approach this in a way where we don’t limit the flexibility that an 14
applicant has at their disposal to make a case to convince us. We can still have the opportunity to always 15
say no to something or the City Council and the City itself can say no to something that they don’t want, 16
but I’m lobbying for us to at least give them the avenue to make a case that contributions to let’s say 17
infrastructure funds or infrastructure developments that are unrelated to the development itself are 18
welcome. Sorry for the longwinded response. 19
20
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael, so what we’re doing here is Commissioner Downing made a 21
proposal which is the project should be intrinsic and why don’t you speak about that? 22 23 Commissioner Michael: Both Commissioner Downing and Commissioner Alcheck advanced very thoughtful 24 proposals and I want to give that adequate deference. I think that I’m inclined to agree with 25 Commissioner Alcheck although for, with a different logic, but I think he’s on the right track. I think that 26
if we can take a step back and look at the forest and not get caught up in the trees the importance of 27
flexibility that a PC zone district would allow is where you have something that would be consistent with 28
the Comprehensive Plan, but not allowed under existing zoning and it might confer public benefit. So 29
that’s relatively straightforward. And what I’ve seen in the data set of the projects that have been 30
approved in the past is that typically the developer would like something maybe a little bit bigger, a little 31
bit more valuable than would be permitted under the existing zoning so it often goes to Floor Area Ratio 32
(FAR), maybe height, maybe setbacks, maybe the adequacy of parking, but it doesn’t so much go into 33
the aesthetics. And I think that Commissioner Downing was pretty passionate about the importance of 34
the subjective aesthetic value that this might confer upon the community and this would be inherent in 35 the intrinsic value of the PC zoning and that should be the primary motivation for using this tool. 36 37 But I think actually, I mean I would go back to Cheryl Lilienstein’s exhortation that the City have an 38 updated zoning code, have an updated Comprehensive Plan so that so the things that we’d like to have 39
built are allowed under the zoning code and people can just build them. That you don’t have to seek an 40
exception and I think that when an exception is required or for example the zoning code hasn’t been 41
updated in a long number of years, Comprehensive Plan hasn’t been updated in a long number of years, 42
and time marches on and maybe the economic progress of the City is such that you have to consider 43
things on an exception basis. What you’re really looking at is an applicant can realize more value from 44
something that is not in strict conformity with the existing zoning. And I think that to the extent that 45
either the nature of the project let’s say it’s affordable housing or something that’s beautiful or the 46
contribution to a city need such as a parking fund or what have you is reasonably commensurate like 47
with the enhanced value that the applicant would get then that would be something that would merit the 48
flexibility of the PC zone when unfortunately it would be needed because the zoning code hadn’t been 49
updated recently and the Comprehensive Plan was likewise in need of an update. And I think that this 50 reasonable assessment of the value conferred and the value received is sort of the essence to me of how 51 to make this a rational process. So I would support Commissioner Alcheck’s position, which I think is in 52 line with my own slightly different logic. 53 54
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 55
56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 17
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to just add one more perspective to this. 1
I also supported extrinsic perspective and there was a simple reason, which I thought was a conflict of 2
interest. So if there is a developer that offers something to the community, but that benefit is tied to this 3
property development it truly and is offered to the City it truly may increase the value of the development 4
and provide return to the developer as truly the return to the community. So to establish a control point 5
or checkmark, I will support extrinsic value for this reason that pretty much developers not inclined to 6
propose something that’s going to benefit himself or herself. So just wanted to offer this perspective, 7 thank you. 8 9 Chair Tanaka: Ok, Vice-Chair. 10 11
Vice-Chair Fine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m also going to support extrinsic benefits for a few reasons. 12
One, to kind of challenge what Commissioner Downing mentioned about rezoning for sale. I think 13
rezoning is a rare enough practice on the whole scale across the entire City and I don’t believe the City 14
actually has the foresight or ambition to rezone in order to draw developers to the table for money. I 15
just don’t see that as being so practical. I think furthermore Council is going to weigh the intrinsic and 16
extrinsic benefits of each project so, if they decide that they would like more of an intrinsic benefit for a 17
specific project they can discuss that and put that into the agreement. The extrinsic benefits may be 18
great for this project whether it’s infrastructure, a public safety building, parking, transportation, issues 19
like that. And then I’m just thinking while we’re all talking about this actually we don’t really have a 20
specific definition of what is intrinsic. Is it literally onsite? That actually could be an issue if we go that 21
route. So just in conclusion I think the extrinsic benefit is valued and justified by the development as a 22 whole and by Council approval. It’s going to be weighed and evaluated in that regard. 23 24 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I see no other lights here so I’m going to weigh in on my opinion which is that I 25 also support Commissioner Alcheck’s approach which is I think extrinsic is better mainly because it’s hard 26
to predict what an exception might be. But I also believe that extrinsic also allows greater good because 27
when you’re, when it’s tied to a certain property there’s only so much that can be done, but greater good 28
is possible if it’s kind of like [wide watering] versus you know why watering is not as efficient as modern 29
forms of monetary trade. So for that reason I will support extrinsic. So if I do a quick tally here so 30
Commissioner Alcheck, Commissioner Michael, Commissioner Gardias, and myself and Vice-Chair have all 31
spoken in favor of extrinsic. That means that oh, actually Commissioner Gardias do you have another 32
word? 33
34
Commissioner Gardias: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. I would like to add a comment to it that extrinsic just 35 responding to what Vice-Chair Fine said, extrinsic the way at least I think about is do the economic 36 interest of the development it’s not related to the physical presence. So the reason why I’m saying this is 37 because I think that the grand prize is the affordable housing that we’re eying with this of course some 38 other benefits. So affordable housing may be on this physical property and then of course we would not 39
like to exclude it, right? So that’s I think that’s for understanding and for the record what extrinsic would 40
mean. Thank you. 41
42
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Downing. 43
44
Commissioner Downing: Well, I actually find myself quite swayed by Commissioner Alcheck’s statements 45
tonight. So I’ll be in that camp. I mean I still have, I still think that some of the thoughts that I pitched 46
have a lot of validity to them and I think those are things that we should be concerned about just in 47
terms of how much cost we’re actually adding to this process if more people are inspired to do PC’s, but I 48
like the out of the box thoughts and I think that that’s, that is the correct attitude for a community like 49
ours to have. 50 51 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I think the majority of the Commission thinks that extrinsic. Let’s go to the next 52 item, which is monetary contribution. I think Commissioner Alcheck you were the one who proposed it 53 last time and staff has on Page 5 outlined the text of what that would look like. Do you want to just 54
frame the conversation and we’ll do the same format, which is everyone that agrees with Commissioner 55
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 18
Alcheck, it means we agree. No I’m talking about starting on Page 4, monetary contribution. It goes on 1
from Page 4 to Page 5 at the bottom. This was the other impasse item. 2
3
Commissioner Alcheck: I guess I would argue those are sort of the same. I mean what we’re sort of 4
suggesting, I’m not… let me be clear; I wasn’t suggesting when I made the case last time for monetary 5
contribution that it could just be for-sale zoning. The idea was that there would be a benefit, let me put 6
it to you this way (interrupted) 7 8 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck, how about this? Staff has graciously put together a paragraph on 9 based on this so we had the current, right and then we had the proposed which staff derived from our 10 comments last time. Maybe (interrupted) 11
12
Commissioner Alcheck: I think this is exactly right. 13
14
Chair Tanaka: Ok. 15
16
Commissioner Alcheck: I would if you want me to sort of throw out a little synopsis of why I support this 17
paragraph I can do that. 18
19
Chair Tanaka: Yeah, why don’t you do that and then everyone that doesn’t support it should pull the 20
lights and everyone that supports what you say doesn’t have to. Go ahead. 21
22 Commissioner Alcheck: So let me begin, I’m going to explain why I support this and I’m going to also 23 explain what I think it says. And if there’s a disagreement about what we think it says that may help 24 identify sort of secondary issues and maybe we’ll still be able to be unanimous on this. So the key is the 25 second sentence where it says “Public benefits shall include affordable housing, significant monetary or 26
in-kind contributions towards meeting goals of the City’s adopted infrastructure plan or human services 27
needs assessment with a nexus to the proposed project or other similar amenities or improvements 28
identified by the City Council.” While this is different than extrinsic versus intrinsic discussion I would 29
argue that you couldn’t do this unless you accepted the notion of extrinsic benefits, right? So we’ve 30
accepted extrinsic benefits now we’re trying to define extrinsic benefits. This is again I believe an 31
opportunity where the use of overly specific language is actually a limiting factor. I guess one of my 32
questions for anybody who is flashing their light would be is there something we’re concerned about with 33
this language that might happen? And then the follow up to that would be are you concerned that the 34
City Council wouldn’t be able to still make a decision to avoid that situation and do we need to make that 35 decision for them now? 36 37 So from my perspective, I would like to have a process that allowed applicants to both contribute to goals 38 that we’ve identified ourselves as well as goals that they propose that are not intrinsic to the property 39
that we may not have publicly identified through some laborious process I assume. And I think that to 40
some extent this is where it sort of feels more like zoning for sale because we have this like list of things 41
behind us on the wall that has a price tag on it. That’s not really how I envision, that’s not how I read 42
contributions toward meeting goals of the City’s adopted infrastructure plan. I sort of envision the City 43
collaborating to develop a tangible list of needs, but not necessarily a specific menu of items and there’s 44
a difference. Like the City can say we really could use an enhancement to X infrastructure versus the 45
City could say we would like $3 million for the development of this building at the corner of A Street and 46
1st, right? So I just to be clear in case anybody’s worried about that and knows how to reword it in that 47
way. That’s where I stand. 48
49
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so anyone that disagrees with what Commissioner Alcheck says should pull the lights. 50 Let’s have Commissioner Rosenblum. 51 52 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, thank you. And I agree with Commissioner Alcheck that this is very 53 much related to the previous item, but this is precisely why I held out on the previous item. Which is I 54
think this is the definition of zoning for sale. So now we’re talking about just monetary reward for zoning 55
exception and that we would accept a cash payment. I can’t think of anything that is more specific. This 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 19
is selling an exception. And furthermore, the argument that was made which I was quite swayed by that 1
Commissioner Alcheck made, which is we don’t know what people will come up with in the future. We 2
should be innovative, think out of the box, and we shouldn’t tie Council’s hands ahead of time because 3
we’re the center of innovation. I think that’s a very compelling argument. This isn’t out of the box; this 4
is a cash payment in exchange for zoning exception. And so this item handing over cash in exchange for 5
an exception is not out of the box. It’s an old practice and we know what this is. There may be other 6
things and I admit that that’s intriguing, but this is one that makes me uncomfortable. 7 8 Finally the notion that well ultimately it’s up to Council and this is where the speaker before us I have 9 some disagreement with, which is around the PC zoning process I accept, ultimately has to go through 10 Council. So it’s not as if anything that seems conceivable under the code is necessarily going to happen 11
under the code. So examples of massive penthouse apartments with locked up swimming pools like sure 12
you can envision all kinds of things, but it ultimately has to go through elected representatives. And so 13
I’m not necessarily worried about that, but that same catch all does eliminate anything in the code. You 14
can say well ultimately it has to go through Council so why should we have any strictures around things? 15
I think there should be a stricture that we say we don’t sell zoning and that if you’re going to at the same 16
time there are things that you can’t anticipate by the code and so the Jewish Community Center (JCC) is 17
my canonical example. It’s a fantastic useful, it’s a very useful project and very few people speak against 18
it. It’s hard to envision the kind of zoning that encompasses a theatre, education center, senior housing, 19
lower income housing, all kinds of things in that one facility. It’s hard to categorize that. So what I will 20
say is the notion of money for zoning makes me very uncomfortable and I don’t see that as out of the 21
box. 22 23 Commissioner Alcheck: Can I just follow up? Do you have a suggestion for how we could change it that 24 maybe we could all get behind? Like we just had a conversation about extrinsic benefits so how can we 25 keep that and still maybe eliminate the problem that you’re having? 26
27
Commissioner Rosenblum: So this one’s hard for me because I don’t, I also think it should be an intrinsic 28
benefit, but let me separate that and accept the wisdom of my colleagues. I don’t see a way that you 29
can accept cash in exchange for an exception and again, the language that maybe the way through this 30
is that it cannot be the majority and I’m not a lawyer, I’m not going to start drafting language. It’s hard 31
for me to envision a scenario that I would be comfortable with anything that allows the developer to pay 32
a sum of money and we then because of that sum of money will approve a project. And if they did not 33
give us that sum of money we would have disallowed the project. I can’t see a way of getting 34
comfortable with that and maybe I’m just not being creative enough, but… 35 36 Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Michael. 37 38 Commissioner Michael: So ordinarily I agree with almost everything that Commissioner Rosenblum said, 39
but I’m actually somewhat more comfortable sort of quantifying the cost and the benefits and I’m not as 40
inclined to see corruption where it may simply be a tradeoff of equivalent value, but you may be right, 41
you often are. What I would do to capture the sense of the discussion I think that we’re having is on 42
the, on this Page 5 the relevant text of the proposed definition I would modify the second sentence in a 43
couple of ways. I don’t think it’s good to be too overly prescriptive because it’s hard to get it right. So I 44
would begin the sentence with say “examples of” and then continue “public benefits shall include” or 45
“may include affordable housing.” I would replace the word “significant” with the word “reasonable” and 46
the notion here is not that you’re going to sell zoning, but if you’re going to give something you should 47
get something. It should be commensurate, it should be equivalent, it should be reasonable, and what 48
the Council should do is apply their judgment to determine what’s reasonable and the public I’m sure will 49
weigh in. 50 51 Continue you need “city’s” and then “adopted infrastructure plan,” I don’t think there is an adopted 52 infrastructure plan. I was on the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC). I haven’t seen an 53 adopted infrastructure plan. I’m not expecting one. I would replace “adopted infrastructure” with 54
“Comprehensive Plan” and then I would be comfortable with this, with those changes. So this sentence 55
would be “Examples of public benefits may include affordable housing, reasonable monetary or in-kind 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 20
contributions for meeting goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, or human services needs assessment 1
with a nexus to the proposed project.” And then that to me makes it more palatable. 2
3
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Downing. 4
5
Commissioner Downing: Ok, so first comment is kind of like a lawyerly comment, which is that if we 6
accept the idea of extrinsic benefits then this little phrase here “with a nexus to the proposed project” 7 that needs to go. That needs to get cut out so that’s just kind of from a drafting standpoint. And I think 8 I think because I’ve straddled this very odd divide I think it’s on me to figure out how to bridge it 9 because I guess when I was thinking about extrinsic benefits and I was thinking of what I would be ok 10 with but at the same time without getting us into the paid for zoning, alright I’m just going to free flow 11
and you guys can correct me, but I guess what I’m thinking is more like someone decides that they’re 12
going to open up part of their parking lot to the public for free. So which is not necessarily like a, it’s not 13
a public benefit in the sense that affordable housing is, but you’re doing something that’s helping to fix a 14
City problem. And I guess you could argue about whether or not that’s extrinsic or intrinsic, but that 15
would be an example, right? You’ve allowed the public to use your parking spaces. You found a way to 16
donate that to the community sphere. 17
18
Maybe another example of this would be in fact like a property owner who had several properties in Palo 19
Alto and in exchange for doing a development on one property they agree to fix something else on the 20
other property. Whatever it might be, it might be an aesthetic thing. You know everyone hates this 21
storefront or they’re going to add something to it, fix it, make it better in some way, which would not be 22 an intrinsic benefit because it’s literally on a different property, but would still kind of be within this 23 category of a public benefit that this person can provide and that they provide by virtue of their unique 24 position of owning a property. I’m probably not being very good here about coming up with all the 25 different creative examples of what I have in mind of what can be extrinsic but not money, but I’m trying 26
and I’m hoping maybe someone else can add to this conversation because it’s a difficult subject. So 27
maybe someone can help me out here. 28
29
Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 30
31
Vice-Chair Fine: I’m also struggling here a little bit in supporting extrinsic benefits it can be hard to see 32
them without having some cash payment. I’m just wondering if a developer did agree to say to build a 33
new sewer line well the City probably would not have the developer build that sewer line they’d probably 34
ask for a transfer payment or something like that, which would be… would that constitute a what was it 35 called? Yeah, an in-kind or a monetary contribution if a developer transfers money? I guess this is a 36 question to staff. Yep. 37 38 Mr. Lait: Yeah, I think that would qualify. 39
40
Vice-Chair Fine: So the other thing (interrupted) 41
42
Mr. Lait: Obviously there’s I would qualify my statement depending on the project and weighing 43
everything together that example could be a reasonable example. 44
45
Vice-Chair Fine: Ok. Then the other thing I guess I want to float to the Commission is that we did agree 46
in our last session and I think it still stands here so far that we do want to see an economic analysis of 47
the public benefits and the private benefits. Maybe these in-kind contributions could be weighed against 48
that. I’m just thinking maybe that they’re limited to 25 percent of the public benefit or something like 49
that. I’m not saying I support that, but it is an idea that I wanted to float that we do have some whole 50 measure that we can measure against for these monetary contributions. 51 52 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 53 54
Commissioner Alcheck: I would like to support Commissioner Michael’s changes. I think actually last time 55
we talked about the idea of “significant” being a problem. I think I mentioned that because it scares me 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 21
because everybody’s approach to that word could theoretically have a different definition and we had just 1
abandoned the use of “significant public benefit” only to add “significant monetary payment” and that 2
struck me as a great suggestion. I also think that referring to a plan that hasn’t been adopted is 3
probably a mistake. And again unnecessary considering the overarching goal here, which is to create 4
flexibility. So I think replacing the infrastructure plan with Comprehensive Plan is another great 5
suggestion. So I would support this paragraph with the reasonably, “reasonable monetary” the “City’s 6
Comprehensive Plan” and the removal of the “nexus to the proposed project” which was suggested by 7 Commissioner Downing. 8 9 And I want to add an example to bolster this argument. We have now seen what I believe is the third 10 failure of a grocery store in Palo Alto at Edgewood Plaza. Now I just want you to know something, there 11
were a lot of people that hated Edgewood Plaza. I live in that neighborhood. I happen to be a huge fan 12
of mid-century modern design, I’m not a huge fan of the old Eichler inefficient homes, but that was an 13
incredible project from my perspective. The result is beautiful and it’s thriving with exception to the 14
grocer. And I think I wasn’t on the Commission at the time, but the community group is now discussing 15
how, can these homes even be sold if they don’t put a grocer in there before they want to sell these 16
homes, like they’re going to hold the developer out to dry. And I sort of believe in the marketplace of 17
ideas and I wonder if we can decide, can we force a grocer to succeed exactly where we want to under 18
the strict limitations of size? I don’t know, but could that project have been better if it was a more 19
flexible mixed-use project that didn’t specifically require a small size grocer and potentially a fee could 20
have been paid to create a, call it a scholarship or a subsidy for low income housing that could 21
theoretically be something that a Buena Vista non-for-profit park developer could dip into as they create 22 more low income housing, right? We don’t only, we don’t simply have to zone or encourage verbally low 23 income housing we could also theoretically subsidize it, right? We could create a subsidy for people who 24 are willing to create non-for-profit housing projects and we could do that by asking developers to 25 contribute to that, right? 26
27
So again, my point here is, I believe that the lack of flexibility in the Edgewood Plaza project may result 28
in its long term failure. Who knows? I’ve never been to a grocery store in California where I can see 29
over the shelves and in that grocery store you can see over the shelf. When I’m in Whole Foods you 30
can’t, I don’t know if you’re on the other side of the supermarket because I can’t see. So maybe they 31
didn’t know the market well or maybe that’s a tough spot to have a small/medium size grocer. And my 32
point is exactly that, if they can never change that space to be potentially a different retail use then that 33
inflexibility could be the result of its failure and that, the grocery store is the public benefit I guess in that 34
project, I don’t know. Or maybe keeping the mid-century modern design is, but my real point is, is how 35 much better theoretically could it be? As Mark Michael said when we can have a tangible value 36 associated with the public benefit that maybe the project could have existed very much in the way the 37 developer had in mind the mixed use project and supported some fee based approach that supported a 38 public benefit that we really, we really do know is very valuable to our marketplace. So that’s sort of a 39
confusing and odd way to support it, but (interrupted) 40
41
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck can I ask you something? 42
43
Commissioner Alcheck: Yes. 44
45
Chair Tanaka: So back to the paragraph here. So do you want to summarize the changes, the edits that 46
you want to make to this? 47
48
Commissioner Alcheck: Yes, it would read (interrupted) 49
50 Chair Tanaka: And then what I’d like to do is just make it, like give everyone a chance to weigh in 51 whether they agree with you or don’t agree with you. 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 54
Chair Tanaka: So why don’t you, why don’t you like explicitly talk about the changes that you’re 55
(interrupted) 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 22
Commissioner Alcheck: How about I read it? 1
2
Chair Tanaka: Why don’t you do that please? 3
4
Commissioner Alcheck: That I would read it. I’m going to start at the second sentence because I have 5
no changes in the first. “Public benefits shall include affordable housing,” or excuse me, “examples of 6
public benefits include affordable housing, reasonable monetary or in-kind contributions toward meeting 7 goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, or other similar amenities or improvements identified by the City 8 Council. From time to time the City Council may adopt a resolution,” well actually we didn’t really talk 9 about this sentence, but I’ll leave it for now. “From time to time the City Council may adopt a resolution, 10 by resolution a menu of public benefits that represent current city priorities.” I think that kind of gives 11
them the idea of what I’m suggesting. 12
13
Chair Tanaka: Ok. So what I’d like to do is I’d like to call for lights so that people that disagree with the 14
proposed changes that Commissioner Alcheck has integrated into this paragraph. One light I see is 15
Commissioner Rosenblum. 16
17
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, I’m going to make this short because it’s the same objection which is I, 18
you know, and again if I’m outvoted here that’s fine, but just to register the objection which is, I do think 19
this clause is pay for benefits. So the Edgewood Plaza example for if we needed to violate zoning 20
because that neighborhood really needs a grocery that’s an intrinsic benefit. We believe that a grocery 21
store is so valuable at that location that even though it’s not zoned for it and I don’t actually know 22 particulars of the zoning there, I’m just making up an example that opinion would not change if they then 23 said well, what if we gave you a million dollars. I find that, I find that logic hard to follow. So if the 24 argument is that they just need a shopping center there then hopefully we’d eventually change the 25 zoning codes to encompass that use case that we’ve decided a commercial center needs to be put there 26
or if we decide it should be mixed-use and that’s a good use then again it’s intrinsic. That is a valuable 27
thing to offer, but if it’s not valuable but the developer then says, “Well what if I gave you cash?” and we 28
said “Oh, that tipped the balance.” I can’t square that circle and I don’t see a situation where without 29
the cash we would have said no and now with the cash that tips the balance to yes. And that’s the piece 30
that the language is very difficult for me here. 31
32
I recognize the inconsistency too that Vice-Chair Fine has brought up which is well, in theory cash that 33
the City receives will go into some in-kind service that through this alchemy of turning into a sewer 34
project or a public works, public safety building. I recognize that that’s also one of these difficult things, 35 but that the cash itself being assigned value against the project I have a hard time squaring that logic 36 and how that isn’t just buying the zoning. So I’ll just object on the same logic and let the process move 37 forward. 38 39
Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Downing. 40
41
Commissioner Downing: Yes, at the risk of inconsistency I think that I can’t support this without someone 42
squaring that circle for me. So I think I’m in the same boat as Commissioner Rosenblum on this one. I 43
tried to come up with examples that would square it. I’m not sure that I succeeded. I was hoping to 44
hear more of that from others, but I’m not. I don’t think I’m there so I don’t think I can support this 45
although all the changes you made are consistent with his position and therefore if you were selecting 46
this position then these are good changes for you to make. 47
48
Chair Tanaka: Is there anyone else that disagrees with Commissioner Alcheck’s revised paragraph? Put 49
on your lights. Ok, so as it stands it looks like a majority of the Commission agrees with the changed 50 paragraph as Commissioner Alcheck read. I also agree with it myself as well. The one part which I 51 would suggest is removing the last sentence mainly because it’s I think it’s hard for the City Council to 52 forecast what exception might come up. So here’s how I elected to do it. I think as it stands right now 53 Commissioner Alcheck’s revised paragraph has majority support of the Commission and so I’m making a 54
proposal to remove the last sentence and everyone that disagrees with my proposal you should pull your 55
lights and speak up about that. Ok, seeing no lights I assume then that the paragraph that 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 23
Commissioner Alcheck revised and that I also proposed to remove unless Vice-Chair has something to 1
say? 2
3
Vice-Chair Fine: I was just hoping you could explain why you want to remove the final sentence there? 4
5
Chair Tanaka: Ok, good question. So the reason why I wanted to remove the final sentence is that it’s 6
kind of like, if we really knew the menu of public benefits then we could put that in the zoning code, 7 right? By nature PC’s are an exception and because it’s an exception it’s something which it’s hard, you 8 don’t know what it’s going to be, right? It depends on the property, it depends on the situation, depends 9 on the economy, it depends on a lot of different things. And so I think it’s actually really hard to have a 10 menu of public benefits because it’s something which also implies that we… but that’s mainly the reason 11
because I think exceptions are hard to forecast. That’s the main reason why and I believe actually less is 12
more here. But with that explanation if anyone disagrees with this please pull your lights and speak up 13
against it. Ok. I think we have the majority of the Commission moving forward with that. 14
15
And then let’s go to the next item, which is enforcement. This is on Page 5. And that let’s see, I forgot 16
who was the person that oh yeah, it was Commissioner Alcheck on enforcement. So maybe you could do 17
the same thing Commissioner Alcheck as you can frame up, frame up your rationale that generated this 18
paragraph and if everyone’s… just to make it clear, the last time we talked about this we had a three-19
three split on this item and maybe Commissioner Alcheck if you can kick it off again and then anyone that 20
disagrees with your proposal? 21
22 Vice-Chair Fine: I actually think last time Commissioner Alcheck was moving to strike the funding 23 mechanisms for the enforcement and this paragraph actually kind of strengthens them. 24 25 Chair Tanaka: Oh, ok. 26
27
Vice-Chair Fine: So I don’t know if you (interrupted) 28
29
Chair Tanaka: Oh, ok. Actually ok so that’s right. Who was speaking out against (interrupted) 30
31
Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t think that’s accurate. I think what I suggested last time was that we 32
needed greater specificity of enforcement because that in and of itself is a problem. And then I also 33
suggested that we create an avenue by which costs could theoretically be waived for nonprofits because 34
they are in essence operating in the red and I think they’ve done that. So I actually would support this 35 enforcement clause. 36 37 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so Commissioner Alcheck can you do us a favor? Can you speak why you agree with 38 this? 39
40
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah. 41
42
Chair Tanaka: And then anyone that disagrees with you will hit the lights. 43
44
Commissioner Alcheck: I would like to suggest that I think that this is really well written. I also want to 45
suggest that this is fundamentally the most complicated component of the deal that will be struck 46
between a city and an applicant and I think what these two paragraphs do is create sort of a framework 47
for what we want to see happen without sort of creating too much specificity. And because every public 48
benefit could theoretically be very different the enforcement agreement would have to be very specific 49
because it might be executed in a different way. And I like that. And we had a speaker tonight who 50 talked about dissatisfaction with the concept of being able to waive enforcement costs. Again, I see that 51 option for nonprofits specifically as being very welcome. I think it would be a mistake to remove it. I 52 don’t think we’ve been overrun by nonprofit PC developers. And I wonder since we’ve never had really 53 enforcement costs attached to this program if allowing this caveat which simply is an option would be 54
threatening. So again, I imagine the day when they do craft this agreement it will be like a work of art 55
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 24
by our City’s legal team and if there are suggestions on how this could theoretically be better I would 1
probably welcome them from my colleagues. 2
3
Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Alcheck spoke why he thinks that this paragraph that staff has written 4
on Page 5 on enforcement should, we should incorporate this. Everyone that disagrees should hit the 5
lights and the first one is Commissioner Michael. 6
7 Commissioner Michael: I think this is on the right track. I have three suggestions for possible 8 improvement of the enforcement and monitoring. The first is in perpetuity I think is not really workable 9 because that could be a long time. I think we should have a fixed number of years consistent with the 10 expected age of the building, let’s say 30 years. But in perpetuity could be 1,000 years. So I think in 11
perpetuity should be replaced by a fixed term of years somewhat related to the useful life of the building. 12
13
I think on the second section where it says following approval I think that should be before approval. So 14
I think that when the PC district is approved I think that the public benefits agreement should be sort of 15
part of what’s approved. And then I think at the end I think this was a comment made earlier, Council 16
may elect to waive enforcement costs for nonprofit developers, I think that should be deleted because I 17
think a nonprofit organization is tax exempt. They may have significant cash flow. I don’t see the 18
rationale for treating them differently from somebody who is a taxable entity and I would propose those 19
three changes. 20
21
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Commissioner Gardias. 22 23 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a comment about monitoring and this is from 24 the same perspective when we spoke, when we talk first time or before our last, during our last meeting 25 about simplifying process of initial screening. I would like to propose to remove monitoring and 26
enforcement clause. The reason is like this, it’s going to cost both parties and I don’t think it’s going to 27
be taken well if there’s going to be a special monitoring program for this. We have already number of 28
different ordinances and I think that monitoring this may be a weak point. So we would be introducing 29
another one maybe not effective mechanism. 30
31
And then I think that this should be replaced with self-monitoring, which would be per contract with the 32
City that the developer is going to sign. So it’s going to replace that obligation and in terms of the 33
enforcement we already have a process, existing process of the enforcement of the violations. So I don’t 34
see there is a reason for introducing a specific process. So for this reason I would propose to remove 35 this clause. Thank you. 36 37 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Commissioner Gardias just to be clear are you saying you want to strike Section B? Is 38 that what you’re saying? 39
40
Commissioner Gardias: That’s correct. 41
42
Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. Ok, does anyone else disagree with Commissioner Alcheck’s proposal? You 43
should hit the lights. Commissioner Rosenblum. 44
45
Commissioner Rosenblum: I agree with the proposal, but also agree with Commissioner Michael to 46
change in perpetuity to some finite period that’s commensurate with the project. 47
48
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Commissioner Downing. 49
50 Commissioner Downing: I support what Commissioner Rosenblum just said in terms of supporting 51 Commissioner Mark Michael. I would also add that in terms of…to Commissioner Gardias’ point it says 52 “the benefits agreement shall contain a monitoring and enforcement plan.” That’s pretty vague though. 53 You could make that really strict; you could make it really loose, right? I mean the enforcement plan 54
may be that there is no enforcement plan. That’s how I read this, I mean you could make it as light or 55
as heavy handed as you wanted. So I wouldn’t necessarily want to cut that. 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 25
1
I think I do want to draw our attention back to why this wall came up for Commissioner Alcheck in the 2
first place, which is that we were talking about different kinds of projects. And we were talking about for 3
example that there’s a difference between something that’s affordable housing and it’s always going to 4
be affordable housing and there’s kind of no reason to monitor it because it is what it is. You’d be really 5
hard for it not to be that, right, versus other types of public benefits like for example, a garden that’s 6
locked behind a gate and it should be open and it’s not. So a different kind of monitoring, different kind 7 of cost involved. So I do want to bring the attention back to that because I think it makes sense for the 8 one kind and not the other and I think that we were trying to make that distinction by talking about 9 nonprofit developers, but there might be a better way to make that distinction. If you guys can help me 10 come up with that I’ll support that, but I think that’s, I think that was an idea that we all kind of 11
understood and grasped. The one other thing (interrupted) 12
13
Chair Tanaka: Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. Before you go on can you frame that in terms of how would 14
you change the language so that we could… you want to make it tangible? 15
16
Commissioner Downing: I’m not sure. I got to think about it. 17
18
Chair Tanaka: Ok. 19
20
Commissioner Downing: And maybe others will have ideas, but the one other thing that I wanted to 21
mention is that in terms of establishing a funding mechanism for inspections to go along with the idea 22 that this should be tied not to perpetuity, but to the expected lifetime of the project. I actually am not a 23 fan of a funding mechanism for inspections. I think there should be an upfront fee and that’s it and 24 you’re done. Because I think that if you have a funding mechanism well now every year there’s a project 25 for staff to do and to get the payment and to monitor the payment and make sure it’s coming in, right? 26
That’s a whole other work flow for us. So get it up front. So I don’t really like the idea of a funding 27
mechanism. Getting it up front also means that we can invest it and we can earn interest off of it and it 28
sits in our pot and we can use it when we need to and not necessarily just for this project, but for any 29
other project. We create a pool of inspection funds. So I would propose changing that section from 30
“establishing of a funding mechanism for inspections” to “establishing a prepaid fee for inspections.” 31
Something like that. 32
33
Chair Tanaka: If later you come up with the language for the other idea hit your lights. Ok, Vice-Chair. 34
35 Vice-Chair Fine: I want to say I’m in support of Commissioner Alcheck and Commissioner Michael and the 36 changes they’ve made. I’m interested by the idea of changing it to a fee instead of a funding mechanism 37 as proposed by Commissioner Downing. I wanted to ask staff if they know of any other municipalities 38 which do some sort of enforcement on these kind of zones. I mean in my own experience I’ve known 39
plenty of public spaces that are closed to the public or affordable housing that’s done in these things then 40
just used as a corporate suite. These things are violated. So if you have any experience in how they’re 41
enforced? 42
43
Mr. Lait: So locally? 44
45
Vice-Chair Fine: Nationally. 46
47
Mr. Lait: Ok, well I guess I’ll say a couple of things. One, here in Palo Alto we have two code 48
enforcement officers that are looking at the whole City, a variety of potential violations and it’s a very 49
reactive situation. So we’re not able to respond at this point to proactive enforcement. And we do 50 enforcement on projects that have received PC districts and we were actually just talking about one today 51 and it seems like there are repeat sort of violations of maybe closing off certain areas and not being 52 accessible. So those are things that we need to go back out and do an enforcement action on. I think 53 that’s a drain on our resources if we have to keep going out and if it’s spread out over a certain period of 54
time it may not trigger a certain mechanism where it can escalate. I think one of the benefits of having 55
in this agreement a monitoring and enforcement plan is that we can address that issue and talk about 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 26
repeat violations and how that will be addressed in a construct that might be more constrained than our 1
existing program. 2
3
It is in my experience in other communities the idea of enforcement and monitoring program is not, it is 4
something that is a part of the process. It’s not unusual. The idea that if we’re going to have to expand 5
City resources to make sure you’re doing what you said you were going to do that you’re going to cover 6
the cost of staff doing that and whether that’s a funding mechanism or a prepaid fee, I think the idea is 7 that you collect some money, you draw down on that, and then you collect more money when you need 8 it. So I think the intent here was to not be… we felt like we weren’t able to imagine all the different 9 scenarios and enforcement plans and monitoring activities that could possibly be relevant to a particular 10 project so the way it was drafted was with the intent that there’s broad flexibility so that we can craft it. 11
And I frankly think you can strike the last sentence because the elimination of that doesn’t preclude a 12
conversation about that when you’re drafting that plan. And I had a couple of other thoughts that were 13
off that point when it’s appropriate Chair that I’d like to talk about. 14
15
Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Downing. 16
17
Commissioner Downing: Alright, I got you what I think we need. Ok, in this sentence “the following 18
components frequency of inspections, establishment of a discretionary fee or series of fees for 19
inspections.” And I think that that gets us to a wide array of flexibility that can work for all sorts of 20
different projects. Should I say, should I do it again? Ok, so “the following components frequency of 21
inspections, establishment of a discretionary fee or series of fees for inspections.” 22 23 Chair Tanaka: So here’s what I’d like to do. I’d like to kind of sum up where we’re at right now first and 24 then make this kind of a jumping off point for other, other folks. In terms of in perpetuity I think the first 25 person to disagree with Commissioner Alcheck was Mark Michael who proposed it needs to be time 26
bound. That was also supported by Commissioner Rosenblum, also by Vice-Chair Fine, and also by it was 27
also supported by… can’t read my handwriting. Oh, that’s right. It was supported by Commissioner 28
Downing. That’s right. Ok and then I also support that and then the, which is a majority so that would 29
work. 30
31
And then the other one is the comment about applicant following approval. Commissioner Michael 32
suggested that should be before approval. And that was supported by the same set of folks including 33
myself. So that’s also a majority. And then the other one is Commissioner Michael wanted to strike the 34
last sentence and that was supported by Commissioner Downing and Commissioner Fine and I also 35 support that. So that’s majority. And so, so that’s kind of where we’re at. 36 37 And then I think Commissioner Downing is proposing a variation to language which you all have just 38 heard. And I support that and so I’d like to use that as a new jumping off point. So for folks that 39
disagree with the current state of where this is at, hit your lights please. So Commissioner Alcheck. 40
41
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, I want to make a case for this fixed years idea. I know, I just I want to if you 42
don’t mind I want to just suggest something here. In this first Paragraph A we talk about recording 43
something as a covenant on real property. That is a very permanent recording and if we’re 44
uncomfortable with permanence maybe that’s something we should talk about the recording of a 45
covenant. 46
47
But I also want to articulate something else, which is when people are reviewing these PC projects and 48
we’re talking about intrinsic benefits which I believe are the only instances of situations where 49
enforcement will be necessary because extrinsic benefits would require some sort of action to take place 50 at a very specific time and theoretically enforcement… well, who knows. Maybe there would be ongoing 51 enforcement in extrinsic benefits situation as well. But allow me for a moment to just suggest that when 52 they put forth a project that has a very specific public benefit intrinsic to the project the whole design of 53 the project sort of envelops this idea and the life of the project should theoretically support that use or 54
that benefit. At some point in time somebody may want to change the project, redevelop it, at which 55
point they could either redevelop it under current zoning or apply for a new PC in theory. And so I don’t 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 27
know if perpetuity is the right word and I don’t know if fixed years is the right word because for example 1
with affordable housing there’s a state law mandated number of years. And so I think maybe what we 2
need there is for the life of the project because if we intend the next public benefit to relate to the 3
exceptions received it should exist throughout the duration that the benefit exceptions are enjoyed. And 4
so I would not support removing perpetuity and I wanted to make the case for that real quick. 5
6
And I would also like to highlight that this idea of recording a covenant on the affected property 7 represents potentially an incongruous idea here with your general support for eliminating perpetuity. So 8 I think number one we should figure out a better word for perpetuity and maybe we should eliminate the 9 covenant idea. And I would support the suggestion of the fees for inspections that Commissioner 10 Downing came up with. 11
12
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I know other people had hit their lights, but I’d like to actually close on the issue of 13
in perpetuity versus conflict with the covenant. I think probably the best person to address that is 14
Commissioner Michael. So I’m going to call on you first so maybe you can help address that issue. 15
16
Commissioner Michael: Well I think Commissioner Alcheck is making some good points, but I think that 17
the practicality of the enforcement process should be linked to the expected useful life of the project or 18
the building and I think that if you have some way of estimating that and I think there are other buildings 19
which are and I think in the density bonus it’s 30 years or there may be some convention about what you 20
would adopt for the fixed term, but I would think that in perpetuity is creating some uncertainty that was 21
really not desirable. And I have other comments about other parts of this, but I’ll stop there. 22 23 Chair Tanaka: Ok. So let’s see here. 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: [Unintelligible – off microphone] 26
27
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so let’s otherwise we’re going to be here all night. Let’s try to do this a little bit 28
methodically. Ok, so Commissioner Alcheck why don’t you, why don’t you have a revised statement? 29
30
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah I would simply remove in perpetuity and I would say, “In which the district 31
was created for the life of the project or until modified by ordinance,” which would be essentially a new 32
PC. Because in theory if someone wanted to redevelop the project and bring it back down to zoning they 33
should have that right. They should have the right to redevelop something they developed 10 years ago 34
that may not be working out and maybe they bring it back to current zoning in which case why would 35 they need to continue offering a public benefit for a project that doesn’t have any exceptions, right? So I 36 think the life of the project means when that project ceases to exist as it is now. 37 38 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael can you speak on that? 39
40
Commissioner Michael: How about “for the expected life of the project”? 41
42
Commissioner Alcheck: I guess what I’m trying to say is, is there a scenario where you envision a 43
situation where 40 years go by and suddenly peace, this theatre’s no longer public, this garden’s no 44
longer public, and now the owner of the property gets to enjoy maybe an amenity that you used to have 45
to require to share with the…? Like to me if they decide to redevelop the property and maintain existing 46
limitations that would probably have to operate through ordinance through the PC. And if they decided 47
to down, under or reduce the development scale of the property and bring it down into current zoning 48
that would be the end of the life of the project. So I guess I’m trying to understand in what scenario 49
would there need to be a I don’t even know how you define expected life of a project, right? We have 50 buildings now that are 150 years old that we still maintain and we have buildings that are 40 years old 51 that need to get taken down. So I think that’s a very difficult definition. 52 53 Commissioner Michael: Well, I’m not a developer. I’ve had a fairly extensive career in business, but I 54
think that the issue that might come up is that if I’m trying to figure out what’s going to be viable in 55
terms of a project that would be acceptable to the community, to the City, and there’s a cost that’s going 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 28
to be part of the investment. I’m going to want to know if it’s going to be X dollars for Y years, is that 1
acceptable? And I can plug that into my spreadsheet and I can decide whether to do the deal or not, but 2
if it’s a building that has useful life of 40 years and it’s got this monitoring and enforcement is going to 3
cost $1,000 a year I’ll put in a number in that cell in the spreadsheet and I’ll see if it works, but if I don’t 4
know what that’s going to be I may want to do my development elsewhere. But I think there needs to 5
be some rational way of calculating what your, what the parameters are. 6
7 Chair Tanaka: Ok, here’s what I’d like to do, we’re kind of going on with this one item and there is still a 8 bigger item to talk about for this section. So I’m going to call on the lights assuming that you guys want 9 to weigh in on this topic. So I think Commissioner Alcheck is proposing existing life of the project. 10 11
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, the life of the project. 12
13
Chair Tanaka: And Commissioner Michael has his previous fixed years approach or expected life. 14
Commissioner Rosenblum. 15
16
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, just kind of a point of process. I think we’re veering into legal drafting 17
territory and I don’t think it’s productive. So my request for all of us is there are some major 18
philosophical issues I admit that life of a project definition may count as one of those, but I think that I 19
trust staff and attorneys to sort of get the intent that we’re struggling with like how long to pay, they 20
should come up with language that seems to make sense and not go on clause by clause sort of drafting. 21
I don’t know if that’s if there’s like point of order we can vote on, but I think this is not a, I think our role 22 is to give the broad philosophical thrust of intrinsic versus extrinsic, monetary versus not monetary, but 23 like defining clauses I don’t find very productive. 24 25 Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Gardias. 26
27
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the same spirit what my colleague just said, but 28
maybe a little bit different perspective. I still don’t think that we need to; we need this each PC district 29
paragraph as well as Paragraph B. I think that the only thing that should remain from this language 30
should be Paragraph A that pretty much just provides explicit language what needs to be done. The 31
other items each PC district sentence and then public benefits agreements they simply repeat the 32
processes that are already existing and then pretty much introduce separate processes which pretty 33
much will trigger confusion in the future and disputes like we have today. So for this reason I would like 34
to propose just to remove that each PC district clause because it’s already in the covenant and then it’s 35 not going to be modify with this verbiage it will be recorded document on the property and only 36 modification of the PC zone (interrupted) 37 38 Chair Tanaka: Ok, one thing I’d like to do (interrupted) 39
40
Commissioner Gardias: Document is going to change it. 41
42
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias one thing I’d like to do is I’d like to kind of close out the current 43
thread, which is this issue about the expected life versus fixed years or ok, so I think Commissioner 44
Rosenblum brought up a really good point. I do wonder if we are veering too much into the staff area. 45
Maybe staff wants to make a comment on this? 46
47
Mr. Lait: I would love to. So this has been a great discussion. I think I understand with the exception of 48
Commissioner Gardias, I’m not quite on the same page where you are, but I appreciate your perspective 49
on that. I do think we’ve often used the term for the life of the project in documents. We’re comfortable 50 with that language. I think that’s appropriate and I think that that would be a pretty, we can use that 51 language to replace in perpetuity along with the added language of or until modified by ordinance. 52 53 Having read, spent some time now looking at this I wanted to respond to Commissioner Michael’s 54
comment and our public speaker about the public benefit agreement being adopted as part of the PC 55
district. And so I would like to make a recommended change to this section for the PTC to consider and 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 29
right now you’ve got, you got the paragraph or 18.38.160 and then you’ve got Subsection A and 1
Subsection B. I’d actually like to insert at subsection, add a new section which would be the new 2
Subsection A that would state something to the effect that explicitly stating that a public benefits 3
agreement is required as part of the public district approval and then B would be the way A is written 4
now which is execution of the agreement being required after approval and then B restated as C. So I’m 5
simply adding for clarity that the public benefits agreement is required at the time the PC district is 6
approved. 7 8 And then we’re also supportive of the other changes (interrupted) 9 10 Chair Tanaka: Ok, hold on. Can you explain why you want to do that? 11
12
Mr. Lait: I believe that we can be clearer as to when the public benefit agreement is actually acted upon 13
and it was our intent in drafting that it was acted upon as part of the PC district, but I think that there’s 14
an opportunity for us to be more explicit about that. I mean we heard a public comment about it, we 15
heard a Commissioner; there seems to be some confusion about it and I think that just simply adding a 16
new subsection would add that clarity. As part of your PC district you need to have a public benefits 17
agreement. That’s just a statement and then that gets executed after the approval and then there’s this 18
monitoring and reporting program. Ok and I just (interrupted) 19
20
Chair Tanaka: What I’m a little bit concerned about here is that we’re kind of splintering threads and I’m 21
trying to pull it together and so first issue is I think staff suggests that the language mods we’re trying to 22 make in terms of in perpetuity maybe staff could handle. This is kind of something that Commissioner 23 Rosenblum promoted. I actually personally don’t feel that strongly about it, but I don’t know. What I 24 want to do actually is I want to clear the lights and anyone that like feels strongly about it click your 25 lights. Otherwise we’re going to do what staff recommends on this one. Ok. I see no lights. Ok, so 26
now let’s keep going. 27
28
So now… [unintelligible in the background]. Now staff has a recommendation to insert in a new Section A 29
and so let’s follow that thread now. And in exchange for changing the following instead of what 30
Commissioner Michael proposed which was having the following approval he wanted to have before 31
approval. Staff is recommending instead of that doing what he just said, which is having this new 32
Section A. 33
34
Mr. Lait: Right, I want to honor that comment but make it a discrete subsection. 35 36 Chair Tanaka: Ok. So with that proposal anyone that disagrees should hit the lights. Ok, I’m going to 37 say something. So I, at least maybe I misunderstood this, but I think the reason why it’s important to 38 have it before instead of not specifying, of having it following because I think that it should be clear as to 39
what is the agreement, right? How could you I think it’s something that the speaker earlier today said 40
and so I think it actually is important to have when does that happen. I know it’s going to happen, but 41
the question is when. And I think that’s the point that Commissioner Michael made and that’s why I, I 42
think that the way Commissioner Michael proposed is still better than what you proposed. Ok, so let’s 43
call on other folks. Commissioner Gardias. 44
45
Ms. Silver: Chair Tanaka, can I just make a legal clarification that the reason why staff is proposing it this 46
way is that we believe that there should be a distinction between negotiation, execution. So that 47
negotiation takes place beforehand where the City has the leverage, but legally the City cannot execute a 48
document until the PC district is approved. 49
50 Chair Tanaka: Ok, I didn’t know that. So for that reason I actually withdraw my objection to that. Ok, 51 Commissioner Alcheck. 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: No, I was going to suggest that I think what he meant was that [unintelligible]. I 54
was going to suggest the same thing. 55
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 30
Chair Tanaka: Ok, good. So I think we’re coming together here. So, let’s go over again where we are. 1
So we’ve basically have the changes that the staff proposed at Section A, we have all the ones that 2
Commissioner Michael proposed, the ones that Commissioner Downing proposed. We have majority 3
approval for all of that. I guess what I want to confirm is if anyone disagrees with what I just said to hit 4
the lights and speak about it. I do want to acknowledge Commissioner Gardias has already said he 5
wants to strike Section B and we already heard that. Vice-Chair. 6
7 Vice-Chair Fine: This is a probably a typo. It says, “penalties for enforcement.” I think that you mean 8 “penalties for violations.” 9 10 Chair Tanaka: Ok, I don’t think anyone disagrees on that one. I think we’re good on this. I think majority 11
agrees with the changes we’ve talked about except for I think Commissioner Gardias who thinks we 12
should strike Section D. Ok. Commissioner Michael. 13
14
Commissioner Michael: I have a question about the funding mechanism. We talked about I guess 15
Commissioner Downing had some comments on this which were interesting. There may be some benefit 16
to just having sort of an upfront fee which is deemed to be adequate. In some cases you don’t want to 17
have, it wouldn’t necessarily be appropriate to have a fee, but you might want to have a performance 18
bond. For example, there might be a low probability of default, but a high cost of that if it were to occur 19
and I think you also have a situation where I think you’d want to have sort of basically a bond instead of 20
a fee. A big bond. 21
22 And I’m also concerned that there’s a typical pattern that I believe occurs in some real estate projects 23 and that you have a promoter who may be sort of a general partner attracting investors in the form of a 24 Limited Partnership (LP). Maybe it’s a condominium. Maybe they sell all the units, turn it over to the 25 Homeowner’s Association (HOA), the partnership is dissolved and no longer exists and now you have a 26
different group of people and perhaps the public benefit was maintaining an open space as a public park 27
and then they default on that. Now you’re going after the condominium owners where the agreement, 28
public benefits agreement wasn’t, they weren’t parties to the public benefits agreement the general 29
partner was the party to that. So what happens if you have a partnership that goes out of existence, an 30
Limited Liability Company (LLC) that goes out of existence, you have entirely new group, time passes, the 31
building is still life of the project, but it’s a completely new group of innocent people who weren’t privy to 32
it, they don’t understand it, how do you (interrupted) 33
34
Mr. Lait: Two points on that. So typically there’s language that talks about the successor ownership of 35 the property or whatever the real estate transaction is they would be responsible for maintaining the 36 benefits and so forth. And that’s why we’ve added the requirement about the covenant so that when 37 there’s a sale of transfer the new owner is going to receive a copy of that when they do their title search 38 they’ll see that there’s this covenant and they’ll see what their obligation is when they are acquiring the 39
property. 40
41
Commissioner Michael: So if it goes to the association and then they run notice and (interrupted) 42
43
Mr. Lait: That’s right. 44
45
Commissioner Michael: It’s a common expense (interrupted) 46
47
Mr. Lait: That’s right. 48
49
Commissioner Michael: And common risk. Ok. 50 51 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael I assume that there’s no specific change you wanted to make then? 52 53 Commissioner Michael: No, I’m just I was just concerned with the adequacy of the funding mechanism 54
and again the notion of you may want a fee, you may want a bond, you may want to set up an annual 55
charge, but I think you might want to be creative in terms of making sure it’s adequate. 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 31
Mr. Lait: So if I may? For staff’s perspective I think our preference is to leave the language as it was 1
drafted where it says funding mechanism I think it leaves open a wide variety of options. You did 2
mention the performance bond. That is a frequent tool that we use to require adherence to certain 3
standards or conditions of approval. I think funding mechanism also includes the possibility of 4
discretionary fees and a core series of fees. I think it’s much more it’s a broader approach and leaves us 5
more options. That’s just the staff perspective. 6
7 Chair Tanaka: Ok. This was actually Commissioner Downing’s proposal, so do you want to respond to 8 that? 9 10 Commissioner Downing: Yeah, I think at the very least we need the word discretionary in there because 11
like we were talking about for perma projects where we really don’t expect much in terms of 12
enforcement. If it’s like affordable housing we don’t necessarily want them to pay a fee every year. So I 13
think you want the word discretionary in there at the very least. 14
15
Ms. Silver: We don’t typically use the term discretionary to characterize a fee. There’s a fee schedule so I 16
guess I’m not completely following why you need the added term discretionary. 17
18
Commissioner Downing: Just so long as it’s clear that it can be zero; that the Council has a right to say 19
zero. 20
21
Chair Tanaka: Ok, let’s close on that item first which is discretionary. Discretionary or what it currently 22 said before, whatever it is, funding mechanism. So let’s say that if everyone is in favor of what 23 Commissioner Downing said or if you don’t if you [unintelligible] Commissioner Downing said hit your 24 lights. Ok, so staff proposed that we have the funding mechanism back to the language as it was, 25 Commissioner Downing has countered saying discretionary funding mechanism, right? And so everyone 26
that disagrees with Commissioner Downing hit the lights. Commissioner Alcheck. 27
28
Commissioner Alcheck: [Off mic]. 29
30
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 31
32
Commissioner Gardias: No, I won’t speak no further because it’s from the same what I said already 33
before, right? So. 34
35 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 36 37 Commissioner Michael: [Off mic] 38 39
Chair Tanaka: Ok, people who support don’t have to do anything. If you support Commissioner 40
Downing’s discretionary funding mechanism you don’t have to do anything. If you disagree hit the lights; 41
if you disagree with Commissioner Downing’s. Ok, so Commissioner Michael, do you want to speak about 42
why you disagree? 43
44
Commissioner Michael: I support Senior Assistant City Attorney Cara Silver’s explanation of the fact that 45
they don’t want the word discretionary in that language because it constrains the City. 46
47
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 48
49
Commissioner Gardias: The same spirit and then each sentence like this or word just requires definition 50 because otherwise would create confusion. 51 52 Chair Tanaka: I also agree with staff’s recommendation, but that’s only three so, Vice-Chair. 53 54
Vice-Chair Fine: So this is to Commissioner Michael and to staff. How would discretionary constrain the 55
City? Having that word in there? 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 32
Ms. Silver: We’re getting in to some heavy duty wordsmithing here. I don’t know that discretionary 1
would actually constrain the City. I think you have the ability to waive the fee under the last sentence 2
assuming that hasn’t been taken out. 3
4
Vice-Chair Fine: Ok. 5
6
Ms. Silver: One I think what we’re really concerned about is that what we want is to have a broad way of 7 enforcing this through fees, through letters of credit, through performance bond and not be tied down to 8 just one funding mechanism. 9 10 Vice-Chair Fine: Ok, I think in that case I would also be against this word discretionary and vote to keep 11
it as is. 12
13
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Commissioner Alcheck. 14
15
Commissioner Alcheck: In lieu of that can we reinstate the waiver then? I mean the idea of the… I think 16
the waiver again is optional and it just it instills the concept that we want to not make, we want to give 17
the Council an opportunity to make certain enforcement less burdensome for certain developers. I think 18
that’s just creating greater flexibility again. So I would encourage us to put that back in if possible. 19
20
Chair Tanaka: Ok. So I actually I think I would agree with actually staff, which is I think we’re doing 21
some heavy duty wordsmithing here so but, we actually have a majority that agrees with staff. And so 22 Commissioner Alcheck you wanted to propose your action for discretionary back in or I guess what was 23 your proposal (interrupted) 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: I was just going to suggest that we leave the last line in there. 26
27
Chair Tanaka: Ok, we had a majority that already agreed to take it out though. 28
29
Commissioner Alcheck: Right, but I think we took it out as a result of the case that was made for 30
discretionary because the case that was made suggested that discretionary allowed you to do both. It 31
allowed you to create a non-fee because it was discretionary. And I think the point here is (interrupted) 32
33
Chair Tanaka: So let’s do that. So you’re proposing to not strike out the last sentence. So everyone that 34
disagrees with Alcheck’s proposal to remove the, everyone that agrees with him to remove the last 35 sentence don’t have to do anything. Ok. So everyone’s cool with keeping that sentence in then. That’s 36 fine. Ok, so I think we’re done here. Does anyone disagree? 37 38 Commissioner Alcheck: I’d like to address one issue that we or do you mean with this specific issue or 39
done with the PC reform discussion? 40
41
Chair Tanaka: No, no, no. Done with enforcement discussion. 42
43
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, let’s move on. 44
45
Chair Tanaka: Ok, let’s move on then. Ok. 46
47
Commissioner Alcheck: I thought you were about to adjourn. 48
49
Chair Tanaka: No, no, no. Ok, ok. So we’re done on enforcement. Let’s move on to the only incongruity 50 basically staff says that there is none so we don’t have to talk about that. Now let’s talk about the Page 51 7, which is the recommendations we made last time that staff disagrees with on. So here’s what I 52 propose. I propose that for each item one by one starting with the first item on the bottom of Page 7 53 that staff talks about why they disagree and what they propose that we do. And the way we’ll work is if 54
folks disagree with staff we’ll hit our lights and if we do agree we won’t say anything. So staff why don’t 55
you start with the first item? 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 33
Mr. Lait: I’m happy to participate in the conversation. I think that when we were last here we had a 1
three-three straw poll vote on these different issues. I think we articulated that in the report for the first 2
item about the 50 feet. I understand clearly why the Commissioners who expressed the desire to go past 3
that to provide that flexibility that some would argue that that’s the purpose of the PC district. We 4
understand that. We just haven’t heard, well I guess what we have heard is that people are looking for 5
more a little more predictability about what the PC district projects would include and establishing some 6
kind of a limitation to how far somebody could ask for some deviation for the code. We’ve on the 7 previous page we include a table that illustrates the distinction between the zoning ordinance densities 8 which in some instances are lower than the Comprehensive Plan densities and we believe that that is a 9 vehicle for which somebody could seek a deviation from the zoning but still be compliant with the 10 Comprehensive Plan. It’s really just a policy conversation for the PTC at this point as to whether or not 11
the 50 foot is a hard limit or not. 12
13
Chair Tanaka: Ok. I think you gave an explanation. I’m not sure you gave a proposal, but Commissioner 14
Alcheck actually reminded me (interrupted) 15
16
Mr. Lait: So to be clear I guess the proposal is to not make any change as we’ve indicated in the staff 17
report. 18
19
Chair Tanaka: Ok. 20
21
Mr. Lait: Ok. 22 23 Chair Tanaka: I’m going to do this, so staff has a proposal of keeping it as it is as they say on Page 7, 24 Part 1. Commissioner Alcheck. 25 26
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, first let me say that I appreciate and respect very much staff’s decision to not 27
support the removal of the 50 foot height limit. And I also am very happy that you acknowledged our 28
overwhelming support at the last meeting for lifting the 50 foot height limit. I think it’s import… no, I 29
don’t think it was three-three. I don’t think, I think it was unanimous. 30
31
Mr. Lait: You’re right actually. It was unanimous of the members that were here. 32
33
Commissioner Alcheck: And I think it’s important that the City Council know that we unanimously felt that 34
we should lift that and I want to and since everybody here is in agreement with me, this is sort of a 35 direct appeal to you. I would like to appeal to staff and ask if they would consider rephrasing their 36 position and instead of articulating support for 50 feet, articulating support for a five-story limitation. 37 There’s a real specific reason why I’m suggesting this. I would obviously as a Commissioner since I 38 made this clear I would support developments that exceeded five-stories, ok? But if staff is 39
uncomfortable with simply eliminating the limitation on 50 feet would they support the view that you 40
have heard articulated by the majority of the members of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on 41
countless occasions and some Commissioners as well, which is that 50 feet is sort of the wrong metric 42
and that five stories is far better. 43
44
Again, I would support exceeding the five-story limit, but my point here is that you have an opportunity 45
here to engage the City Council in a discussion that the ARB has suggested for so long now. And if you 46
suggested five-stories that could mean 55 feet, that could mean 58 feet. And what that really actually 47
means is that we would give developments an opportunity to enhance first floor retail as well as 48
enhancing rooflines, which is something the ARB has consistently said the 50 feet creates a box and 49
doesn’t give us an opportunity to create a five-story project that is actually more appealing than what 50 we’re sort of encouraging. 51 52 Again, what I’m suggesting is I appreciate that you’ve gotten feedback from Council that 50 feet is where 53 they’re at and you’re not really comfortable sort of supporting a change. But maybe you can take this 54
opportunity to suggest if you agree, not you, but staff as a whole that five stories might be a better 55
approach and that would sort of happen in conjunction with our recommendation that we lift that 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 34
limitation in general. But at least we’ve given City Council this rare opportunity to create a better metric 1
and that discussion could theoretically adjust the zoning code, but anyways I’m just suggesting that you 2
incorporate some of the ARB’s suggestions. 3
4
Chair Tanaka: So staff had made a recommendation that we approved last time or we yeah, we approved 5
last time that we don’t have because this is an exception, PC’s are exceptions we don’t need to have 50 6
feet limit. Alcheck has counter proposed but before we get to his counter proposal let’s hear 7 Commissioner Gardias. 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So for the record I just wanted to remind our 10 conversation last time. I was, I voted indeed to remove this cap, but because of the confusion that you 11
remember there was subsequent point that was talking about some other limitations on the project which 12
I supported. I believe that there should be some limitation on the development since my colleagues 13
didn’t support the other one I in the subsequent discussion I retracted my vote. So, respecting my 14
colleagues vote it was not unanimous. It was I retracted my vote and those are the reasons. 15
16
So I believe that there should be some limitation as reason for developer or the applicant of the project 17
to benchmark himself against and also provide a clear end guidance for the community, but what 18
community may expect. So those are two reasons that there should be some sort of cap, height limit or 19
some other benchmark. I envision it differently, but if there will be some other variation from this 50 20
feet, I would go along with it as long as it would provide clear cap on the height or some other limitation 21
of the development. Thank you. 22 23 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 24 25 Commissioner Michael: So I wasn’t here when the earlier discussion happened and I did read the minutes 26
and I thought it was pretty thorough discussion. It doesn’t seem appropriate to me that the revision of 27
the PC zoning ordinance is a time to debate the height limit. The height limit is the height limit. I mean 28
it’s… and I think that’s people may have different views on this. The ARB has views on this. I think 29
Commissioner Alcheck was pretty eloquent a moment ago on reasons why we might want to think of this 30
more flexibly, but the height limit is the height limit and I don’t think that we should I don’t see any need 31
to have the height limit sort of inserted into the PC zoning ordinance at all. 32
33
This goes to Council for their final decision on sort of everything. On whether a PC district will be 34
approved and on the two PC’s that have come through during my tenure one was Lytton Gateway and 35 there’s the tower, which is more ornamental and that was above the 50 a few feet above that and people 36 thought that was ok. The building itself other than the ornamental piece is 50 feet. And then there’s the 37 one that is being done on El Camino where the health club is that’s got the heating, ventilating, and air 38 conditioning (HVAC) which is that’s a little enclosed section which is a few feet above that. And I don’t 39
see that the applications for PC zoning are really pushing the envelope on height, but at any case they 40
have to go through Council. And I fully respect that Council is elected and they have the power to make 41
that decision because otherwise what typically gets fiddled with here are parameters of either FAR, 42
setback, parking, or height or some subtle combination of those. And I think that we should allow the 43
law to be what the law is. We don’t have to restate it in this ordinance because it’s so symbolically 44
important in the community although some people may oppose it for those reasons. 45
46
Chair Tanaka: Ok, go. 47
48
Commissioner Alcheck: I just want to clarify. I completely agree with you Commissioner Michael. I don’t 49
think they were just restating the law. I think they were saying that PC’s couldn’t exceed 50 feet. So it 50 was the one component of the law or density code that a PC couldn’t exceed. And so it was not just 51 restating the law it was actually restricting feasibility. And I actually completely agree with you and your 52 sentiments. 53 54
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 55
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 35
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, sorry it’s another process point. I’m not sure what we’re supposed to be 1
doing here. So we had a unanimous, in this case unanimous item so we’re not waiting for another 2
Commissioner to sort of break the tie. Staff has disagreed. We’re not, we don’t have a binding vote. 3
They’re making recommendations to Council. It represents that we were for this; they said this is not 4
advisable. Council now has staff input, PTC input so I’m not sure what actions we’re trying to do now. 5
6
Chair Tanaka: Yeah, so the point of just going over this again because you’re right, all four of these items 7 the Commission minus Commissioner Michael has already said yeah, we’re for it, right? Staff has had a 8 chance to think about it and is making recommendations to us although we can choose to ignore and so 9 it’s a chance for us to change our minds. So that’s what it is. So I assume that you continue to disagree 10 with staff? 11
12
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah it’s a, I continue to believe this isn’t PC zoning is an exceptional process. 13
It’s a bit odd to me this is the one do not cross line that is specifically called out that violating FAR could 14
be ok and violating setbacks could be ok, but the height limit is inviolable. And I would say certainly it’s a 15
pretty hard rule and Council would have, could get pretty squinty about anyone who’s trying to violate it 16
so it’s hard for me to imagine, but Commissioner Michael just gave two examples and so I don’t know. It 17
seems odd that the line is drawn here, but again we had the process. Staff has their recommendation 18
and I think that that’s it does seem odd to me in this exceptional process this is the one area that there 19
shall be no exceptions. 20
21
Mr. Lait: Chair, can I comment? 22 23 Chair Tanaka: Well, ok I was thinking because Commissioner Rosenblum brought up a good point which 24 is we actually already said yes. We heard your reasons and the person that was missing was 25 Commissioner Michael. He actually agrees with Commission as a whole. So in some ways we’re like 26
done on this item already, but staff why don’t you go ahead? 27
28
Mr. Lait: That was going to be my comment as well. Just if you wanted to maybe on the aggregate see if 29
there was any change of position, but you’re already there. So we’re good. 30
31
Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Downing do you want to say something? 32
33
Commissioner Downing: Yes, so I think just as a process point it would be helpful for me to understand, 34
so help me understand this because we as the PTC we went through all of this. And as you can see 35 we’ve gone though it with a fine tooth comb. And we’ve come up with some recommendations and a lot 36 of them, they were unanimous and they’re unanimous recommendations that you’re rejecting. And so I 37 guess what I’m trying to understand is at least the way that I understood this is that based on our 38 recommendations that’s the ordinance that you put together and that’s the ordinance that you present to 39
Council. If there’s a different process please tell me, but that seems a little bit odd that we can give a 40
recommendation, we give an ordinance that we’re happy with and then staff is basically rewriting it and 41
taking the parts they like and they don’t like. 42
43
So I guess maybe we just need some clarity on this because we feel like we created something and then 44
you’re going to give Council half of it. I think that’s our concern. I think that’s why we’re coming back to 45
this, right? Because if you gave them what we told you to give them and then you said but we for 46
whatever reason we think these are foolish ideas, that’s fine. But at least that’s what you give them. 47
Our concern is that you’re not giving them what we asked for. 48
Mr. Lait: Right, I can research this further and how it’s been addressed in Palo Alto. My experience has 49
been that staff is making a report to the Council. That’s a staff recommendation that is included in that 50 report. So included with that staff recommendation would be a recommended ordinance, but we would 51 certainly need to make sure that we are capturing the Commission’s comments and we would include the 52 tenor of the dialogue that’s taken place and we would explicitly state the reasons the Commission’s 53 position on these areas of disagreement. We would highlight that in the report. Those would be 54
discussion topics that would be held by the Council. And we would include, we would even include the 55
language that you’ve talked about in the staff report as we’ve done in the staff report here. And then 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 36
further the Commission would also represent itself also at the Council meeting. After the staff 1
presentation there would be an opportunity for the Commission to summarize its deliberation and can 2
further amplify those distinctions. 3
4
But I guess and again I’m open to looking further at this issue to understand how it’s been approached in 5
the past, but it’s ultimately, there’s two recommendations we’re putting forward. There’s a staff 6
recommendation and a PTC recommendation. We’re drafting an ordinance to reflect the staff 7 recommendation, but we have the language in the staff report to implement the PTC’s recommendation. 8 That’s sort of the process we’re pursuing. I understand your comments and again I’m happy to discuss 9 that further with staff and understand how we’ve approached it in the past. 10 11
Commissioner Downing: I mean it just as City Council you’re short on time and likely the only thing you’re 12
going to read is the first version of the ordinance here, right? You’re by the time you get to the very end 13
in these things that maybe we should have included; those are things that are stacked pretty far at the 14
bottom. And that’s not going to be like the language that they’re working off. It’s not going to be the 15
first thing they’re looking at. And so I guess my concern is just it’s about the representation of that 16
ordinance because that at that point that doesn’t reflect the PTC anymore. That’s my concern. 17
18
Mr. Lait: So what we’re doing with our staff reports now on these discussion items is there’s going to be 19
in the executive summary the PTC’s discussion, deliberation and that is I’ll be working with the Chair on 20
that language in the staff report. So it’s if your concern is it’s buried in the staff report we’re going to 21
highlight it on the first page in the executive summary and clearly note these are areas of disagreement. 22 I think they’re going to be interested in knowing that and we could even cite in the report details of this 23 can be found on Page 5 or whatever it is. So the last thing I want to do is not move forward the 24 Commission’s thoughtful deliberation and time spent on these issues. So I’m happy to work with the 25 Chair to make sure that the staff report reflects those ideas. 26
27
Commissioner Downing: I mean one thing I want to point out like it’s one thing if the comment is we’re 28
not putting it in because you’re asking us to do something illegal. Or we’re not putting it in because it’s 29
impossible. I understand that, but some of these comments are kind of they’re very kind of policy 30
oriented. We don’t think this is where the Council were to go, but that’s I feel like that’s a position for 31
PTC to take. So that’s why I kind of feel a little bit odd about this. 32
33
Mr. Lait: So again I’m happy to talk to staff and understand the process before. We absolutely agree and 34
I think we noted in our staff report that these are policy conversations and so we’ll want to highlight 35 these policy issues for the Council’s deliberation. 36 37 Chair Tanaka: So this is, this is my expectation. I’d like to get staff’s comment on it. So now last 38 meeting/this meeting we’ve kind of been plowing through all of this and my expectation and what I’ve 39
seen in other meetings is that we’ve made a bunch of comments. These comments should all be 40
assuming we make a Motion and we approve it, this should be the amendment should be redlined within 41
our comments and that will be passed on to City Council as our recommendation. That’s what I expect. 42
Now can staff tell me if that’s not going to happen because that’s like I’ve been to a lot of PTC meetings 43
at this point. And if that’s not going to happen that’s like the first ever. So? 44
45
Mr. Lait: So we will be presenting a redlined ordinance to the Council. 46
47
Chair Tanaka: Yeah, but redline ordinance should be the PTC’s redlines. 48
Mr. Lait: Ok. 49
50 Chair Tanaka: So that’s the Motion I mean assuming that we come to it and we haven’t come to it that 51 we make a Motion to make the redlines to the amendment, I assume this is what, this is what the PTC’s 52 recommendation to Council is. 53 54
Mr. Lait: So here’s what I’ll say. Staff is charged with writing the staff report to the City Council. We’re 55
going to write that staff report and we’re going to communicate the Commission’s recommendation to the 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 37
Council. I’ll talk with staff because again I’ve… new to this process here. I want to understand how 1
we’ve approached it in the past. It will, we will communicate as we always do the PTC’s recommendation 2
to the Council. And I’m going to have a conversation with staff and understand more how we’ve 3
addressed it. I don’t know, I hear what you’re saying. I don’t have any more to give you on that. 4
5
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Ok, so a few lights are on. Commissioner Gardias. 6
7 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So just would like to add to the dilemma, I already 8 spoke about this, but I would like to ask about recording my objection. I think this is very sensitive 9 aspect this height limit or some other limitation and just to restating it differently I think that removing 10 this is going to create unreasonable expectations that pretty much now anybody can build whatever he 11
pleases or she pleases to do. So for this reason I don’t support this removal of this clause or retaining 12
some other limitation that would be appropriate for the planning because it still planning zoned PC. So 13
all I’m asking is pretty much just record my objection in this area which would be for me important in 14
supporting this document. 15
16
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so hold on. Just to be clear here this is not a study session. We’re actually making a 17
Motion. We’re going to be making a recommendation and so what’s going to happen is at some point in 18
time when we feel like we are kind of done through this, somebody’s going to make a Motion saying ok, 19
based on the discussion and the changes that we talked about I make a Motion to do this. And people 20
are can choose to vote yes or no or amend it or make friendly amendments or whatever they feel like 21
doing. So that’s what the process is going to be. So far we’ve been trying to go through this in a kind of 22 expedient fashion, but depending on the amendments and I’m hoping that this kind of pre… gets the 23 Motion going along faster, but it may not. Commissioner Rosenblum. 24 25 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I’m not sure I agree with that process. I do agree that staff writes the 26
report and they have their judgment of what they’re recommending to Council. I think that the process 27
we asked for was to have an executive summary of what we had discussed and our recommendations 28
and so I think that we’re giving input that, that they should consider strongly, but at the same time I 29
think if they represent our summary judgment of many of the main issues staff as professionals still are 30
still recommending what they think the City should be doing. Here’s what PTC recommended as 31
changes. 32
33
So in terms of the process here, again I am trying to avoid us going down to the drafting side of things. 34
I do think that we want to have input on major philosophical areas, but we’re an advisory body and as 35 such we give advice hopefully representing the residents to staff and staff weighs that advice. That 36 advice goes to the Council as well with the staff report, but just from a procedural standpoint I don’t, you 37 may have, you have more experience than I have so maybe in the past what was transmitted to Council 38 was kind of redlines as represented by what PTC asked to insert. But I find staff’s position very 39
reasonable, which is they have professional independent judgment and that as long as our objection to 40
certain things is very clearly noted and said PTC has recommended the following then I have no objection 41
to that. I’m also by the way and I see, look at the clock I also am cognizant of the fact that if we go 42
down this path we really are going to be like sentence by sentence on this ordinance and it makes me 43
kind of shudder. 44
45
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 46
47
Commissioner Michael: So in the time I spent on the Commission it’s taken me awhile to understand the 48
relationship between Commission and Council and our work relationship with staff obviously is incredibly 49
important. And I don’t disagree with anything that Assistant Director Lait has said nor even do I disagree 50 with… I agree with my colleagues as well. So I think that there’s a, there’s a both/and situation rather 51 than an either/or. I think that because I wasn’t at the last meeting I went through the minutes and I 52 read the staff report and I think both the minutes reflect an exceptionally diligent deliberation by the 53 Commission which is very valuable to those Council Members who take the time and effort to read the 54
minutes. And I think the staff report is also excellent and I think in combination it provides the quality of 55
record that will create a foundation for the Council to have their own deliberations which will probably be 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 38
unique and different from what we’re discussing tonight. And they probably have more members of the 1
public weighing in as well. 2
3
I think that Chair Tanaka’s making an important point however and I’m not sure that capturing it in an 4
executive summary is sufficient. I think if the Commission casts a vote that which the Commission votes 5
on should be submitted to Council. And then the executive summary may note that staff in their infinite 6
wisdom and experience has additional input which takes the following four points. But I think that there 7 should be some integrity to when we vote on a recommendation it’s just it’s presented as our, our action. 8 And it can be, it can be weighed accordingly if the Council chooses to use that to inform their 9 deliberations then or not that’s up to Council. But I think that the actual redline text of what we vote on 10 should be what the Council sees. The staff input should be distinct in a way that makes it clear that it’s 11
input from staff, which is enormously valuable. But they should not be comingled. 12
13
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 14
15
Commissioner Alcheck: I just want to suggest I don’t think that what Commissioner Michael and 16
Commissioner Tanaka are suggesting would result in an overly long discussion tonight. I don’t think we 17
should be afraid of articulating our view and I think actually this will end up working itself out because I 18
have a feeling that the process that’s been in place that you’re familiar with and that Commissioner 19
Michael’s familiar with from your tenures will probably be effectuated once we sort of figure out how this 20
should get put together. 21
22 I want to add though that that’s exactly why I started this discussion with an effort to lobby staff to 23 consider a different idea of what to support. This is probably the… there are very few instances where 24 staff and Commission have disagreed on something that we take to City Council. I think this may be the 25 first time where that’s happened. And it is odd. And I found myself in the beginning of this discussion 26
lobbying staff to consider potentially different language that might achieve their goal of respecting the 27
input they feel they’ve received from the community. That is sort of an odd position to be in. 28
29
I would suggest that we actually were very clear last week as Commissioner Michael said. I think the 30
article in the paper articulated that we very nearly unanimously supported this lift and I’m surprised that 31
no one has entered this room to suggest that that was a bad suggestion. I think that we’re not just a 32
recommending body we’re a digestive body meaning that we should digest the community’s input when 33
we have it and I agree. I think that the, I would hope that the resolution that made its way to City 34
Council was a resolution that we approved in our Motion. And I would expect that if there was a 35 disagreement that staff would have a paragraph following our resolution saying that they didn’t agree 36 with a specific item. And I don’t think we should be afraid to support that. I don’t think that implies this 37 will take a long time. We’ve done such a good job of articulating this and let’s be frank here, we’ve just 38 rewritten certain provisions. Why would we be going through this process if that resolution wasn’t 39
actually, right? Why would we have, everything we’ve done tonight suggests that they will see what 40
we’ve done and to not see it seems very odd. 41
42
Chair Tanaka: So here’s where I’m thinking. It’s 9:18. We’ve been going at it without much of a break. 43
What I’m proposing is I know I realize the Vice-Chair has one light. This is maybe we take this one light. 44
We’ll take a five minute break, come back, and try to like hammer this out tonight. Ok? So Vice-Chair 45
why don’t you finish off this before we take a break? 46
47
Vice-Chair Fine: So I concur with Commissioner Alcheck that we have done a lot of hard work on this and 48
I think it’s worth transmitting that to Council. Just to clarify from staff, Council sees two different 49
ordinances in their staff report? 50 51 Mr. Lait: That’s what I’m understanding is your request. That you want them to see two different? 52 53 Vice-Chair Fine: I think I’m speaking for myself, but I think I speak for some other Commissioners here 54
(interrupted) 55
56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 39
Mr. Lait: You want to see one ordinance that reflects the PTC’s recommendation? 1
2
Vice-Chair Fine: That reflects the PTC’s recommendation. 3
4
Mr. Lait: So again, I thank you for the comments. I’ve heard you clearly on that. It is a staff report and 5
we the duality here is that we need to transmit the staff recommendation and the PTC’s 6
recommendation. I’m, I don’t think it’s I mean I think we’ll figure this out. I don’t, this shouldn’t be a 7 tension point between us to communicate the recommendation. And all I’m asking for is a little bit of 8 time so that I can consult with other staff who has gone through this process before. I’m not looking to 9 create a challenging conversation about this. I hear very clearly that the Commission wants its 10 thoughtful deliberation communicated to the Council. That will be done. I just need to explore the 11
format at which it’s been done before. This doesn’t come up very often, but it’s not unusual. I mean 12
often Planning staff will disagree with the PTC. It’s not the end of the world and we figure it out and so I 13
think with a collaborative approach we can solve this problem. 14
15
Vice-Chair Fine: Yep, ok. Thank you. 16
17
Chair Tanaka: Ok guys so we’re going to take a break, but before we take a break I’m going to just kind 18
of summarize what we have left. So there are three additional items that staff disagrees with what we 19
recommended last time. We have one other item from Commissioner Michael that we need to talk about. 20
And then we have a Motion, ok? Should we get there. Alternatively we could say well hey, it’s too late, 21
we’re done, we’re going to like continue this again. That’s another option. So let’s all take a break for 22 five minutes. Come back at I’m not sure what time, what clock’s right? What time is it? Nine… ok so 23 we’ll come back at 9:26. 24 25
THE COMMISSION TOOK A BREAK 26
27
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so we know what’s on the plate. It’s 9:34 right now. And kind of the most basic thing 28
is powering through this or continuing it, right? I think because of timeline it’s actually important for us 29
to power through it, but I want to make sure everyone’s good with the time and continuing. Are there 30
any objections to powering through this? Ok. 31
32
So, there are three more parts that staff disagreed with the Commission on. And the way I want to do it 33
is more kind of consent calendar style here just so we can get through this quicker. And I think staff has 34
already explained why they disagree and the way I’m going to do this is if anyone agrees with staff, say 35 something. Otherwise we’ll just call this one, these three parts done. Ok. Commissioner Gardias. 36 37 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do agree with staff although I propose it differently 38 as you remember because I thought (interrupted). Well, we’re talking about section, second staff 39
proposals, Section 18.38 on the removing residential, one second… yes, removing keeping residential 40
property out of the PC. That’s pretty much that’s the purpose of the second point of staff proposals 41
which is Section 18.38.020(d). That’s what they propose. They want to remove residential zoning out of 42
the PC consideration. 43
44
Chair Tanaka: Ok Commissioner Gardias, is it just Section 2 that you agree with staff on or do you also 45
disagree, also (interrupted) 46
47
Commissioner Gardias: No, I totally support this. 48
49
Chair Tanaka: Ok, three. So two, three, and four? 50 51 Commissioner Gardias: That’s correct. 52 53 Chair Tanaka: Ok. 54
55
Commissioner Gardias: The others as well. 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 40
1
Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. So is there anyone else that agrees with staff’s objection? Commissioner 2
Alcheck. 3
4
Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t agree about Number 2 so just to be clear here I think we should continue 5
to recommend that that be deleted, but I will say that I think Item 3 here, I think it’s redundant and 6
unnecessary and so we don’t need to have a use proposed for a PC district should further the objectives 7 of the Comprehensive Plan. I think at some point tonight we actually amended language for the benefits 8 at some point that it should reflect… yes somewhere we said Comprehensive Plan instead of adopted 9 infrastructure needs, right? So I think it’s redundant. So I would agree with staff that Section 3 need not 10 be added. And I would and I’m not entirely sure Section 4 is necessary either, but just to be clear 11
number Section 2, I continue to believe that should be deleted. 12
13
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 14
15
Commissioner Michael: Since I wasn’t here when you had this discussion originally I just had some 16
questions. On the second point relating to the residential density bonus is this just an either/or situation? 17
18
Mr. Lait: So either/or in the context of you either apply for a state density bonus project or you apply for 19
a PC district? 20
21
Commissioner Michael: Yes. 22 23 Mr. Lait: Yes. That’s the way it’s currently drafted in the existing code. That’s the way staff recommends 24 it continue to be drafted. The Commission’s discussion was that density bonus projects ought to be able 25 to take advantage of a PC district. The reason staff has taken the position it has is that this is a code 26
provision that came to effect I believe it was early part of last year so there was recent policy 27
conversation about state density bonus projects as it relates to PC districts and in the absence of a 28
further dialogue about that or direction to the otherwise we didn’t see a need to make a modification to 29
that provision. 30
31
Commissioner Michael: Ok because it, because the adoption in Palo Alto of the density bonus ordinance is 32
relatively new. We’ve only had the one project come through and they actually came through sort of 33
ahead of the ordinance and they didn’t seek the menu. They wanted off menu concessions. And it 34
seems to me as a practical matter that a project could either seek the concessions under the density 35 bonus thing or they should waive those and apply for a PC. So I’m not, what’s the proposal here in terms 36 of… well anyway so that’s just my trying to understand that. 37 38 And then on the sections of points three and four under the current municipal code there’s, there’s those 39
three requirements and the third one is that it’s consistent with the Comprehensive code. Is that 40
language going away? Because if it’s going away I kind of like the reference to the further the objectives 41
of the Comprehensive Plan and compatible so on, because I think that that language and by consistency 42
with the Comprehensive Plan was an important aspect of the original PC zone ordinance. And I think if 43
that’s dropped out it would be unfortunate. 44
45
Mr. Lait: So consistency does get replaced with furthering the objectives. That’s the PTC, that’s language 46
that we’ve drafted in response to the PTC’s comments. So this is new language that the Commission 47
hasn’t seen yet. This was language that we drafted to capture the Commission’s comments, but 48
(interrupted) 49
50 Commissioner Michael: And so does that mean that the staff and the Commission are in agreement or 51 (interrupted) 52 53 Mr. Lait: So staff recommends that the language that is found on packet Page 12, Section C, 54
18.38.060(c) we have language there that we, that we support and the distinction is and Consuelo will 55
correct me if I’m wrong is that we stated that it shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 41
and the Commission was favoring an objective that or statement that said that it furthers the objectives 1
of the Comprehensive Plan. And I believe it was Commissioner Downing I think that initiated that 2
conversation and might be able to offer some more comments on that or perhaps Alcheck. 3
4
Commissioner Michael: Well, as somebody who didn’t participate in the earlier discussion I think 5
consistency with the Comp Plan or furthering the objectives of the Comp Plan seems to be similar in 6
intent. So I’m just, I just wanted to clarify that one way or another the Comp Plan was a reference point. 7 8 Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Michael I don’t think you actually agreed with staff, you’re just clarifying 9 is that right? Ok. Then I didn’t see anyone else have lights so I think for Section 2 Alcheck and Gardias 10 agreed with staff, Section 3 Alcheck agreed with staff, and no one agreed, well I guess sorry. Gardias 11
agreed with staff on all three sections and Alcheck agreed with staff on Sections 2 and 3. Sorry, three 12
and four. Three and four and everyone else agrees with what we did before. Ok, which is the majority. 13
14
Ok, so let’s talk about the last item here which is the item that Commissioner Michael brought up which is 15
around preliminary screening. So Commissioner Michael I was wondering if you could just help frame the 16
conversation in terms of what do you propose, what is your position on here. And if folks agree with it 17
they wouldn’t say anything. If they disagree with it they will state their objections. 18
19
Commissioner Michael: Well, several hours ago I was on a roll. I kind of forgot what, but my concern 20
was that there’s a change to the process. The current process involves a PC is initiated by the Planning 21
Commission and then goes to Council for approval. Now a practice has developed whereby there’s a 22 preliminary discussion at the Council usually in the form of a study session. And the only experience, 23 very limited experience I have with that was 27 University. That didn’t end well. This notion of 24 preliminary screening seems to me to be important and I wonder if I can imagine a number of scenarios 25 which it wouldn’t end well. One is somebody comes in with an offer to the Council that’s really tempting, 26
new police station, theatre. Council says boy, we really need one of those and we can’t afford it. We’ve 27
done polling, the citizens they’ll, 66.9 percent will support it, but not two-thirds. My fractions are off. 28
And we’re nervous we can’t get a bond approved so we’re going to have to do a deal. That sort of 29
comes out in the preliminary sort of screening and now it’s not a binding decision, but it really clouds or 30
taints or colors or influences everything that happens after that. And my question is, are we setting up 31
the public and the Council for additional sort of skepticism or mistrust or lack of transparency because 32
this preliminary screening? 33
34
And by the way I’m a big skeptic about the Council’s policies on ex parte communications because 35 whenever I’ve attended the Council meeting and I will go on the record on this they go up and down the 36 dais they say I met with the developer. I met with every single Council Member met with the developer, 37 but I didn’t learn anything that wasn’t in the public record. And one wonders if you’re a developer why 38 bother? You’re meeting with the Council Members privately to influence them. There’s no doubt in my 39
mind that they’re being influenced. That’s not disclosed and the policy should be changed. 40
41
But I think that this by changing the process so that it’s initiated by Council probably a good thing. 42
They’re elected, they’re accountable, but I think that the preliminary screening should have more 43
transparency and it should have more rigor and for example if they’re being offered a deal, a new police 44
station, land, $30 million of construction funds, I think that there should be some sense of do they have 45
the economic analysis on the table? Does the public have that on the table when they attend the study 46
session? And this sort of backfired on the City with Maybell where with the, with the senior housing 47
project because this loan was agreed to in a way that was three years later deemed to be not sufficiently 48
transparent. And it was in the public record, but I think that that’s kind of one of the big factors in the 49
election debate on Measure D that got that reversed against a unanimous Council. 50 51 So I think this sort of a Trojan horse having a preliminary screening with the assumption that it’s going to 52 be sort of informal and not binding. I think that’s actually a big deal. It’s a huge change so I’d like to 53 know what the methodology is for Council and the public and the transparency so this is not a source of 54
embarrassment. 55
56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 42
Mr. Lait: I don’t know how much more I can add to the, we first discussed this earlier in the evening. We 1
do have, it’s an existing process and the two projects that you mentioned I think the Maybell project and 2
27 University, I think had other elements to that review (interrupted) 3
4
Commissioner Michael: And Fry’s. Not Fry’s but the AOL building. 5
6
Mr. Lait: And I think it’s the idea is that there’s an interest in expressing or having that conversation take 7 place in a public forum before any agreements about funding or before any conversations of potential 8 benefits and projects. So I, I appreciate the desire to know more about a conceptual project in terms of 9 the asks being made, deviations from zoning codes or whatever the standard is and the benefits 10 contemplated and having that economic analysis and having a sense for whether it’s something that the 11
community and the Council thinks worthy of exploration. Because I think really that’s what this 12
application process is about is to explore the idea of is there sufficient interest in exploring the concept 13
further or is there an understanding that the benefits that you’re contemplating or the deviations that 14
you’re making are too grand that we’re not even interested in pursuing that, applicant you don’t need to 15
pursue this idea further, we’re not interested in considering a project like that. And or there’s interest 16
and that’s when it gets a formal application, gets filed and it goes through the review process and despite 17
any interest at least exploring further the possibly of the project the Council isn’t committed to having to 18
have maintained that interest at the end of the process when they’re deliberating on the application. 19
20
I think you have some philosophical challenges with the preliminary screening. It is an open process. 21
It’s noticed the way that a normal application would be noticed. It’s held in this chamber. I can’t 22 respond to the ex parte piece. You know that’s… 23 24 Commissioner Michael: Well, I mean I take everything that you say as totally logical and 100 percent in 25 good faith and actually quite realistic and practical and probably this is going to happen. But I worry that 26
it’s easy to sort of make comments about the Palo Alto process. The Palo Alto process I was told by 27
Steve Emslie actually works pretty well most of the time, but I think in the case of the preliminary 28
screening for a PC done by Council in this chamber in an open and transparent way if they, if they invite 29
somebody to go ahead with something on this, on the basis presented at the preliminary discussion and 30
it takes two or three years and at the end they go nope, it doesn’t work they do that a couple of times 31
and this is going to create sort of a bad, it’s going to be a loss of credibility for the City. So you think 32
through this and play the chessboard. Council’s going to want to encourage people to do things that the 33
City is going to honor. And so when the green light is given from the preliminary screening it’s a 34
significant greenlight. And it will color everything that comes after that or there will be a loss of 35 credibility for the Council. 36 37 So I’m just suggesting that to protect the Council there should be some rigor towards what goes on with 38 this preliminary screening so that there’s a record. This is the information we need, we need if there’s a 39
public benefit involved we need an expert report on the economic analysis, what’s it worth? What are we 40
giving, what are we getting, how does it affect the rules? What’s the, what variances from the existing 41
zoning? What exactly is the Comp Plan implications? Then they can have this discussion and not lose 42
credibility. They could be successful with a higher probability than if it’s undefined. That’s my concern. 43
44
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael can you tell us a concise specific proposal that you’d like us to 45
consider? 46
47
Commissioner Michael: Well, the handwriting on the wall is that the Council is going to do preliminary 48
screenings of projects. I would like them to not be embarrassed as they were with 27 University, as they 49
were with the Jay Paul project, as they were with Maybell. That’s resulted in a whole new group of 50 people being elected to Council. I think the reason they got embarrassed in those three projects and 51 which have kind of turned the local politics a little bit upside down is that they didn’t have rigorous 52 process when they did their preliminary discussion. And I think that they need, I think that they should 53 ask for what they need in order to have that study session be conducted properly. I think they should 54
ask for an economic analysis, is any public benefit involved, I think there should be an analysis of the 55
Comprehensive Plan issues, I think there should be I’m not a developer, but I think they should have a 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 43
full deck and the public should actually transparently have access to that same information and then they 1
should do their preliminary screening. 2
3
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael can you say that like concretely what do you want to see? 4
5
Commissioner Michael: Well, I would like to see the Council make wise decisions on a fully informed 6
basis. I think that when they conduct a preliminary screening of a PC project I think certain information 7 that would come to them under the current sequence of events should be fast forwarded part of the 8 preliminary submission and then the public should have access to the same submission when they 9 observe the study session and make their comments so that transparency and engagement with the 10 public is done early and often. 11
12
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael are you suggesting that there is no prescreening by Council? Is 13
that what you’re suggesting? 14
15
Commissioner Michael: No, I’m actually acknowledging that I think that prescreening from Council is 16
going to happen. I think it’s inevitable and it’s possibly a good idea because Council is elected and these 17
are big decisions. But I think this notion that it’s nonbinding, they can do it in an informal fashion, then it 18
just goes through the normal process, that I think is illusory. I think that will come back in a way similar 19
to these three projects that I mentioned and the result in a frustration of the public interest and a 20
frustration of the private interest and a loss of credibility for the public servants. And I think that that 21
would be prevented if they had a better, a clearly defined process which had the information that’s 22 relevant as part of their preliminary screening or they should, they should have the PC initiated by the 23 PTC, reviewed by the ARB, and then come to them with the benefit of all this information before they put 24 their fingerprints on it and make the final decision. 25 26
Chair Tanaka: Ok. 27
28
Commissioner Michael: I think that they’re, I think that this, the notion that this is an informal nonbinding 29
study session is a trap. 30
31
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Commissioner Michael I’m trying to nail you down here. So I think what you’re 32
suggesting is that before the prescreening that Council has a well-defined process as to what information 33
they’re going to have. Is that? Ok. So Commissioner Michael has made a proposal that before 34
prescreening there’s a well-defined process that Council has before prescreening happens. So what I’d 35 like to see is everyone that disagrees with Commissioner Michael on this please press your lights. 36 Commissioner Rosenblum. Commissioner Alcheck. 37 38 Commissioner Alcheck: I disagree and here’s why. I envision that I want to actually disagree with the 39
premise that Maybell was the same as 27 University. 27 University was a prescreening process for 40
nobody really understands how that evolved, but it was the first time we had a prescreening process and 41
it was so overwhelmingly unappealing that City Council essentially like froze it and it was a trap if you 42
will. And maybe if that process had gone through PTC it could have evolved better, but Maybell wasn’t. 43
Maybell we did everything the right way and ARB got a chance, PTC got a chance, and we spent I don’t 44
know, years and even City Council supported the project and in the end the community repealed it, right? 45
I mean it’s a fabulous demonstration of our California democracy at play, but before you interject, my 46
point is is that I don’t think that it’s a trap. I think what will happen is there will be a PC proposed by 47
let’s just for this purpose suggest Arrillaga comes forward and the whatever community immediately 48
affected with the greatest sense of fear will approach and they’ll say we’re going to fight this. And City 49
Council will say I think this is a discussion worth having, I think this is not a discussion worth having. 50 And they will either entertain the idea of this PC and suggest that we expend the resources to support it 51 or they won’t. And I think the idea of identifying right away the community that is most opposed to an 52 idea that has yet to take shape will actually improve the PC process because it will allow us to know who 53 in the audience is opposed to something that is so undefined that maybe we should have a more clearly 54
articulated position, right? 55
56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 44
My point is it won’t hurt the developer. The developer doesn’t want a process that’s two and half years 1
long that gets repealed. That is an awful situation. I think Arrillaga’s situation turned out great. He had 2
a very out of the box idea, threw it out there. It got thrown back and that’s it. He didn’t waste that much 3
time. And arguably the biggest victim to Arrillaga’s proposal was the PTC because we lost Dan Garber, 4
right? He went off to work on that project and as a result resigned his position on the PTC and he was a 5
valuable resource here. 6
7 But I guess what I’m trying to say is the City wants to vet these, the people of the City believe that the 8 Council makes all the decisions not the PTC. They are not showing up to our meetings because we are 9 an advisory body and so give them the chance to show up to that meeting with the developer and 10 actually what I think is really likely is that it won’t garner that much attention and it’ll encourage the City 11
Council to have a discussion saying here are the parameters by which we believe we could approach this 12
idea and then we are operating in a new paradigm. For example, if the intrinsic benefit, right, we’re 13
going to spend all this time talking about what height limit and what FAR and what are we willing to 14
concede and then we know that the benefit may or may not be let’s say an extrinsic benefit, a payment 15
for a police station, we know the parameters of the discussion and we don’t have to be like is that a good 16
enough public benefit? Well the City Council suggested this was, they’re ok with this, let’s explore the 17
variables. Whereas if the City Council’s like are you suggesting this little garden is what you want for 18
eight stories we’re not going to do that. We don’t have to navigate for months these intricacies. We give 19
the real decision makers the chance to vet the project. 20
21
And the beauty of this, right, it’s very de Tocqueville like if it doesn’t work we’ll change it. This is what 22 local government is about. Maybell didn’t work for this community and I think we should give this 23 completely different approach a chance. And if it doesn’t work we can change it again, but I think this is 24 actually the most fundamental component of the entire PC reform. 25 26
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so here’s what I think we should do. I think we should start using the timer now. So 27
we’re going to set one minute timers for everyone starting with Commissioner Downing. 28
29
Commissioner Downing: I wonder if there can’t be an in-between approach here? Mostly I, so I could be 30
wrong, but my own perspective is that the preliminary hearing is mostly not in order to get the input of 31
the Council on the project; my sense is that that’s really being spurred by the idea that it gets public 32
input and it is something that becomes transparent to the community. I think that’s kind of the bigger 33
push is just so that it becomes public and people know about it. I don’t think the input of the Council at 34
the preliminary hearing I think is not the goal of this, but I could be wrong. But that’s my sense. My 35 sense is the whole purpose of it is we air it in front of everybody and it’s to hear what the proposal is and 36 it’s for people to know about it. 37 38 But I have, with regards to the preliminary hearing I have to, I have to agree with Commissioner Michael. 39
Like it is a little bit odd for Council to be making comments without seeing a full analysis, without seeing 40
an economic report. You’re sort of you’re asking them to shoot themselves in the foot a little bit when 41
they don’t have full information. But then there’s also something about that too where if you had all the 42
information then it wouldn’t be a preliminary hearing anymore now would it? It would be a final hearing 43
and so I don’t know if this is possible at all, but I just wonder if that process may be that the project is 44
presented, the comments are taken, but maybe that there isn’t necessarily action from Council or the 45
action might just be great, get us the information, but without necessarily beginning a negotiation with 46
no information from the dais. 47
Chair Tanaka: So Commissioner Downing are you agreeing with Commissioner Michael’s proposal which 48
is that there’s a well-defined process before a prescreen or are you not? I mean? 49
50 Commissioner Downing: I think the notion of what the prescreen consists of needs to change. 51 52 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Commissioner Rosenblum. 53 54
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, I originally actually put on my light to ask that we start using a timer and 55
bound this discussion, but I’ll make a substantive point as well. I agree with Commissioner Michael. I 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 45
again in the interest of sort of making this a smooth process I recommend that the direction of staff is to 1
study preliminary requirements for the hearing and that should be the entirety of the recommendation. 2
I’m not sure we’re going to draft like what those requirements are, but I think it’s wise to have some sort 3
of expectation of what a developer brings to the table for first hearings. And I would assume actually 4
that they’ll actually do that, but that something will be set forth so that they know what to come with. 5
6
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Seeing no other lights basically Commissioner Michael’s proposal that we have a well-7 defined process before the prescreen majority agrees. Ok, good. We are done with talking through all 8 the items. The purpose of this is so that we understand where everyone stands, right? As Commission 9 we’ve kind of methodically gone through every single thing that could possibly have gone through in 10 terms of issues and some of them we have consensus on, some of them we’re like a strong majority, and 11
some of them are a little bit more borderline. 12
13
So we’re now down to the final part of the meeting, which is what we’re doing here tonight is to make a 14
Motion to basically make a recommendation to the City Council on something. So I know staff has a 15
proposal that they would like for us to consider as a Motion. Alternatively one of my fellow 16
Commissioners could make a Motion or if no one does I will have to make a Motion. So I will let staff talk 17
about a proposed Motion and we could, if someone here thinks that’s a sufficient Motion they could make 18
that their Motion and that would be of course needs to be seconded. If no one thinks that’s a good 19
Motion someone else can make a Motion or otherwise I’ll be making a Motion. So staff, please. 20
21
Mr. Lait: Just give me one second I want to capture this last comment here. Ok, so based on the 22 Commission’s deliberations this evening I believe that there was consensus on the following points and so 23 I would like to read those to you. If you would like you can follow along on our staff report on Page, on 24 the top of Page 5, packet Page 5. There was the definition of public benefit so I believe that the Motion 25 would include the following statements: recommendation to amend Section 18.38.015 to read as follows, 26
“Public benefit means specific improvements or amenities for Palo Alto by the developer in exchange for 27
uses, densities, and/or a development configuration specific to the PC district that would be unattainable 28
in general zoning districts or combining districts. Examples of public benefits include affordable housing, 29
reasonable monetary or in-kind contribution toward meeting goals, meeting goals of the City, the City’s 30
Comprehensive Plan or human service needs assessments or other similar amenities or improvements 31
identified by the City Council.” Moving on to the also on that page looking at the enforcement section 32
amending Section 18.38.060 as drafted in the staff report with the following modifications: replacing the 33
word in perpetuity in current sect, in the paragraph preceding the subsections with for the life of the 34
project or until modified by ordinance and then adding a subsection that explicitly states that the public 35 benefit agreement is required as part of the PC district approval. 36 37 Further turning to Page 7 of your packet it is a majority of the Commission that supports the language to 38 modify Sections 18.38.110(c) and 18.38.150(b) as stated in at the bottom of Page 7 of the staff report. 39
And similarly on Page 8 of the packet implementing the changes that are stated there for Sections 40
18.38.020(d) and Section 18.38.020(e) and Section 18.38.060(c) again as stated in the staff report. And 41
I believe the last item that the Commission was discussing had to do with having a defined process and I 42
believe that that can be incorporated on Packet Page 23. I’m referring to the ordinance and that’s 43
Section 18.79.050 Subsection B. I believe we can capture the ideas of the Commission about an 44
economic analysis, the policy implications, detailing the proposed public benefits, deviations from the 45
code, and other relevant material to help inform a discussion. And I believe that captures the 46
Commission’s dialogue this evening. And if there’s agreement on that I think it would be sufficient to just 47
move what I had just stated. 48
49
Chair Tanaka: Ok. So we spent two meetings going through this laboriously, item by item. And I think 50 uphill is pretty like vigilant about it making sure it was very clear as to how the Commission felt. So I 51 think that’s pretty clear. So staff has graciously put together some wording that somebody could use to 52 put together a Motion or you could choose to make your own Motion. So at this point in time I’d like to 53 open the meeting for someone to make a Motion. So I see a light from Vice-Chair. 54
55
MOTION 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 46
1
Vice-Chair Fine: I just want to thank the Assistant Director for putting that together so succinctly. So 2
simply I’d like to move that we recommend that City Council consider amendments to PC district and 3
prescreening chapters as just described in the draft ordinance and that the Assistant Director just spoke 4
to us about. 5
6
Chair Tanaka: Is there a second? 7 8 SECOND 9 10 Commissioner Rosenblum: Second. 11
12
Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Rosenblum. Ok, so before we take a vote I want to ask if anyone would 13
like to make any amendments to the Motion that was just stated or if there’s questions about the Motion? 14
Commissioner Alcheck. 15
16
Commissioner Alcheck: Alright so just to clarify our Motion does not include an amendment suggesting 17
that the PC process be initiated by the PTC, right? Because I thought I was outvoted there in that 18
discussion. 19
20
Chair Tanaka: Yes, so here’s the interesting part, right? So we went through the stuff with a fine tooth 21
comb, right, over two meetings. Spent hours and hours on this. So I think we’re pretty clear and I think 22 if we look at the transcript it was very clear as to how the Commission felt. Now I think staff has put 23 together some wording which captures I think most of it. Not everything, but most of it and the way 24 this, I think the Maker of the Motion recommended it was basically it’s going to be the draft ordinance so 25 Amendment A, which basically is at this point in time completely unchanged by the Commission. The 26
Amendment A we see the redlines, we see here identical to what we had at the last meeting. None of 27
our feedback from the last meeting has been incorporated in this and this report which does incorporate 28
our feedback and then tonight we made more feedback which staff has summarized and Vice-Chair has 29
made into a Motion, ok? So that’s where things stand right now. Am I correct? Is there any 30
misunderstanding here? 31
32
Commissioner Alcheck: [Unintelligible – off microphone] 33
34
Mr. Lait: I’m sorry Commissioner if we can get you on the mike? 35 36 Commissioner Alcheck: I, the only component of this is it wasn’t incorporated was a change that I 37 thought we just discussed five minutes ago. Yes, this notion that the screening process would change 38 dramatically. 39
40
Vice-Chair Fine: So I think as we decided is that it should be beefed up a little bit with some economic 41
analysis, some characteristics of the project to give Council a better understanding at the prescreening 42
hearing. 43
44
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 45
46
Chair Tanaka: Ok guys. Hold on. Ok, so I think to this point we’ve been pretty precise. At least I felt 47
like we’ve been pretty precise. We know because I kind of forced people to say what do you mean? Ok? 48
So there’s no, there’s less, there’s not much left to ambiguity at this point. If you look at a transcript it’s 49
been pretty clear. We have a couple of choices. We can do as staff said and as Vice-Chair made a 50 Motion, there might be amendments to that Motion or may not be, and or so and so could make a 51 Substitute Motion. That’s kind of like what’s on the table right now, right? So, let’s see. There are a 52 couple lights here so Commissioner Gardias. 53 54
Commissioner Gardias: There are two things. I was going to speak about something else, but since you 55
spoke about this one let me address this one as well, right? So it’s just from the legal perspective. If 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 47
we’re going to just go along with the proposal of Commissioner Michael then it would require us to pretty 1
much review the document again. So I think that would be my understanding because otherwise we’d 2
be leaving this to somebody else’s discretion and I don’t think this is the way we want to just preside 3
over this. 4
5
Chair Tanaka: Ok, yes I will be making a hopefully Friendly Amendment if I don’t hear one, but maybe let 6
Commissioner Michael speak first. 7 8 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 9 10 Commissioner Michael: Well I was going to offer a Friendly Amendment that there’s probably some minor 11
editing, wordsmithing to the ordinance that I would like to have incorporated into the Motion that we 12
delegate staff to make that minor changes consistent with our discussion. 13
14
Vice-Chair Fine: With regards to the preliminary hearing? 15
16
Commissioner Michael: No, it’s with regard to just the overall drafting of the ordinance there’s some 17
consistency in use of defined terms and so forth. 18
19
Vice-Chair Fine: I accept that. 20
21
Ms. Silver: And just for clarification, staff will also be incorporating all of the comments that were in the 22 staff report that there was concurrence between staff and the Planning Commission on and then we will 23 also be incorporating the drafting comments that you gave us this evening because I don’t think that 24 there was any staff disagreement on those issues. And then we’ll be highlighting the three points where 25 there is sort of a policy disagreement and those will not be incorporated into the ordinance, but all of the 26
other drafting issues will be incorporated. 27
28
Chair Tanaka: So, the Maker has accepted a Friendly Amendment from Commissioner Michael. Does the 29
Seconder also accept? 30
31
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 ACCEPTED 32
33
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, accepted. 34
35 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 36 37 Chair Tanaka: Ok. So I also would like to make a Friendly Amendment. So my Friendly Amendment the 38 first Friendly Amendment is that I, let me give you some context first. So I believe it’s important for City 39
Council to see a draft ordinance that incorporates our comments. So I believe that it’s not sufficient to 40
have a Attachment A which reflects none of our changes and then have a staff report and minutes 41
attached saying oh yeah, this is kind of what they meant. So my first Friendly Amendment is that should 42
this Motion pass and should my Friendly Amendment be, should be accepted that all of our feedback is 43
consolidated into a revised Attachment A draft ordinance that goes to City Council. That’s my first 44
Friendly Amendment. 45
46
Vice-Chair Fine: So you’re, are you also referring to the issues on which there was disagreement with 47
staff? Those three items? 48
49
Chair Tanaka: Well the first I think I’m going to break this up into several parts and make it easy for 50 everyone. So the first part is I believe the first thing is the way this recommendation reads right now is 51 that there’s a draft ordinance which staff wrote and incorporates none of our changes. The two meetings 52 that we spent talking, nothing in there, ok? Staff’s saying that they’re going to do this draft ordinance 53 and you’re going to have this report that’s separate and or it’s up to City Council to kind of figure that 54
out. I believe that’s a disservice to City Council. I believe that it would be helpful for City Council to get 55
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 48
a draft ordinance from us that incorporates our redlines based on our comments so they don’t have to 1
piece two documents together. 2
3
Vice-Chair Fine: Yep, I accept the idea. That’s… 4
5
Commissioner Rosenblum: I unfortunately am now confused. What is the original plan that staff was 6
going to deliver to Council? I thought that they’re delivering a document that highlighted the three areas 7 of disagreement and the basis for that disagreement which satisfied me. But I’m not sure if I’m even on 8 the same thread right now. So what are we now proposing? 9 10 Chair Tanaka: What I’m proposing is that, is that I think as the Motion stands right now the Motion says 11
staff is going to deliver this Attachment A the ordinance verbatim as it is today as we see it, as we saw it 12
last meeting without any of our feedback in there, incorporated in there. No? Ok. So then maybe staff 13
can correct me because that’s what I thought staff said. 14
15
Mr. Lait: So there were in your, when you considered this last month there was the Attachment A 16
ordinance that you have in your report this evening. We retransmitted that ordinance. There were some 17
change we talked about cleaning up the ordinance, getting some clarity of terms and things like that, and 18
we made a decision that we’re going to do that. We’re going to do all that stuff, but the staff report that 19
we transmitted for tonight’s meeting included some strikeout underline language that would get 20
incorporated into Attachment A along with the clean ups and all that stuff. And that ultimately would 21
frame staff’s recommendation which we would forward on to the Council. The one piece that would be 22 not included in again the staff recommendation to the City Council are these three areas where we have 23 disagreement. And I think it’s appropriate that we as we always do communicate the Commission’s 24 perspective on those things. 25 26
And I think you have a Motion and I hear what you’re saying on this point, but I don’t believe that this is 27
a point this isn’t a, this is a procedural conversation that you’re having as opposed to a Motion on the 28
draft ordinance. And I guess I would encourage the Commission to focus on the merit, the language that 29
you want to have, and I will make sure that we’re procedurally advancing this to the Council the way that 30
it’s appropriate to do so. Staff’s role is to make a recommendation to the Council. That’s the report that 31
we will be transmitting. 32
33
Chair Tanaka: I guess just to be clear so is staff planning to edit the draft ordinance, Attachment A, 34
based on our feedback for the past two meetings or not? I guess is it (interrupted) 35 36 Mr. Lait: Yes, with the exception of the areas where we don’t agree with the PTC. 37 38 Chair Tanaka: Ok. So for the three areas that you or there’s actually four. Four points that you disagree 39
(interrupted) 40
41
Mr. Lait: Three concepts, four specific amendments. 42
43
Chair Tanaka: Ok. The plan is that staff will edit those, edit all sections except where they disagree and 44
then I guess the areas of disagreement then will be separate? 45
46
Mr. Lait: It will be included in the staff report. 47
Chair Tanaka: Ok. 48
49
Mr. Lait: With explanations of the Commission’s perspective on that. 50 51 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Ok, I could live with that if that’s what’s happening. So I misunderstood then from 52 what, what I understood from staff before. I thought staff was going to basically keep the draft 53 ordinance exactly the way it is when they give it to Council and if that’s not the case, if they’re going to 54
be incorporating our feedback, awesome. Ok (interrupted) 55
56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 49
Mr. Lait: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that. 1
2
Chair Tanaka: Except for those three points. That’s great. 3
4
Mr. Lait: Good. 5
6
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 WITHDRAWN, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 7 8 Chair Tanaka: I just want to make sure that that’s clear on that for the Motion. Ok, so my second, my 9 second Friendly Amendment. I guess this is my first; I haven’t made a Friendly Amendment. I withdraw 10 that one. So my first Friendly Amendment then and hopefully only Friendly Amendment is that I believe 11
that staff captured most of what we said, but I think if they go back to the, go back to the transcript we 12
went point by point so for instance one of the first ones we talked about was intrinsic versus extrinsic and 13
that was not captured by staff’s statement. And there are maybe other examples big and small and I 14
think it would be unfair to the work that we’ve done as a Commission to ignore it, to not capture that. 15
And so my Friendly Amendment is simply that staff goes back on our transcript from tonight and last 16
meeting and as part of the process to edit the draft ordinance and complete the report because we were 17
very clear on what we as a Commission agreed on and what the Commission didn’t agree on that they 18
cover all those points. 19
20
So basically the Friendly Amendment in short words is review the transcripts and incorporate all the 21
points that the Commission majority agreed with as we went through the PC or through this draft revision 22 to the PC and preliminary screening regulations. So that’s what I’m proposing and maybe I wasn’t clear. 23 So let me ask the Maker was that clear or? 24 25 Vice-Chair Fine: I think that’s clear. It will still exclude the four, the three points, four amendments we 26
have on those other issues, but everything else should be included. 27
28
RESTATED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 29
30
Chair Tanaka: Yeah, so maybe I will restate my Friendly Amendment so that it’s crystal clear here. Staff 31
will, Friendly Amendment is staff will go through our transcripts and will on the points that we had a 32
majority agreement by the PTC they would incorporate that into the draft ordinance and the report the 33
parts that they disagreed with us on, there were four parts they will continue to keep separate and 34
highlight. 35 36 Vice-Chair Fine: yep, I accept that. 37 38 Commissioner Rosenblum: I accept it as well. I mean but just to be clear this is they’re just the item on 39
the agenda was for us to break that tie, which we did. And so I would assume that following that that 40
was the adjustment that they were going to make and so we’re just memorializing that decision. Is that 41
right? 42
43
Commissioner Tanaka: Correct so (interrupted) 44
45
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 ACCEPTED 46
47
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, then I agree. 48
49
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Ok, so before we take a vote (interrupted) 50 51 Mr. Lait: I’m sorry; I just need a little clarification on that since we’ll be drafting this. I thought that 52 whole conversation of the intrinsic and extrinsic is memorialized in the revised definition of public 53 benefits. Is that not the case? 54
55
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 50
Chair Tanaka: So in that case I think it’s largely true, yes. Ok that is correct, but there were some 1
smaller points and I think if you actually go through the transcript you’ll see that there’s some smaller 2
points that we spent some time debating which you didn’t necessarily capture, but I think if you actually 3
look at the transcripts you’ll get it. 4
5
Mr. Lait: So I just want to be clear on this. So we will articulate in the staff report the tenor of the 6
conversation that we understood took place here. If you’re looking for a specific piece to be embedded 7 in the ordinance that you don’t think we’ve captured I would need you to express that to me so that I 8 would know. I don’t want you to rely on me to find some little piece that you think needs to be included 9 in the ordinance that’s not there. We’ll capture the tenor of the conversation, but the Motion on the table 10 is reflected in what was previously stated. So if it’s missing something, if the ordinance or the Motion is 11
missing a particular statement we need to know what that is. 12
13
Chair Tanaka: Ok. 14
15
Mr. Lait: And I guess the question is it not sufficient to have that in the staff report? 16
17
Chair Tanaka: I guess (interrupted) 18
19
Mr. Lait: Which is going to include the verbatim minutes. 20
21
Chair Tanaka: Yeah so here’s what I’m trying to get out of this. I think for us to edit this thing live here 22 would be like a super long meeting and I don’t think a very productive use of time. I think staff could go 23 back themselves. I mean I think for every single item we conclusively said yes the Commission agreed or 24 had a majority support on it or it didn’t have a majority support. Every single item we did that. And I 25 think we were very clear about what we were talking about. So I don’t think it’s a good use of time right 26
now for us to literally go through every single item one by one right now. 27
28
Mr. Lait: I’m not suggesting that we do, but I think there’s a distinction between the ordinance which is 29
going to be the law which is codified and printed and I don’t think that’s the place where you want to 30
have the spirit of conversation memorialized. It would be in the administrative record in the staff report. 31
And I don’t know in any event I guess it’s sufficient to vote on what you have at the present time. 32
33
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Ok, so before we take a vote I see a bunch of lights so we’ll go through the lights and 34
then there could be more Friendly Amendments. There could also be well, we’ll see what happens. Ok, 35 Commissioner Alcheck. 36 37 Commissioner Alcheck: I think I understand where Chair Tanaka’s coming from. You leaving out for 38 example the edit that we have made to this resolution about the 50 foot height limit means that you may 39
not have to make the case, staff meaning, for why you think that exception that addition should be 40
made. And so as a result what’s going to happen is they’re going to review this document and they’re 41
going to talk about so many components of this process and I get it, right? It’s going to seem random. 42
And no, I, hold on before you say it’s the same with the double dipping in the residential density bonus. 43
Unless City Council has had a meeting with staff where they said make sure the 50 foot height limit is in 44
this resolution, I’m using that as an example, I don’t know where you guys got your input that the 45
community isn’t ok with that. Because we’ve just had multiple meetings where we’ve asked the 46
community to come and provide input and unless I think that’s part of the concern here is that we’ve had 47
this discussion and there’s a concern that the and I’m not saying it won’t and I know that we have some 48
we’re all getting familiar with the process, but I’m just throwing that out there. I think that’s where this 49
is coming from this like concern that like it’s going to be a part of the minutes and potentially you’re 50 going to highlight that there was unanimous support for removing it, but I guess my concern is I would 51 rather have staff have to make the case or the City Council hear it from the community that they want all 52 PC’s to be subject to 50 foot height limits as opposed to that point being made somewhere else in the 53 report because it doesn’t reflect all the work we’ve done with the community which is not present here, 54
but it’s still relevant, right? Their failure to show up doesn’t mean they agree with everything we say, but 55
we are the forum by which they’re supposed to provide the input. 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 51
And I think part of the issue here is we are struggling to be relevant in this conversation constantly and 1
we have participated in a process by which the majority of the decision making of the PC process is now 2
moving to City Council. The initiation of the PC zone process is moving. And I think we want to make 3
sure that as we step away from this, Commissioner Michael noted that he when he said about the idea of 4
the initiation of the PC zone he knows it’s probably going to get written this way, right? That was his, his 5
comments basically said that. I think as we sort of hand this off we want to make sure that it really that 6
someone really understands how we thought the code, the ordinance should be written and I think that’s 7 part of this situation. 8 9 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck was there a specific Amendment or Unfriendly Amendment that you 10 wanted to make or anything like that? 11
12
Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t want to suggest that there’s a point of tension here. I just think that you 13
would feel more comfortable. I think your Friendly Amendment is unnecessary if the resolution is written 14
exactly how we’ve drafted it. We have drafted it. It’s wrong to say we haven’t drafted it. I don’t think 15
the minutes need to be typed up again as a summary. I think we did go through and say these are the 16
things we explicitly suggest are changed and I think that’s at the heart of your amendment. And I and 17
maybe what we need to do if you’re, if we have such discomfort is wait another meeting to kind of get 18
clarity for how it’s going to be written, but I would rather support a Friendly Amendment that said the 19
ordinance should be written the way we drafted it tonight, period. And then if that can’t be done 20
because we learn that the process is different, then it can come back to us. 21
22 Chair Tanaka: You can make that Friendly Amendment if you want. 23 24 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #4 25 26
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m just trying to edit your Friendly Amendment. Ok, I’ll make a Friendly 27
Amendment that I would like to see the ordinance written. I would like to see the ordinance presented 28
as an attachment as if the City Council wanted to adopt it as is they would be adopted the way we’ve 29
written it. I’d like to see that in the attachment and I would like staff to have to make arguments for why 30
they think the thing would be different. I know that sounds crazy, but I think that that’s at the heart, 31
that way at least we don’t have to worry about not being heard and staff would have to say why they 32
disagree with the Commission’s resolution and those points would be specifically addressed. That would 33
be my Friendly Amendment and if… 34
35 Chair Tanaka: What does the Maker say? 36 37 Vice-Chair Fine: So I appreciate the thought behind this, but I just wonder and I don’t want to be a 38 buzzkill here if it’s not better for us just to ask staff to do that and bring it back to us another time? A 39
final ordinance. 40
41
Chair Tanaka: From staff’s perspective is there time to do yet another meeting? 42
43
Mr. Lait: I apologize; I’ve suffered a blood sugar drop I believe from lack of food. We’re interested in 44
moving this on to the Council and I think we have presented this evening a tentative agenda. I believe 45
we were going to return I don’t see it on here, either in I think we were going to return in April to the 46
Council for the PC reform. 47
It is our job to communicate the Commission’s recommendation. We will do that. I realize that this may 48
be different or difficult for and maybe this doesn’t happen very often where the staff and the Commission 49
have differing points of views. This is not unprecedented. This happens in planning. We’ll write a 50 report. We’re going to do our best professional job to communicate the discussion that the Commission’s 51 had here. We’ll go point by point on all those key issues. We’ll talk about why you believe 50 percent is 52 or 50 feet is not the appropriate standard and you’re going to have a chance to make a presentation to 53 the Commission, to the Council yourself too. I just I feel like we’re spending too much time talking about 54
a process and not spending time, I think you’re there, but… 55
56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 52
Chair Tanaka: Before you finish on this thread what does the Maker say? 1
2
Vice-Chair Fine: So I think I won’t accept the amendment at the moment. Keep it as is with the first two 3
Friendly ones are accepted (interrupted) 4
5
Chair Tanaka: Wait, so you’re rejecting? 6
7 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #4 REJECTED 8 9 Vice-Chair Fine: Rejecting. 10 11
Chair Tanaka: Rejecting. Ok. Let’s go over a few other lights. Commissioner Gardias. 12
13
Commissioner Gardias: So my original intention was to address your amendment from to for the staff to 14
go through the meeting minutes and gather how Commission voted, but I was going to propose, I was 15
going to modify it, propose modification and as opposed to noting the way that items were resolved for I 16
was going to propose to identify dissenting votes and then provide it to the City Council. Because the 17
reason was that I spoke about certain items and I know that some of my colleagues also were feeling 18
strongly about some other items and I think this is normal thing. It’s a certain value. We may not need 19
to be right. Council is ultimate body. I would not feel bad if they come back to us and they revise 20
certain, certain proposals that we have. But value may be that (interrupted) 21
22 Chair Tanaka: Ok (interrupted) 23 24 Commissioner Gardias: Commissioner Downing feels strongly about the intrinsic value. Maybe she would 25 like to have it brought to the Council. 26
27
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so why don’t you frame that in a Friendly Amendment and then we’ll see what the 28
Maker and Seconder says. 29
30
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #5 31
32
Commissioner Gardias: So Friendly Amendment is for the staff to go through the meeting minutes and 33
identify dissenting items and bring them to the Council. 34
35 Chair Tanaka: What does the Maker (interrupted) 36 37 Vice-Chair Fine: I would accept that but add we can also put that in the executive summary that we write 38 up. 39
40
Chair Tanaka: What does the Seconder say? 41
42
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #5 REJECTED 43
44
Commissioner Rosenblum: I don’t agree with this. I think if we want to make a separate… again, I’m 45
feeling this is getting to be a hostage situation. We should just finish the first Amendment if we want a 46
different Amendment that says you should have an executive summary that outlines these additional 47
dissenting points which is actually the process. The process is that they have an executive summary of 48
our minutes and what we did and what we decided including salient points from our discussion is the 49
process that we had laid out so the original amendment was around how they would transmit the major 50 decisions they asked us to make and how the ordinance will go to Council. The additional burden of 51 going through transcript and elevating dissenting conversation I don’t see how that’s part or how that 52 benefits the Motion. I think that there’s an additional Motion to say and in our executive summary we 53 want to emphasize these points. I think that’s fine, but I just think these are two different things. 54
55
Chair Tanaka: Ok, the Motion fails. Commissioner Michael. 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 53
Commissioner Michael: So I just wanted to reinforce the point that’s been made by a number of our 1
colleagues and that is we’ve started in the last year to use this notion of an executive summary. I think 2
there’s just been one gone to Council and it was very successful. And this is something that the Chair 3
has joint responsibility with the staff and you can use this to great effect. And I think that the 4
opportunity to express clearly in the executive summary, the points of distinction or the points of 5
importance or the points of policy or whatnot is a significant duty of the Chair and I encourage you to use 6
this fully. And this is probably a great opportunity. 7 8 The other thing is the transcript of this discussion is going to be very lengthy and the longer it goes the 9 less impact it will have because it will not be read. So I think that getting to the point, passing out sort 10 of a clean resolution with a nuanced executive summary I think is the way to really influence the Council 11
effectively and to promote the credibility of the PTC. 12
13
Chair Tanaka: Was there any amendment any proposed to the Motion or just making comments? 14
15
Commissioner Michael: Just comments. 16
17
Chair Tanaka: Ok, cool. Commissioner Rosenblum, your light’s on. Any other comments? No. Ok guys, 18
so I think we’ve everyone had a chance to speak on this and we’re ready to take a vote on the Motion on 19
the floor right now including the two Friendly Amendments. All in favor say aye? 20
21
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m sorry. What are we supporting? 22 23 Chair Tanaka: Ok, ok, ok. 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: [Unintelligible-off microphone] 26
27
Chair Tanaka: No, there’s only the final Motion. There’s only one Motion on the floor with two Friendly 28
Amendments that both have been accepted. There’s been a couple of Friendly Amendments that have 29
been rejected, but there’s one Motion (interrupted) 30
31
Commissioner Alcheck: So did he retract his? I thought you said the Motion failed? 32
33
Chair Tanaka: No, sorry. The Friendly Amendment failed. I spoke wrong. I misspoke. 34
35 Commissioner Alcheck: Whose Friendly Amendment? 36 37 Chair Tanaka: Two Friendly Amendments. No, your Friendly Amendment… 38 39
Commissioner Alcheck: Oh, oh, oh, [unintelligible-still off microphone]. 40
41
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so let me replay the sequence of events so it’s really clear as to what we’re voting on. 42
Ok. 43
44
Commissioner Alcheck: I thought you said the Motion failed (interrupted) 45
46
VOTE 47
48
Chair Tanaka: No, no, no. Sorry, sorry. I misspoke. Ok, so let’s make this clear so it’s clean. The Vice-49
Chair made a Motion. It was seconded by Commissioner Rosenblum. Commissioner Michael made a 50 Friendly Amendment that was accepted. I made a Friendly Amendment that was accepted. 51 Commissioner Alcheck made a Friendly Amendment that was rejected and Commissioner Gardias made a 52 Friendly Amendment that was rejected, ok? That’s what we’re voting on. Is that clear to everyone? Ok. 53 54
All in favor of the Motion on the floor with the two Friendly Amendments raise your hand. Ok. So all 55
opposed? Ok. So six in favor, one dissenting. So this item is closed. 56
City of Palo Alto March 11, 2015 Page 54
MOTION PASSED (6-1, Commissioner Gardias dissenting) 1
2
Commission Action: Commissioner Fine made a Motion to recommend the Ordinance to Council, 3
second by Commissioner Rosenblum. (6-1, with Commissioner Gardias dissenting) 4
5
Minutes Approval: Minutes of February 25, 2015 (Commissioners received electronically) 6
7 MOTION, SECOND, VOTE 8 9 Chair Tanaka: Now let’s do the rest of the meeting. Ok, so ok can I have someone approve the minutes? 10 Commissioner Alcheck has made a Motion to approve the minutes and seconded by Commissioner 11
Downing. All in favor say aye. Ok, unanimous. 12
13
MOTION PASSED (7-0) 14
15
Commission Action: Commissioner Alcheck moved to approve the February 25, 2015 minutes, 16
second by Commissioner Downing. Approved unanimously. 17
18
Commission/Staff Announcements & Future Agenda Items: Members of the public may not 19
speak to the item(s). 20
21
Chair Tanaka: And let’s see, so the last part and this is what we’re doing for every meeting now is you 22 have a pink sheet of paper on your desk. Last time we used a Google doc, but we’re told we cannot use 23 a Google Doc. Everyone was here except for Commissioner Michael. Commissioner Michael for your 24 benefit we’re going to spend like hopefully just five minutes max on this at the end of every meeting. 25 Unfortunately you weren’t able to participate last time, but basically we were writing down the things that 26
we think we need to as a Commission talk about. So if there’s additional items that we want to talk 27
about that’s not on here you need to write on it with a piece of paper on this sheet and then 28
Commissioner Michael what you should do what everyone else has already done is we put the X, three 29
X’s on the parts we think are most important. And it’s just a way for us to kind of prioritize our topic 30
backlog. 31
32
And so what I would recommend given this late hour is if a Commissioner has something they wanted to 33
add on it just write it on there. I think Commissioner Michael if you could put the X’s on only three, three 34
X’s on the places you care about. If anyone else wants to change any of their X’s feel free to do that, but 35 you have to do it old school now with a piece of paper. So if anyone wants to make any changes to their 36 stuff write it on there, but we’ll give it to staff and staff will like put it out into Google Doc for us. Ok, is 37 that clear? So rather than take up more official time of this meeting what we’re going to do is I’m going 38 to call the meeting adjourned at 10:48. Thanks. 39
40
Adjournment: 10:48 P.M. 41
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4414)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/3/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: PC Time-Out and Zoning Reforms
Title: PC Time-Out & Reform. Staff Recommends Adoption of a Motion:
(a)Expressing the Council’s Intent to Defer Requests for Rezoning to the
Planned Community (PC) Zoning District Until the Process and Requirements
Regulating the PC Zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal Code are Revised,
and (b) Directing Staff to Return to the Council with an Analysis of Potential
Revisions and Alternatives to the PC Zone for Public Input and Discussion
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council consider the following two motions: (a) expressing the Council’s
intent to defer requests for rezoning to the Planned Community (PC) zoning district until the
process and requirements regulating the PC zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal Code are
revised, and (b) directing staff to return to the Council with an analysis of potential revisions
and alternatives to the PC zone for public input and discussion.
Executive Summary
As discussed at the Council December 2, 2013 “Future of our City” discussion, the PC process,
whereby the City and a developer negotiate site-specific design and development standards in
exchange for “public benefits,” has been viewed by many as too opaque and transactional.
While many acknowledge the success of some past PC developments and advantages of PC
zoning as a tool, the process and some of its outcomes have been critiqued as inadequate.
Furthermore, the ad-hoc nature of each separate negotiation has contributed to the
community concerns about the lack of a coherent set of values or vision for the future. Based
on this concern, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and others have offered
their analysis and suggestions about ways to improve the process.
ATTACHMENT D
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Staff is proposing to conduct an analysis of proposed alternatives and reforms to the PC district
to better achieve the district’s intent and is suggesting a “time-out” on PC re-zonings until
reforms can be enacted. Staff’s analysis would include a thorough public review process,
culminating in a draft ordinance to be presented to City Council. There is only one PC proposal
currently pending before the City that could potentially be affected by this time-out.
Background
On December 2, 2013, the City Council initiated a community conversation about topics related
to the future of Palo Alto, including topics such as the update of the Comprehensive Plan, traffic
and parking problems and solutions, and new development within existing commercial
corridors. The topic of PC districts and the need for possible reforms to the requirements and
process were also discussed. While many Council Members acknowledged that there have been
successful Planned Communities and that Palo Alto is one of the few cities in the position to
receive public benefits, there was general agreement that the process could be improved.
The City of Palo Alto established the regulations PC districts with the adoption of the City’s
original Zoning Ordinance on February 19, 1951 (Ordinance No. 1324). The original purpose of
the PC district, which remained unchanged for 27 years, was the following:
“The PC district is designed to accommodate various types of development such as
neighborhood and district shopping centers, professional and administrative areas, multiple
housing developments, single-family residential developments, commercial service centers and
industrial parks or any other use or combination of uses which can be made appropriately as
part of a planned development.”
The initial PC district regulations established the permitted uses (all and any uses shown on the
development plan as approved by the City Council), conditional uses (all uses except a single-
family residence on an approved building site), height and space requirements (as shown on
the development plan), requirements for the Development Plan (including a map of street
system, land use plan, public amenities, plot plans, parking and circulation diagrams, and
landscape plans), and requirements for the project’s development schedule.
The PC district regulations were revised in 1978 and have largely remained intact until the
present. The Specific Purpose of the PC district now reads:
“The PC planned community district is intended to accommodate developments for residential,
commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including
combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not
City of Palo Alto Page 3
otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly
intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments which are of substantial public
benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.”
The 1978 revisions included significant additions:
PC district findings, including the finding for public benefits not otherwise attainable by
application of the general districts or combining districts;
A description of the application process, including the requirement for PC district
initiation by the Planning Commission, design review by the Architectural Review Board,
and a final review and recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City
Council;
A requirement for a development program statement, essentially a written project
description, that demonstrates the necessity of the PC district and information
demonstrating consistency with the PC district findings;
Conditions of reversion, in the case when a developer fails to meet the adopted
development schedule, and
Special requirements, including more restrictive site development requirements, for PC
districts within 150-feet of low-density residential districts. These special requirements
include the establishment of a daylight plane, a more restrictive maximum height,
setbacks, and landscaping screens.
The requirements for PC district adopted in 1978 remain essentially intact to the present day,
with minor revisions to refine the application process and requirements, Development plan,
Special requirements, Development schedule, PC inspections, and Recycling storage, among
other minor changes.
Planned Community Rezoning Procedures
As introduced above, rezoning to a PC district currently follows a set of procedures and
standards, which are prescribed in Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The
PC process begins with PTC review of the concept plans, development program statement and
draft development schedule. If the PTC recommends initiating the PC request, the development
plan, site plan, landscape plan and design plans are submitted to the ARB for design review in
the same manner as any commercial or mixed-use project. The environmental document is
prepared and circulated prior to ARB consideration. The development plan recommended for
approval by the ARB is then returned to the PTC, together with a draft PC ordinance and
environmental document, for review and recommendation to the City Council. The PC
City of Palo Alto Page 4
ordinance would identify the permitted and conditionally permitted uses and site
improvements, as well as a schedule for completion of the project. The Council may approve a
PC zone change only if it finds that:
1. The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such
characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will
not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development.
2. Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community
district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of
the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In make the findings
required by this section, the Planning and Transportation Commission and City
Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to
result from use of the planned community district.
3. The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable
within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and
shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within
the general vicinity.
The current ordinance does not specifically define community benefits and over the years there
have been different community perspectives on how to address this issue.
The City Council has approved over 100 PC districts (including revisions to existing PC districts),
beginning in 1951 with PC-1362 at 3401-45 Alma Street for commercial uses and an automobile
service station (later zoned to PC-4956 as Alma Plaza) and concluding most recently in June
2012 with PC-5158, the development known as 101 Lytton. The general types of PC districts
that have been established include approximately 40% commercial, 50% residential and 10%
mixed-use projects.
In the past year, one request for a PC district was withdrawn (395 Page Mill Road, Jay Paul
Development Company) and another was rescinded by public vote (Maybell-Clemo residential
project, Palo Alto Housing Corporation). There is only one PC zoning application currently
pending, which is proposing a 33,000 sq. ft. office building on the former VTA lot on the corner
of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real (2755 El Camino Real). This application was submitted to
the City on June 3, 2013, and has since been undergoing a review process. The PC zoning
initiation was considered by the PTC in October 2013 and was continued to a date uncertain
with a request to provide additional economic information related to the proposed public
City of Palo Alto Page 5
benefit. A description of the proposed development and the public benefits proposed by the
applicant are attached to the staff report. The City has also recently hired a land use economics
consultant who has prepared a draft financial review of these public benefits. Among other
findings, the report concluded that a potential development could be profitable under both a
PC zoning designation and a C-S zoning designation.
Discussion
The PC process, whereby the City and a developer negotiate site-specific design and
development standards in exchange for “public benefits,” is viewed by many as too opaque and
transactional, allowing neighborhood impacts to be “traded” for benefits that accrue to those
outside the immediate vicinity. The process and some of its outcomes (i.e. the public benefits
resulting from individual projects) have been critiqued as inadequate, and the ad hoc nature of
each separate negotiation has contributed to community concerns about the lack of a coherent
set of values or vision for the future.
Planning staff is recommending a “time-out” on PC projects to allow an examination of the
potential alternatives and reforms, which conform with and enhance the policies and programs
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. There may be intersections between this effort and the
Comprehensive Plan Update, or reforms may be sought as near term actions.
Possible alternatives/reforms to the PC process could include:
Specifically define the types of projects that may apply for a PC district;
Create minimum lot sizes that would be eligible for PC districts;
Establish a buffer (a minimum distance) between a proposed PC district and existing
low-density residential districts;
Create a menu of public benefits that would be allowed under a PC, and/or
Establish a better mechanism for mitigation and condition monitoring.
If so directed by Council, Planning staff would analyze these and other possible alternatives and
present our analysis for Council direction and public comment.
Pipeline Projects
As noted above, there is one request for a PC district that is currently under review: 2755 El
Camino Real at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. This development proposing a
33,000 sq. ft. office building on the former VTA lot on the corner of Page Mill Road and El
Camino Real (2755 El Camino Real). This site is currently zoned P-F, reflecting that it was used
by a public agency (VTA) for a public use (carpool lot). Although the current zoning designation
City of Palo Alto Page 6
would not allow a commercial development, the City cannot legally deny the property owner
reasonable use of their property and thus the City will likely have to entertain a reasonable re-
zoning request at some point. The most “natural” zoning designation for this site is Commercial
Service or “C-S”, which is the same designation found on many similar El Camino Real sites. A
C-S development on this site would be smaller, particularly from an office square footage
standpoint, and would most likely also contain a number of residential units. However, the City
would also not be able to receive extra “public benefits” from a C-S development, and could
only mandate conditions and mitigations measures that have a direct nexus to project impacts.
For example, among other proposed public benefits, the PC development currently proposes
allowing the Page Mill Road and El Camino Real intersection to expand into what is now the
VTA lot, in order to accommodate a new right hand turn lane. It is unlikely that a condition such
as this would be part of a standard C-S development.
The staff recommendation includes a recommendation for Council to express their intent to
deny or defer requests for rezoning to the PC district until the process and requirements
regulating the PC zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal Code are revised. Adoption of a formal
moratorium is unnecessary because the PC zoning district is set up as an optional district and
individual property owners do not have an absolute right to develop under the optional
standards. If Council adopts a statement implementing a “time out,” the action would clearly
communicate to the 2755 El Camino Real applicant that their request would be deferred or
denied if the project was sent to Council for review. The applicant could then chose to wait for
the “time out” to be over, revise and resubmit their application as a request for re-zoning to C-
S, or request consideration of their project in the context of a development agreement.
Next Steps
There are two process options for moving forward with PC reform. The first option is a stand-
alone option, where staff will proceed with development PC reforms and alternatives, as
follows:
February: Council direction to staff to proceed with the analysis of proposed
Reforms to the PC district regulations and a statement to defer or deny existing and
future requests for rezoning to PC districts until such reforms are adopted.
July-August: Staff presents Council with an analysis and recommendation for public
review and comment.
Alternatively, the PC public outreach process and discussion could be completed in conjunction
with the Comprehensive Plan amendment public outreach process and overall discussion. If this
City of Palo Alto Page 7
alternative were selected, the overall timeline would be extended; however it would be
discussed in the context of many other related issues in the Comprehensive Plan.
Resource Impact
Staff’s recommendation to defer existing and future rezoning requests to PC would not have a
substantial impact on staff resources or existing department budgets. Staff analysis of rezone
requests are typically cost-recovery projects. The application fees collected for each rezone
request represent a deposit, from which staff costs are recovered. During the deferral period,
staff would not process PC rezone requests, which would allow staff to work on other
department projects. The recommended activities to address PC reform have been included in
the Planning department’s work plan for this year.
Policy Implications
The recommended activities could substantially alter the PC district requirements. However,
staff does not foresee complete elimination of the PC district or functional equivalent from the
Zoning Ordinance for the simple reason most cities have comparable processes. Typically
processes are called Planned Development or Planned Unit Developments. Many cities also
utilize site specific Development Agreements, which serve a similar function.
Environmental Assessment
Council’s action to temporarily defer or deny requests for rezoning to PC would not constitute a
project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Project Description for 2755 El Camino Real- Request for Planned
Community (PDF)
Page 13 of 30
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 02/03/14
Council Member Scharff suggested the infrastructure funding plan should
precede discussion of the bike plan.
Mr. Keene reported the bike plan would be part of the larger question of the
infrastructure funding plan. A broader discussion of the bike plan could
occur in the second quarter of the year when the Infrastructure Committee
recommended an infrastructure funding plan.
Vice Mayor Kniss suggested Staff refer to the initiative as a campaign to
hear from the community about the future. She suggested Staff utilize
social media to reach the under-40 group; include food at meetings as food
seemed to draw participants; hold small group meetings at many locations
throughout the City; and reach out to nonprofit organizations.
Mayor Shepherd remarked that this was an opportunity for the City to
regroup and listen to the community. It was important to hear from
different parts of the community. Staff should capture those things the
community wanted to retain as the City moved forward.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Mr. Keene noted the Council created a separate process and outreach
funding related to the 27 University Avenue Project. With the
implementation of Our Palo Alto, Staff would include the 27 University
Avenue Project within the larger process.
9. Planned Community (PC) Zoning Time-Out & Reform. Staff
Recommends Adoption of a Motion: (a) Expressing the Council’s
Intent to Defer Requests for Rezoning to the Planned Community (PC)
Zoning District Until the Process and Requirements Regulating the PC
Zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal Code are Revised, and (b)
Directing Staff to Return to the Council with an Analysis of Potential
Revisions and Alternatives to the PC Zone for Public Input and
Discussion.
Aaron Aknin, Planning and Community Environment Assistant Director,
reported that Planned Community (PC) Zoning was one of the primary topics
discussed at the kickoff meeting of Our Palo Alto in early December 2013.
PC Zoning was site-specific zoning where developers or property owners
could negotiate site zoning in exchange for public benefits. There were
many successful PCs, and PC Zoning could be a successful tool. Staff heard
two overarching concerns from the community, the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC), and the Council. The first concern was
that the PC negotiation process was too ad hoc in nature and there was no
framework for the process. The second concern was that the public benefits
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 14 of 30
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 02/03/14
accepted by the City were sometimes inadequate given the private gain
associated with PC Zoning and the long-term implications of the project.
The PC Ordinance was first adopted in 1951 with no mention of a public
benefit. In 1978, the PC Ordinance was revised to include public benefit and
to require a process and findings. Approximately 100 PC Zones had been
approved since 1951, with one-third being approved prior to 1978 and two-
thirds since 1978. The PC process included two required P&TC meetings,
one required Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing, and Council
adoption of specific findings when approving a PC. Staff sought specific
direction regarding a time-out for PC Zoning. If the Council chose to
implement a time-out, then Staff requested direction regarding PC Zoning
reform as a standalone topic or as part of Our Palo Alto. One application for
a PC Zone at 2755 El Camino Real was pending. As currently proposed,
Staff recommended the application be delayed as the Council discussed PC
Zone reform. The development was a 30,000-square-foot proposed office
building at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Staff performed
a pro forma analysis of the project and concluded that proposed public
benefits were equitable to private gain. Staff concluded the project could be
developed under Service Commercial (CS) Zoning and remain profitable.
Mayor Shepherd requested Staff comment on the request for Council
Members not to suggest specific PC reforms.
Hilary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director, reiterated
that the recommendation grew out of the Council's Study Session on
December 2, 2013. Staff requested Council Members provide their opinions
and suggestions regarding a time-out for PC Zoning and a schedule for Staff
to return with recommendations. Staff was not requesting Council Members
comment on specific reforms.
Tom DuBois reviewed a few results from the National Citizen Survey. While
PC Zoning should be reformed, current zoning was not having the intended
effect. He requested the Council defer requests for land use exceptions or
exchanges until the Comprehensive Plan update was completed. He hoped
the time-out would apply to the pending application for PC Zoning.
Jeff Pollock, speaking on behalf of group of five, stated the 2755 El Camino Real Project was not abusive, was moderately sized, fulfilled the South El
Camino Real Design Guidelines and Grand Boulevard Vision, and provided
desired benefits. The project would be fully parked and would raise values
in the area, and would bring prestige to the City. The project should be
allowed to proceed.
Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects, reported that the 2755 El Camino Real
Project as proposed was 10,000 square feet larger than allowed under CS
Page 15 of 30
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 02/03/14
Zoning. The project created no California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
impacts for traffic; improved the level of service of the Page Mill Road-El
Camino Real intersection; included a Transportation Demand Management
Plan; and requested no parking reduction for the TDM Plan. The site was
currently zoned Public Facility (PF) and required rezoning to construct a
private building. He compared zoning requirements for CS and PC Zones.
Public benefits were well vetted and developed with City guidance.
Mr. Pollock reviewed public benefits proposed for the 2755 El Camino Real
Project. The project would dedicate 12 feet to widen Page Mill Road. The
proposed tenant for the project was First Republic Bank. A third-party
municipal financial consultant reviewed the package of the project;
compared the project to a project under CS Zoning; and concluded that the
proposed public benefit was equal to $2.55 million. The proposed project
would fulfill design criteria for the site.
Jim Baer endorsed the 2755 El Camino Real Project for PC Zoning.
Neilson Buchanan supported PC Zoning; however, he urged the Council to
review PC Zoning. He asked which independent body would represent the
City in determining whether to accept the offer proposed by the 2755 El
Camino Real Project.
Robert Moss felt the City had not received any public benefits from PC
Zoning. The Staff Report did not mention enforcement for PC Zones. The
City needed an independently quantifiable comparison of public and private
benefits. The Council should adopt a moratorium for PC Zoning.
Herb Borock noted that Staff recommended the Council vote for an
expression of intent, which did not have the force of law. Staff proposed
only one alternative, a moratorium. The most direct and legally supportable
action was an Ordinance that would eliminate the current PC Zone District
Regulations for new applications.
Stephanie Munoz wished the Council would concentrate on the fact that the
public benefit of a PC Zone could not be obtained by any other means. She
hoped a PC Zone for senior housing at Maybell would be allowed.
Martin Bernstein, speaking as an individual, did not believe a time-out was
needed for PC Zoning, because the Council could deny any application for PC
Zoning.
James Keene, City Manager, clarified that the Council would not discuss a
topic that was not properly advertised. The current topic for Council
discussion was related to a PC time-out and Staff suggestions regarding a
Page 16 of 30
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 02/03/14
timetable for reform. Conversation within the realm of PC reform would be
appropriate.
Vice Mayor Kniss inquired whether Staff could return with recommendations
by summer 2014.
Mr. Aknin answered yes.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Shepherd to accept
Staff recommendation to: 1) defer requests for rezoning to the Planned
Community (PC) zoning district until the process and requirements
regulating the PC zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal Code are revised;
and 2) direct Staff to return to the Council with an analysis of potential
revisions and alternatives to the PC zone for public input and discussion.
Vice Mayor Kniss remarked that the current time was appropriate for a time-
out. Many existing PC Zones provided a variety of positive benefits for the
community. The City needed a process to evaluate PC Zones. She
suggested Staff return with something that was measureable, had tangible
results, and could be tracked over time.
Mayor Shepherd looked forward to a robust conversation regarding PC
reform. Concepts for PC Zones needed to demonstrate the material benefit
of public benefits.
Council Member Holman inquired about the relationship between the Permit
Streamlining Act and delay of the 2755 El Camino Real Project.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported the Permit Streamlining Act did not
apply to a legislative action, which was the format for a PC Zone
consideration. The Permit Streamlining Act was not an issue in this
instance.
Council Member Holman asked about the interface between PC reform and
work regarding parking standards and density of office development. She
requested Staff's vision for public outreach regarding PC reform.
Ms. Gitelman indicated Staff could return to the Council during the summer
of 2014 with an analysis of potential reforms. Staff would obtain Council
input and direction before proceeding with community input.
Council Member Holman recalled Council Member and public comments
addressing development beyond PC Zones at the Study Session in December
2013. She inquired about a time for Council consideration of a time-out for
larger development projects beyond PC Zones.
Page 17 of 30
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 02/03/14
Ms. Gitelman reported current zoning created expectations on the part of
property owners and the public that there was a development potential for
property. If the Council implemented restrictions on development, then it
would have a larger conversation with more complicated issues. With
respect to public comment regarding design exceptions, the Council
reviewed exceptions it wanted to grant, such as exceptions that allowed for
wider sidewalks. In some circumstances, exceptions were beneficial and
encouraged quality design. Broadening the time-out to include additional
tools and circumstances beyond PC Zoning would create unintended
consequences and complexities.
Mr. Keene did not believe the Council could lightly consider reducing or
potentially removing entitlements that were granted and might be
longstanding. Such consideration would require a foundation of facts and
data, an understanding of the implications, and demonstrable fairness. Staff
could return with a time-out on a discretionary decision.
Council Member Holman suggested the Council could address some issues
such as up-zoning. Someone could skirt the PC issue by requesting an up-
zoning. The structure of parking considerations did not necessarily benefit
the community at the current time. Some of those issues would not
necessarily have the impact that Staff referenced.
Council Member Price would not support a time-out at the current time,
because she was not comfortable with a time-out as a way of doing
business. The pending application should continue through the application
process with existing public input and reviews. The PC process provided a
design outcome that could be attractive for the intersection of El Camino
Real and Page Mill Road. She strongly supported reform of the PC process.
The issues of quantification and enforcement clearly needed work. The PC
process should be reformed within the next three to four months, rather
than waiting for the update of the Comprehensive Plan. Over the prior two
to three years, the community refined its thinking regarding the elements of
the PC process that needed improvement.
Council Member Klein asked if the P&TC would review Staff's proposed PC
reforms prior to the proposed reforms being presented to the Council. He asked if Staff's proposed deadline of summer meant June or August.
Ms. Gitelman indicated Staff first considered a deadline of July; however,
they would need to reconsider that timeframe. If Staff sought Council
direction, then they would have to circle back to the P&TC for
recommendations. Staff was seeking Council direction. If the Council wanted to proceed quickly, then Staff could draft alternatives, present them
Page 18 of 30
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 02/03/14
to the P&TC, and present those alternatives and the P&TC recommendation
to the Council. In that case, Staff could probably return in August.
Mr. Keene concurred that Staff could return to the Council in August.
Council Member Klein did not believe PC reforms could become effective
within a year. He would not support a moratorium. In general, he did not
like moratoriums; however, they could be appropriate in limited
circumstances. This was not one of those limited circumstances. He
expressed concern regarding unintended consequences of moratoriums. If
the Council did not like a PC proposal, it could vote no. The Council could
not oppose a project proposed under existing zoning. He felt Staff could
return in 60-90 days as PC reform did not require much research. A
moratorium for a few years would be deleterious to the community, to
property values, and to community vibrancy. He urged Council Members to
vote no on the Motion.
Council Member Burt was not a fan of moratoriums because of unintended
consequences. A time-out could assure PC changes were binding on Council
decisions and could help the community feel relief from PC abuse. On the
other hand, the City did not receive many applications for PC Zones. The
second consideration was an appropriate action for the pending PC
application.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff that the PC suspension apply to any PC application not yet
submitted.
Council Member Scharff supported a time-out for PC Zoning. The Council
needed to build community faith in the PC process. He struggled with the
fairness of imposing a delay on the pending PC application. The community
would benefit from applying reforms to an actual project.
Council Member Berman supported the Motion. The Council identified that
the current PC process was broken and needed to be fixed. It was not
appropriate to use a broken process for any project, regardless of its
position within the application process. He worried about potential
unintended consequences of a time-out, particularly in relation to affordable
housing. Staff should accelerate the timeline.
Ms. Stump recommended time-out rather than moratorium. Moratorium in
land use law had a specific meaning and required specific findings. Findings
were not necessary in the current circumstances, were not appropriate, and
were not being made. The Council should avoid use of the term
"moratorium" in order to maintain a clean record.
Page 19 of 30
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 02/03/14
Council Member Schmid stated the Council needed a sophisticated tool of
economic analysis to make decisions regarding costs and benefits of PC
Zoning. The Council needed a framework of economic analysis and needed
it desperately. He hoped Staff would provide a framework that allowed the
Council to assess quality economic data and determine costs and benefits.
He opposed the Amendment.
Mayor Shepherd opposed the Amendment, because the one PC project
approved in 2013 was used to exemplify the disadvantages of PC Zoning.
The Council needed to better inform the community regarding PC Zoning,
and this was the appropriate time for that.
AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-5 Burt, Klein, Price, Scharff yes
AMENDMENT: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to direct Staff to return to Council with an agendized item to
consider suspension of any up-zoning that would result in FAR increases
during the timeframe the PC suspension would be in existence.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether the topic of the Amendment was
properly agendized.
Ms. Stump noted existing land use rights applied to given parcels. Staff
framed the item such that the Council would determine how to exercise its
discretionary authority to make a legislative action with respect to a
discretionary zone change in the future. The Amendment moved into
another area that was not fully explored or noticed. The Amendment's
direction to Staff should return to the Council after more specific public
notification and potentially quite a few more procedural steps. Staff would
need to explore the meaning of the Amendment and its impact on various
pieces of the Zoning Code.
Council Member Burt clarified that the Amendment did not impact existing
zoning. It would only impact changes to existing zoning.
Ms. Stump was not sure that was the case. She requested the Planning
Director comment regarding the different ways that current features of the
Zoning Code could result in increased density of zoning.
Council Member Burt meant a change in actual zoning that would up-zone.
Mr. Keene inquired whether density would be determined by Floor Area Ratio
(FAR).
Council Member Burt replied yes.
Page 20 of 30
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 02/03/14
Ms. Stump expressed concern that the item was not specifically called out
for Brown Act purposes in terms of the Council taking action on it.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the direction to Staff had to be
initiated outside the current agendized item.
Ms. Stump answered no. The Council could provide general direction
regarding a related topic if the appropriate number of Council Members
wanted Staff to return with information.
Mr. Keene reported the Amendment could result in many permutations for
Staff consideration. The simplest method for Staff consideration would be a
straight increase in existing FAR. A project could propose a change in use
that would not result in increased density.
Council Member Burt explained that the Amendment would only apply if an
applicant wanted to change the zoning for a parcel.
Vice Mayor Kniss inquired whether the Amendment provided clear direction
for Staff.
Mr. Keene understood the general intent of the Amendment. If the Council
directed Staff to do so, they would give their best effort to identify the
different aspects of up-zoning. If somehow Staff did not provide all the
information the Council wished to have, then hopefully the Council would
have sufficient information to take some action.
Council Member Burt felt some major up-zoning applications were on the
horizon. If the Council reviewed the PC issue only, then more significant
things could occur. The intent of the Amendment was to provide the Council
with an opportunity to review rules on increases in density beyond the
amount allowed by existing zoning.
Council Member Holman expressed concern regarding the Amendment's
effect on affordable housing projects.
Council Member Burt explained that an affordable housing project could
qualify for density bonuses. The Motion would deny affordable housing the
use of a PC Zone. The Amendment would deny an alternative to a PC Zone.
If the Council wished to exempt affordable housing projects from the
concept, then the Motion should include that.
Council Member Holman noted affordable housing projects had different
parking requirements. That was the one advantage to having an exemption
for affordable housing projects.
Page 21 of 30
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 02/03/14
Mr. Keene was concerned that a possible direction to Staff was taking on a
great deal of form that could create problems.
Council Member Burt suggested those issues be part of the discussion when
Staff returned to the Council.
Council Member Holman concurred.
Council Member Price would not support the Amendment. The discussion
was premature. The discussion was not appropriate as it moved beyond the
topic noticed to the public. The community should have an opportunity to
provide comments.
Ms. Gitelman commented that zoning beyond the PC Zone was confusing.
Staff could review issues of the current Zoning Ordinance; where it applied
densities; and where those densities could be adjusted. Those topics would
be associated with updating the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Schmid indicated that the goal of identifying potential up-
zoning was clear; however, he was concerned about additional up-zoning
needed in preparation of the Housing Element.
Council Member Scharff stated the Council wished to reform a process. The
Amendment did not reform a process. The reasons for a time-out were
unclear, because the Council could deny a request for up-zoning.
AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-6 Burt, Holman, Schmid yes
Council Member Scharff felt reforming the PC process was important.
Instituting a time-out would prevent additional applications for PC Zoning.
The Council needed to rebuild faith with the community so that everyone felt
the process was fair.
MOTION PASSED: 7-2 Klein, Price no
Mayor Shepherd requested clarification of Council procedures regarding the
latest time for the Council to take up a new item.
Ms. Stump reported the Council could decide to take up a new item.
10. Public Hearing: Approval of the Record of Land Use Action for a Site
and Design Review Application and Adoption of a Park Improvement
Ordinance for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration
Project, Adoption of a Resolution 9395 entitled “Resolution of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Final Environmental
Impact Report and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations
PC Zoning Reform
Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion
August 2014 - Page 1
Planned Community Zoning Reform:
Summary of Issues & Ideas for Further Discussion
The Planned Community (PC) zoning process, whereby the City of Palo Alto and a developer
negotiate site-specific design and development standards in exchange for “public benefits,” has
been the subject of recent community criticism. Many view the process as too opaque and
lacking of standards. Others criticize it as too transactional, allowing neighborhood impacts to
be “traded” for benefits that accrue to those outside the immediate vicinity. Concerns have
been raised about overuse of the PC process and proliferation of buildings that do not comply
with underlying zoning. Concerns have also been raised about the inadequacy of the public
benefits. Finally, the ad hoc nature of each separate negotiation has contributed to community
concerns about the lack of a coherent set of values or vision for the future.
Based on these concerns, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and others have
offered their analysis and suggestions about ways to improve the process. During the City
Council December 2, 2013 “Future of Our City” discussion, the PC Process and the need for
possible reform was discussed. One of the questions posed by Staff was: “How should we re-
examine the PC process and address the community’s concerns about the exchange of new
development entitlements of public benefits.” While no formal action was taken by Council,
staff was directed to bring action items back to the City Council for direction related to the
issues discussed. On February 3, 2014 the City Council voted to place a “time-out” on PC
projects to allow an examination of potential alternatives and reforms. At that time, the City
Council also directed staff to return to Council with an analysis of potential revisions to the PC
zoning process for public input and discussion.
The purpose of this report is to provide an initial outline of the issues associated with PC
zoning that have been identified, to summarize prior analyses and suggestions for PC reform
at a high level, and to start to build reform alternatives. Inherently, this report acknowledges
that to be successful, PC zoning reform must provide greater clarity regarding the City’s
expectations for projects seeking approval under the PC zoning provisions, and must result in a
process that ensures projects are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and achieve the right
balance between flexible development standards and the public good. The process should also
provide ample opportunities for public participation along with a rational process for
applications to be accepted, or initiated, into the PC zoning process, and for their review and
consideration.
This report has been prepared in advance of developing a formal ordinance to allow for review
and comment. This approach will afford the PTC and the public with an opportunity to review
the data collected, review the analyses of the issue to date, and provide feedback before
alternatives are fully developed. Recognizing that zoning regulations generally and PC zoning
ATTACHMENT E
PC Zoning Reform
Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion
August 2014 - Page 2
regulations specifically are not always well understood, staff is also taking a few additional
steps to get community input on this issue. Staff has developed a brief factsheet which will be
posted on its website and disseminated to the public. In addition, staff is requesting public
comments regarding the following three questions:
1. What concerns you most about PC Zoning?
2. If the PC process is reformed to include a menu of potential public benefits, what do you
think should be on that list?
3. Do you have any other ideas for PC reform?
The Planning and Transportation Commission will hold a study session to discuss PC reform at a
study session on August 13, 2014. The public is encouraged to attend the meeting and provide
comments. Alternatively, comments may be submitted to Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner,
by email at consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org. Comments submitted by close of business
on September 12, 2014 will inform preparation of a staff report to the City Council. The City
Council is tentatively scheduled to hold a study session on PC reform on October 6, 2014.
The Objectives of Planned Community (PC) Zoning
Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code provides development standards and procedures for
the development of land and is referred to as the “zoning code” or zoning ordinance. A typical
zoning ordinance defines various zoning classifications, outlines restrictions such as permitted
and conditional uses, site development regulations (i.e. height limitations and densities), and
provides procedures for granting amendments and variances. Zoning codes also provide
opportunities for comprehensively planned development where relief from the development
regulations may be needed to accommodate the improvement.
Local jurisdictions use a variety of techniques to allow variations from development standards
including Planned Developments, Planned Unit Developments, Master Development Plans,
Neighborhood/Area Plans and Specific Plans. These techniques afford local jurisdictions with
the ability to encourage unified planning and development, promote economically beneficial
development patterns that are compatible with the character of existing neighborhoods, allow
design flexibility, and encourage the protection and conservation of natural resources. The City
of Palo Alto has historically used PC Zoning to address some of these same goals.
Chapter 18.38, PC Planned Community District Regulations, of Title 18 provides standards and
procedures for consideration of PC proposals (Attachment A – P.A.M.C. Chapter 18.38). The
City of Palo Alto established the regulations for PC districts with the adoption of the City’s
Original Ordinance on February 19, 1951 (Ordinance No. 1324). The original purpose of the PC
district, which remained unchanged for 27 years, was the following:
“The PC district is designed to accommodate various types of development such as
neighborhood and district shopping centers, professional and administrative areas,
multiple housing developments, single-family residential developments, commercial
PC Zoning Reform
Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion
August 2014 - Page 3
service centers and industrial parks or any other use or combination of uses which can be
made appropriately as part of a planned development.”
The initial PC district regulations established the permitted uses, conditional uses, height and
space requirements for the Development Plan (including a map of street system, land use plan,
public amenities, plot plans, parking and circulation diagrams, and landscape plans), and
requirements for the project’s development schedule.
The PC district regulations were revised in 1978 and have largely remained intact until the
present. The specific purpose of the PC district now reads:
“The PC planned community district is intended to accommodate developments for
residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other
activities, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under
controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned
community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned
developments which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and
enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.”
Other Techniques for Achieving the Objectives of PC Zoning
As noted above, local jurisdictions can use a variety of tools to achieve objectives similar to
those of PC zoning. In Palo Alto, there are tools such as variances and design enhancement
exceptions (DEEs) that allow relief from development standards where there is a hardship (in
the case of variances) or where it would benefit the proposed design (in the case of DEEs). Palo
Alto has also used development agreements to provide for comprehensively planned
development in exchange for public benefits.
Palo Alto Resolution No. 6597 (adopted March 9, 1987) established procedures and
requirements for the consideration of development agreements (Attachment B – Resolution
No. 6597) pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5. The statute
authorizes cities and counties to enter into binding agreements with owner/developers for the
development of real property, and these agreements are generally used for complex projects
that will build-out over time. For instance, a development agreement was processed for the
Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Project, which contained a ten year build out
period.
Development agreements provide the jurisdiction with public benefits and provide the
developer a level of certainty about what it can build and what conditions and mitigation
measures will be required. Typically, development agreements allow greater flexibility to the
local jurisdiction in determining conditions and requirements for the project than would
otherwise be allowed, and in exchange, provide the developer greater assurances that the
project can be built over a long time period once it is approved without fear that new
regulations might significantly affect the later phases of development.
PC Zoning Reform
Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion
August 2014 - Page 4
The planning process for a development agreement varies somewhat by jurisdiction, but
generally includes evaluation of the proposed project and negotiation of the agreement.
Development Agreements can only be entered into after environmental review and public
input. They can also be costly and take a significant amount of staff time to process.
In addition to development agreements, local jurisdictions in California use techniques such as
Planned Development Districts, Planned Unit Developments, Master Development Plans,
Neighborhood/Area Plans, and Specific Plans to foster flexibility or relief from development
standards, while achieving community objectives.
Some of these tools are summarized in Table 1 below and in the text that follows. (Note: There
is considerable overlap in these terms and cities employ them differently. Please view this summary as
general and not determinative.)
Table 1
Other Planning Tools Used to Achieve Some Objectives of PC Zoning
Planning Tool Function
Planned Development
Tailored zoning district for large parcels of land
Designates the zoning regulations for the
accompanying project
Planned Unit
Development
Special type of overlay district or approval action
(like a glorified use permit)
Planned and built as a complete project
Master Development
Plan
Applies to a specific site or area
Conceptual plan consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan
May or may not be accompanied by regulatory
development standards
Neighborhood /Area
Plan
Adopted as a Comprehensive Plan amendment or
as a regulatory framework (zoning ordinance)
Sets vision and/or development framework
Applies to small geographic area
Specific Plan
Separate document not part of Comprehensive
Plan
Adopted as an ordinance
Area is defined through planning process
Sets vision and development framework
Implementation regulated through development
standards, design standards and guidelines
Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, August 2014
PC Zoning Reform
Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion
August 2014 - Page 5
Planned Development
Planned Development (PD) Districts are used to implement the objectives and policies
of the General Plan. PD Districts are generally tailored for specific districts, and are
adopted via an ordinance which designates the zoning regulations for the accompanying
project, sets specific development standards, and ensures that zoning and the General
Plan are consistent. A PD district is intended to ensure orderly planning and quality
urban design that is in harmony with the existing or potential development of the
surrounding neighborhood. The question of “public benefits” does not factor into PD
Districts explicitly, but the districts generally contain desired amenities. The City of
Sunnyvale is a nearby jurisdiction that uses PD Districts.
Planned Unit Development
The term Planned Unit Development (PUD) is used to describe a type of development
and the regulatory process that allows a developer to meet overall community density
and land use goals without being bound by all existing zoning requirements. A PUD can
be a special type of overlay district which does not appear on the municipal zoning map
until a designation is approved, or it can be the name given to a type of approval, like a
glorified conditional use permit. Regulations enabling PUDs generally include provisions
to encourage clustering of buildings, designation of common open space, and
incorporation of a variety of building types and mixed land uses. A PUD is planned and
built as a complete project thus fixing the type and location of uses and buildings over
the entire project. Potential benefits of a PUD include more efficient site design,
amenities such as open space, as well as necessary street construction and utility
extension. The City of Gilroy is a nearby jurisdiction that uses PUDs for large (i.e. over
100 units) residential tracts.
Master Development Plan
Cities generally prepare master plans for certain locations or types of development.
They can address development of specific property for commercial or other uses, or the
development of a class of projects like wireless facilities. A “master” plan is not a long-
range guide like a Comprehensive Plan, but rather describes the final expected outcome
of a large site and may be used to direct development on smaller sites. It is conceptual
in nature and serves as the structure for policies to guide the future development.
These types of plans may or may not be accompanied with supplemental regulatory
plans outlining development standards and land uses. Many times master plans relate
to city-owned land. For example, the City is preparing a Long Range Master Plan for the
Regional Water Quality Control Treatment Plant. Cupertino is a nearby jurisdiction that
has used master development plans.
Neighborhood/Area Plans
There are two types of neighborhood or area plans. The first consists of policy
documents adopted as a general plan amendment. They address land uses,
PC Zoning Reform
Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion
August 2014 - Page 6
intensities/densities, and related issues in a specific geographic area and define how
land should be used in the future. As a policy document, rather than a regulatory one,
these types of plans refine the policies of the general plan as they apply to smaller
geographic areas and are implemented by local zoning ordinances. Another type of
neighborhood or area plan is regulatory in nature, and provides specific development
standards for a given geographic area. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 19.10
(Coordinated Area Plans) provides the regulations and requirements for these types of
plans. The South of Forest Area (SOFA) is the only Coordinated Area Plan in the City.
Specific Plan
A Specific Plan is a regulatory tool that local governments use to implement the General
Plan and to guide development in a localized area. While the General Plan is the primary
guide for growth and development in a community, a Specific Plan is able to focus on the
unique characteristics of a special area by customizing the planning process and land use
regulations to that area. A Specific Plan is enacted pursuant to Section 65450 et seq. of
the California Government Code1. In general, a Specific Plan is designed to establish a
vision and development framework for a designated area and the means to implement
that vision. Specific plans generally contain detailed development standards, as well as
design guidelines. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 19.06 (Specific Plans) provides the
regulations and requirements for these types of plans.
Based on staff’s research, most jurisdictions have planning tools that are similar to PC Zoning
district ordinances in the sense that they permit enactment of site-specific development
standards, usually with a focus on good site design and public amenities. While none include an
explicit requirement for a “public benefit” per se, most ordinances establish overlay zones or
their equivalent, set a minimum area of land that can be planned in this way, and include a list
of eligible deviations from development standards and a pre-determined description or menu
of desired public amenities.
The PC Zoning Process & History
Rezoning to a PC district currently follows a set of procedures and standards. Chapter 18.38, PC
Planned Community District Regulations (Attachment A), outlines the application process for a
PC District.
The process begins with the PTC review of the concept plans, development program statement
and draft development schedule. In practice, the City Council often provides a preliminary
review of a PC proposal prior to the initiation of formal review by the PTC. If the PTC
recommends initiating the PC request, the development plan, site plan, landscape plan and
design plans are submitted to the ARB for design review in the same manner as any commercial
or mixed-use project. The ARB reviews the Development Plan and forwards their
1 http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific_plans/sp_part1.html
PC Zoning Reform
Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion
August 2014 - Page 7
recommendation to the PTC. The Development Plan, with an environmental review document,
is then returned to the PTC together with a draft PC ordinance, for review and recommendation
to the City Council. The PC ordinance identifies the permitted and conditionally permitted uses
and site improvements, as well as a schedule for completion of the project. The City Council is
then required to make three findings in order to approve a PC zone change.
The City Council has approved over 100 PC districts beginning in 1951 with PC-1362 at 3401-45
Alma Street for commercial uses and an automobile service station. The general types of PC
districts that have been established include approximately 40% commercial, 50% residential
and 10% mixed-use projects. (See Attachment C – Working Draft: Approved PC Zone Change
Log.)
It’s important to note that PC Zoning has resulted in many projects that are broadly accepted
and appreciated over the years, such as the Opportunity Center. In addition, the PC process is
a powerful tool by which the City can secure valuable public benefits that may or may not have
a direct nexus to the potential impacts of the proposed project.
Issues & Concerns with the PC Zoning Process
Over the years, concerns have been raised by the community about the PC Zoning process and
some have offered solutions/suggestions about ways to improve the process. For instance, in
July 2001 Dyett & Bhatia in completing the Zoning Ordinance Update presented a discussion
paper for Palo Alto around “Flexibility vs. Certainty” (Attachment D – Discussion Paper).
Similarly, on March 27, 2013 the PTC presented a colleagues memorandum about
determination of public benefit (Attachment E – Colleagues Memorandum) and held a study
session (Attachment F – PTC March 27, 2013 Meeting Minutes). Staff has grouped the concerns
raised in these document and those heard from the Council, PTC and public into three general
areas: 1) the Establishment of PC Districts; 2) Application process; and 3) Public Benefits.
Establishment of Districts
As described in PAMC Chapter 18.38, a PC district, which allows an unlimited range of uses, can
be established anywhere in the City subject to a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan, a determination that a “public benefit” is provided, and site development regulations
tailored to the development plan.
The code does not explicitly set any other form of eligibility determination such as minimum
land area or use requirement to clarify the types of projects that should be considered under PC
zoning. One major issue with such flexibility, as noted by Dyett & Bhatia in their 2001 report, is
that there is no explicit requirement contained in the PC district regulations tying
density/intensity limits to the existing Comprehensive Plan. As such, a developer can propose a
project that is above the maximum density and address the requirement for Comprehensive
Plan consistency by requesting a concurrent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
PC Zoning Reform
Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion
August 2014 - Page 8
The PC ordinance also fails to identify a specific location or area in the City that is appropriate
or desired for rezoning to a PC. The regulations do set authority to impose conditions as
needed to ensure neighborhood compatibility. For instance, section 18.38.150, Special
Requirements, defines five special requirements for “sites abutting or having any portion
located within one hundred fifty feet of any R-E, R-1, R-2, RM, or any PC district permitting
residential.”
Application Process
According to the City’s Municipal Code, an application for rezoning to a PC district can be
submitted for any type of project for any given zone or area in the City as long as it follows the
application process described above. In practice, the City has recently added a number of
additional procedural steps, including an early check-in with the City Council prior to initiation
of a PC project by the PTC, and more recently, the City Manager directed that PC’s have an
independent third party assessment of value and benefit.
Clearly, the code should better identify how a PC request should be evaluated and the process
that should be used. Many have also mentioned the need for a comprehensive economic
analysis with a comparison to underlying zoning.
Public Benefit
There are three general concerns associated with the public benefit component of the PC
ordinance; definition, required finding, and enforcement.
According to Section 18.38.010, Specific Purposes, “the planned community district is
particularly intended for unified comprehensive planned developments which are of
substantive public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” Unfortunately the code does not define how a project can
be categorized as being of “substantive public benefit.” Is the project considered a public
benefit, or are public benefits provided to offset the impact of the development in exchange for
flexibility in meeting the intent of the development standards? Some contend that benefits
inherent to the project are not sufficient, while others argue that if the project has no inherent
public benefit then no PC should be approved. Stated another way, some members of the
public feel that a proposed amenity should be unrelated to the incentive or development
flexibility provided, while others contend that the neighborhood immediately surrounding the
PC project suffers the most from the impacts, and should therefore directly benefit from
amenities provided by the developer. These two perspectives must be reconciled via revisions
to Section 18.38.
According to Section 18.36.060(b), approval of a PC project by the City Council requires a
finding that the “development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community
district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of
general districts or combining districts.” In this instance the code again fails to clearly define
what “public benefits” are and whether or not there should be a nexus between the amenity
PC Zoning Reform
Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion
August 2014 - Page 9
and the incentive. In addition to defining “public benefit” or listing acceptable benefits, Section
18.38 could be revised to include more specific, additional findings.
Section 18.38.160, Inspections, of the code states that “each PC district shall be inspected by
the building division at least once every three years for compliance with the PC district
regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the district was created.” The City
has not dedicated sufficient resources to this function and will need to reassess how (and who)
to monitor and enforce site-specific PC regulations. Enforcement fees should be recouped from
developers.
Potential Reforms and Alternatives
The City could implement reform to PC Zoning by (1) revising the existing ordinance to address
the issues and concerns identified above or by (2) developing an alternative approach for the
consideration of PC-like proposals in a new code section. Some potential revisions and
alternatives to the existing PC zoning framework are summarized below for discussion
purposes:
1. Criteria for Establishment of PC Districts
Specifically define the types of projects that may apply for a PC district either by
designating a specific geographic location/area or by setting a minimum land area
requirement to be eligible for the development of a PC district. Some jurisdictions set a
minimum land area requirement used to determine the eligibility of a development
proposal. Other jurisdictions have identified specific areas within their Land Use
Element for higher density to ensure neighborhood compatibility. For instance, the City
of Menlo Park processes Conditional Development Permits for development under two
instances:
a. Development on a parcel in excess of one (1) acre in area; and
b. Development on a parcel that is less than one (1) are in area but greater than or
equal to 20,000 square feet in area; provided that the development complies
with the below market rate (BMR) housing programs.
Similarly, the City of Los Gatos’ PD or Planned Development Overlay requires that “a
planned development zone shall not consist of less than 40,000 square feet of
contiguous site area unless the purpose of the planned development is to provide
housing for low income senior citizens, in which case there is no minimum site area. In
both of these cases, the code clearly identifies what types of project/properties are
eligible to apply for these types of development permits.
2. Modified Application Process
Palo Alto’s PC ordinance is not different from others across the County. Local
jurisdictions follow a similar application process however, in most jurisdictions, a study
PC Zoning Reform
Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion
August 2014 - Page 10
session is first held with the City Council to review the merits of the projects and to
obtain comments from the public. Having a third party assessment of value and benefit
would facilitate this review.
3. Definition and Menu of Public Benefits
The code could be amended to include a definition section with a specific definition of
“public benefit.” If desired, the definition could make a distinction between projects
that have extrinsic versus intrinsic benefits, establishing a basis for processing the two
types of projects in a different way. (See item five, below.)
Providing a menu of desired public benefits that would be allowed under a PC could also
provide greater clarity and facilitate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. For
instance, the City of Santa Monica’s Land Use and Circulation Element provides a section
on community benefits which outlines the five identified priority categories of
community benefits along with a three-tiered approach to development incentives.
4. Enforcement & Monitoring
The code could be amended to require a monitoring schedule as part of any PC
ordinance, similar to the kind of mitigation monitoring and reporting program required
under CEQA. Caution should also be taken to ensure that the public benefits selected
for implementation are things that can be effectively monitored and enforced. For
example, a public benefit that requires a specific business to remain open may not be
enforceable in the long term, if that use is not viable from a market perspective.
5. Two-Tiered System
While other jurisdictions do not explicitly require or identify a public benefit finding, a
development agreement is often negotiated to obtain benefits for the community that
exceed those required by the adopted standards in exchange for granting benefits that
allow increases in density. Typically the agreement is recorded and serves as a means of
ensuring that the public benefit will be provided as outlined in the ordinance. The City
could update the PC process to require certain types of projects to use the full
development agreement process, and allow others choosing from a menu of public
benefits to use the PC process.
Community Discussion Questions
1. What concerns you most about PC Zoning?
2. If the PC process is reformed to include a menu of potential public benefits, what do you
think should be on the list??
3. Do you have other ideas about PC reform?
PC Zoning Reform
Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion
August 2014 - Page 11
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: P.A.M.C Chapter 18.38 – PC Planned Community District Regulations
Attachment B: Resolution No. 6597 - Development Agreements
Attachment C: Working Draft - Approved PC Zone Change Log
Attachment D: Discussion Paper - Dyett & Bhatia “Flexibility vs. Certainty”
Attachment E: Colleagues Memorandum - PTC Study Session Determination of Public Benefit
Attachment F: PTC March 27, 2013 Study Session Meeting Minutes
PC Zoning Reform
Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion
August 2014 - Page 12
GLOSSARY:
Development Agreement - A contract between a municipality and a property owner/developer
regarding development of real property. Typically, the municipality would agree to specific land uses
and densities, and also freeze the existing zoning regulations in exchange for desired benefits.
Development Plan –A plan submitted with the application for a PC district and, in summary, includes an
aerial photograph of the site, a map showing any public or private streets, a map showing existing and
proposed topography of the proposed district, a land use plan for the proposed district, a plot plan for
each building site, a landscape development plan, a circulation plan, a parking and loading plan, and
preliminary design plans. (See Section 18.30.90 of the PAMC for more details)
Development Program Statement – A document submitted with the application for a PC district and
describes the proposed use or uses to be conducted in the proposed PC district. (See Section 18.38.080
of the PAMC for more details)
Development Schedule – A document submitted with the application for a PC district and includes a
schedule indicating the approximate date on which construction or development is expected to begin,
the duration of time required for completion of the development, the approximate date of occupancy,
and a phasing program. (See Section 18.30.90 of the PAMC for more details)
Economic Analysis - A systematic approach to determining the optimum use of scarce resources,
involving comparison of two or more alternatives in achieving a specific objective under the given
assumptions and constraints. Economic analysis takes into account the opportunity costs of resources
employed and attempts to measure in monetary terms the private and social costs and benefits of a
project to the community or economy.
Planned Community (PC) District – A site-specific zoning district allowed by Palo Alto’s Municipal Code
provided certain requirements are met. The purpose of a PC District is to “accommodate developments
for residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including
combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise
attainable under other [zoning] districts.” PC Districts are “particularly intended for unified,
comprehensively planned developments which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with
and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.”
Overlay Zoning - Overlay zoning is a regulatory tool that creates a special combination zoning district,
placed over an existing base zone(s), which identifies special provisions in addition to those in the
underlying base zone.
Required Findings – Written “findings of fact” required to support the recommendation of the planning
commission and city council prior to approving an ordinance designating and regulating any PC district.
Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 18.38
PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.38.010 Specific purposes.
18.38.020 Applicability of regulations.
18.38.030 Permitted uses.
18.38.040 Conditional uses.
18.38.050 Establishment of districts.
18.38.060 Required determinations.
18.38.065 Application process.
18.38.070 Application requirements.
18.38.080 Development program statement.
18.38.090 Development plan.
18.38.100 Development schedule.
18.38.110 Action by commission.
18.38.120 Action by council.
18.38.130 Change in development schedule.
18.38.140 Failure to meet development schedule.
18.38.150 Special requirements.
18.38.160 Inspections.
18.38.170 Recycling storage.
18.38.010 Specific purposes.
The PC planned community district is intended to accommodate developments for residential,
commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including
combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not
otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly
intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments which are of substantial public
benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
Page 1 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx
ATTACHMENT A
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.38.020 Applicability of regulations.
The specific regulations of this chapter, and the additional regulations and procedures
established by Chapters 18.54 to 18.99, inclusive, shall apply to all planned community districts.
Notwithstanding the regulations of Chapters 18.54 to 18.99, inclusive, where specific regulations
are adopted pursuant to Sections 18.38.110 and 16.68.120, the specific regulations so adopted
shall apply to that planned community district.
(Ord. 3108 § 22, 1979: Ord. 3070 § 3, 1978: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.38.030 Permitted uses.
Any use may be permitted in any specific PC district; provided such use shall be specifically
listed as a permitted use and shall be located and conducted in accord with the approved
development plan and other applicable regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter to govern
each specific PC district.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.38.040 Conditional uses.
Any use may be established as a conditional use in any specific PC district, provided such use
shall be specifically listed as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.76
(Permits and Approvals), and shall be located and conducted in accord with the approved
development plan and other applicable regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter to govern
each specific PC district.
(Ord. 4826 § 108, 2004: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.38.050 Establishment of districts.
Planned community districts may be established, modified, or removed from the zoning map,
and the regulations applicable to any specific PC district may be established, modified, or deleted
in accord with Chapter 18.80.
All PC districts shall be identified on the zoning map with the letter coding "PC" followed by a
specific reference number identifying each separate district. All use regulations, development
plans, development schedules, and other regulatory provisions adopted pursuant to this chapter,
or pursuant to Chapter 18.80, which apply to any specific PC district, shall be considered to be a
part of this title as if fully set forth in this title, and shall be identified by reference to the
corresponding designation of each specific PC district on the zoning map.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
Page 2 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx
18.38.060 Required determinations.
The planning commission, prior to recommending approval of any PC district application, and
the city council, prior to approving an ordinance designating and regulating any PC district, shall
make all of the following required findings with respect to the application, in addition to findings
required by Chapter 18.80:
(a) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics
that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient
flexibility to allow the proposed development.
(b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will
result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general
districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning
commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected
to result from use of the planned community district.
(c) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the
district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with
existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.38.065 Application process.
(a) The applicant for a PC district shall initially submit to the planning commission a
development program statement, development plan, and a development schedule which are
described in Sections 18.38.080, 18.38.090, and 18.38.100. The plot plans, landscape
development plan, and design plan in the development plan should only be preliminary during
this phase of review by the planning commission.
(b) If the planning commission acts favorably in its initial review of the PC application, the
development plan shall be submitted to the architectural review board for review, except in the
case of single-family and accessory uses. In this phase, a detailed plot plan, landscape
development plan, and design plan of the development plan are required. The architectural
review board shall make a recommendation on the development plan based on the findings for
architectural review in Section 18.76.020 (d).
(c) The development plan as approved by the architectural review board is then returned to
the planning commission for final planning commission review and recommendation before
being submitted to the city council for final action.
(Ord. 4826 § 109, 2004: Ord. 3048 (part). 1978)
18.38.070 Application requirements.
In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.80, each application for a PC district shall be
accompanied by a development program statement, a development plan, and a development
schedule.
Page 3 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx
The development plan shall, as approved by the city council, become a part of the zoning
regulations applicable within the respective PC district. Subsequent changes in the development
plan shall be made in accord with Chapter 18.80, or, for minor changes, through the architectural
review process, as set forth in Section 18.76.020 (b)(3)(D).
The development schedule shall, as approved by the city council, become a part of the zoning
regulations applicable within the respective PC district. Subsequent changes in the development
schedule, if included as part of the regulations, shall be made in accord with Chapter 18.80 or,
for minor changes, through the architectural review process, as set forth in Section 18.76.020 (b)
(3)(D); provided, that specifically authorized changes may be made by the director pursuant to
Section 18.38.130.
(Ord. 4826 § 110, 2004: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.38.080 Development program statement.
The purpose of the development program statement shall be to describe the proposed use or
uses to be conducted in the district in a manner sufficient to enable preparation and consideration
of regulations governing permitted uses, conditional uses, site use and development regulations,
off-street parking and loading requirements, and other special regulations which may be
appropriate to govern development, use, and maintenance of the site or sites included within the
PC district.
The development program statement shall include the following:
(a) A statement by the applicant demonstrating the necessity of the application for the PC
district, including information demonstrating the compliance of the proposed development with
the required determinations set forth in Section 18.38.060;
(b) A complete listing of all uses proposed, or potentially to be included, within the PC
district, incorporating insofar as possible the terminology used in other parts of this title to
define, describe, and regulate permitted uses and conditional uses, and the definitions pertinent
thereto;
(c) A complete description of the nature of uses proposed, and the conditions or
characteristics of occupancy, use, or operation, with particular reference to those conditions or
characteristics which may warrant regulation differing from those regulations which might apply
to such uses if located in one or more general districts within the city;
(d) A schedule or statement indicating number, type, floor area, number of bedrooms, and
projected sale or rental price of all housing units proposed in the district;
(e) Such additional information as the director may prescribe as necessary, in his judgment, to
facilitate review and action on the application by the planning commission, the architectural
review board, and the city council.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.38.090 Development plan.
The development plan submitted with the application for a PC district shall include the
Page 4 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx
following, unless waived by the director for cause:
(a) An aerial photograph of the site and adjacent land within two hundred fifty feet of the site,
at a scale to be prescribed by the director. The director may specify that information required by
subsections (b) through (i) be superimposed on the aerial photograph, or a duplicate copy
thereof;
(b) A map showing any public or private streets, proposed building sites, and any areas
proposed to be dedicated or reserved for parks, parkways, paths, playgrounds, school sites,
public buildings and other such uses. Compliance with this requirement shall not be construed to
relieve the applicant from compliance with the subdivision code in Title 21, or any other
applicable ordinances of the city;
(c) A map showing the existing and proposed topography of the proposed district at contour
intervals as determined appropriate by director;
(d) A land use plan for the proposed district indicating the areas proposed for each use or
combination of uses identified by the development program statement;
(e) A plot plan or plans for each building site in the proposed district, or any portion thereof,
in such form as required by the director. The required plans shall show the location of all
proposed buildings and principal site improvements, shall indicate dimensions of buildings, site
lines, and improvements, and shall indicate the location of physical or natural site features,
including trees, and any changes proposed thereto.
(f) A landscape development plan, showing the boundaries and location of proposed
landscaped areas and exterior site improvements, including but not limited to lights, swimming
pools, and service and refuse areas.
(g) A circulation plan, indicating the proposed movement of vehicles, goods, and pedestrians
within the district, and to and from adjacent public thoroughfares. Any special engineering
features and traffic regulation devices needed to insure safety or to facilitate ease of access and
circulation, whether on or off the site, shall be shown.
(h) A parking and loading plan, showing the number of spaces and the location, internal
circulation and dimensions of all parking and loading areas. The parking and loading plan shall
be based upon the requirements of Chapter 18.54, unless requested modifications to meet the
needs of the individual project are supported by traffic engineering studies or relevant data, as
may be required by the director, demonstrating the feasibility and adequacy of the plan.
(i) Preliminary design plans, including such schematic floor plans, schematic exterior
elevations and sections, and/or perspective drawings, as may be necessary to indicate the height
of proposed buildings and the general appearance of the proposed structures to the end that the
entire development will have architectural unity and will be compatible with existing and
proposed neighborhood development. Such drawings need not show final architectural detail.
Construction drawings and contract plans, subsequently submitted with applications for required
permits or other construction approvals pursuant to approved PC district regulations, shall
conform substantially to the preliminary design plans, and shall be subject to all applicable
review and permit requirements in effect at the time of approval and permit issuance.
(Ord. 3108 § 20, 1979: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.38.100 Development schedule.
Page 5 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx
The development schedule submitted with the application for a PC district shall include the
following:
(a) A schedule, indicating to the best of the applicant's knowledge, the approximate date on
which construction or development is expected to begin, the duration of time required for
completion of the development, and the approximate date or dates of occupancy;
(b) A phasing program, indicating, in the event the proposed development within the district
is expected to require more than two years for completion and occupancy, a logical or
programmed sequence of phases and incorporating a schedule as described in subsection (a) for
each phase of development.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.38.110 Action by commission.
In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.80, the planning commission shall review and
consider all materials submitted by the applicant pursuant to this chapter, and shall prepare and
recommend to the city council, as appropriate, the specific regulations to be applied within the
proposed planned community district. The specific regulations may modify those regulations
contained in Chapters 18.54 to 18.99, inclusive, as is appropriate to meet the individual district
and shall include the following:
(a) Permitted Uses. A listing of all uses to be permitted generally within the district, or the
uses to be permitted in specific locations within the district as shown on the development plan;
(b) Conditional Uses. A listing of all uses to be conditionally allowed within the district, or
the uses to be permitted in specific locations within the district as shown on the development
plan;
(c) Site Development Regulations. Maximum or minimum regulations, as appropriate,
governing site dimensions, required yards and distances between buildings, site coverage,
building height, residential density, and floor area ratio, open space requirements, accessory
facilities and uses, and other aspects of the proposed development within the district. The
regulations may be in text, or by reference to the development plan, or both. In no event shall the
maximum height exceed fifty feet except as provided in Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals);
(d) Parking and Loading Requirements. Regulations establishing off-street parking and
loading requirements for the district, and governing design, location, screening, landscaping and
operation of parking and loading activities. The regulations may be by reference to Chapter
18.54, or in text if the regulations of Chapter 18.54 are modified for the individual district, or
both;
(e) Special Requirements. Additional regulations, as may be appropriate to assure a
harmonious relationship between uses within the district, and a compatible relationship with
existing or potential uses within adjoining districts, may be recommended by the commission.
Such regulations may include additional height limitations, yard requirements, landscaping and
screening, provisions governing outdoor activities, and other requirements;
(f) Development Plan and Development Schedule. The development plan submitted pursuant
to Section 18.38.090 and the development schedule submitted pursuant to Section 18.38.100, as
amended or approved by the planning commission, shall be recommended for inclusion in the
regulations applicable to the PC planned community district;
Page 6 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx
(g) Definitions. Definitions applicable specifically to the regulations recommended for the
district may be included.
(Ord. 4826 § 111, 2004: Ord. 3108 § 21, 1979: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.38.120 Action by council.
In the event the city council adopts an ordinance pursuant to Chapter 18.80 establishing a
specific PC planned community district, the council shall include the regulations described in
Section 18.38.110, either as recommended by the planning commission or as modified by the
council.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.38.130 Change in development schedule.
For good cause shown by the property owner in writing and unless otherwise specified by the
specific applicable regulations for the district, prior to the expiration of the original time
schedule for the development, the director may, without a public hearing, modify the time limits
imposed by any adopted development schedule; provided, that such modification shall not
extend the schedule by more than one year; and provided, that only one such modification may
be made.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.38.140 Failure to meet development schedule.
Sixty days prior to the expiration of the development schedule, the director shall notify the
property owner in writing of the date of expiration and advise the property owner of Section
18.38.130. Failure to meet the approved development schedule, including an extension, if
granted, shall result in:
(a) The expiration of the property owner's right to develop under the PC district. The director
shall notify the property owner, the city council, the planning commission and the building
official of such expiration; and
(b) The director's initiating a zone change for the property subject to the PC district in
accordance with Chapter 18.80. The property owner may submit a new application for a PC
district concurrently with the director's recommendation for a zone change.
(Ord. 3418 § 1, 1983: Ord. 3345 § 21, 1982: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.38.150 Special requirements.
Sites abutting or having any portion located with one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1, R-2,
RM, or any PC district permitting single-family development or multiple-family development
shall be subject to the following additional height and yard requirements:
Page 7 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx
(a) Parking Facilities. The maximum height shall be equal to the height established in the
most restrictive adjacent zone district.
(b) All Other Uses. The maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1, R-2,
RM, or applicable PC district shall be thirty-five feet; provided, however, that for a use where
the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty
percent residential, the maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of an RM-4 or RM-5
district shall be fifty feet
(c) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or applicable PC
district, a minimum interior yard of 10 feet shall be required, and a solid wall or fence between 5
and 8 feet in height shall be constructed and maintained along the common site line. Where a use
in a PC district where the gross floor area, excluding any area used exclusively for parking
purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the interior yard shall be at least as restrictive as the
interior yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or
rear site line. The minimum interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen.
(d) On any portion of a site in the PC district which is opposite from a site in any RE, R-1, R-
2, RM or applicable PC district, and separated therefrom by a street, alley, creek, drainage
facility or other open area, a minimum yard of 10 feet shall be required. Where a use in a PC
district where the gross floor area, excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is
at least sixty percent residential, the minimum yard requirement shall be at least as restrictive as
the yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district opposite such site line. The
minimum yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding areas required
for access to the site.
(e) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or any
residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane
beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope
of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the
height limit otherwise established for the PC district; provided, however, that for a use where the
gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty
percent residential, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the
most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the
height limit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed
in this section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall
be imposed.
(Ord. 3683 §§ 12, 13, 1986: Ord. 3465 §§ 40, 44, 1983: Ord. 3418 §§ 2 and 3, 1983: Ord. 3130
§§ 11, 25(f), 1979: Ord. 3108 § 9, 1979: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.38.160 Inspections.
Each PC district shall be inspected by the building division at least once every three years for
compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the
district was created.
(Ord. 3345 § 23, 1982)
18.38.170 Recycling storage.
Page 8 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor
area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures
for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and
accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to architectural review approval
pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals).
(Ord. 4826 § 112, 2004: Ord. 4069 § 12, 1992)
Page 9 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx
ATTACHMENT B
WORKING DRAFT: APPROVED PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE CHANGE LOG
PC ORDINANCE NO.ADDRESS DATE APPROVED
PC-1417 699 San Antonio Avenue 8/1/1952
PC-1643 1101 Embarcadero Road 10/10/1955
PC-1752 1139 Amarillo Avenue 8/12/1957
PC-1889 2800 West Bayshore Road 9/28/1959
PC-1941 11 Arastradero Road 5/23/1960
PC-1992 600 Quarry Road 1/23/1961
PC-2049 220 Palo Alto Avenue 8/28/1961
PC-2050 1791 Arastradero Road 8/28/1961
PC-2130 501 Forest Avenue 2/25/1965
PC-2145 535 Everett Avenue 6/24/1963
PC-2152 637 Addison Avenue 7/22/1963
PC-2197 2875 Middlefield Road 7/13/1964
PC-2218 580 Arastradero Road 10/5/1964
PC-2224 260 Sheridan Avenue 12/28/1964
PC-2236 455 Charleston Road 6/15/1965
PC-2293 450 Sheridan Avenue 6/27/1966
PC-2545 550 Hamilton Avenue 2/24/1970
PC-2640 630 San Antonio Avenue 12/20/1971
PC-2649 656 Lytton Avenue 4/3/1972
PC-2656 574 Arastradero Road 6/5/1972
PC-2666 4158 Crosby Place 7/1/1972
PC-2711 765 San Antonio Avenue 4/9/1973
PC-2744 135 Hemlock Court 9/11/1973
PC-2836 600 Channing Avenue 1/6/1975
PC-2930 4005 Villa Vera 7/6/1976
PC-2952 400 Pepper Avenue 10/26/1976
PC-2962 1800 Embarcadero Road 1/3/1977
PC-2967 218 Forest Avenue 2/7/1977
PC-2968 649 University Avenue 2/1/1977
PC-3007 706 Cowper Street 8/1/1977
PC-3020 2425 Embarcadero Way 10/3/1977
PC-3023 4100 Thain Way 11/7/1977
PC-3028 360 Sheridan Avenue 12/5/1977
PC-3036 4331 Cesano Court 2/6/1978
PC-3041 4156 El Camino Real 2/27/1978
PC-3102 220 Bryant Street 1/8/1979
PC-3111 321 Ramona Street 4/3/1979
PC-3133 4153 Interdale Way 7/16/1979
PC-3183 1040 Colorado Place 2/4/1980
PC-3266 27 University Avenue 2/23/1981
PC-3405 3163 Middlefield Road 1/10/1983
PC-3429 421 Alma Street 5/9/1983
PC-3437 401 Webster Street 5/23/1983
PC-3517 3045 Middlefield Road 3/12/1984
PC-3571 718 Ashby Drive 10/1/1984
PC-3623 3722 Ortega Court 7/1/1985
PC-3688 2047 East Bayshore Road 6/9/1986
PC-3693 772 Talisman Court 7/7/1986
PC-3707 745 Emerson Street 9/8/1986
PC-3707 223 Homer Avenue 9/8/1986
ATTACHMENT C
WORKING DRAFT: APPROVED PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE CHANGE LOG
PC ORDINANCE NO.ADDRESS DATE APPROVED
PC-3726 922 Bautista Court 12/8/1986
PC-3753 630 Lytton Avenue 6/1/1987
PC-3872 250 University Avenue 5/15/1989
PC-3974 529 Bryant Street 8/6/1990
PC-3995 520 Webster Street
PC-4052 531 Cowper Street 9/3/1991
PC-4053 330 Everett Avenue 9/23/1991
PC-4063; CD-C (GF)(P)251 University Avenue 12/16/1991
PC-4127 275 Cambridge Avenue 2/8/1993
PC-4173 555 Byron Street 9/27/1993
PC-4182 12 University Circle 11/8/1993
PC-4190 4156 El Camino Real 12/13/1993
PC-4195; CD-C (GF)(P)533 Bryant Street 1/18/1994
PC-4238 400 Emerson Street 10/11/1994
PC-4243 202 Everett Avenue 11/7/1994
PC-4262 330 Emerson Street 3/6/1995
PC-4268 200 Sheridan Avenue 4/3/1995
PC-4283 725 Alma Street 7/17/1995
PC-4296 480 Cowper Street 10/1/1995
PC-4339 308 Bryant Court 4/1/1996
PC-4354 2700 Ash Street 7/8/1996
PC-4374 101 Alma Street 6/1/1996
PC-4389 901 Alma Street 12/9/1996
PC-4426 50 El Camino Real 7/14/1997
PC-4426 600 Sand Hill Road 7/14/1997
PC-4436 390 Lytton Avenue 7/28/1997
PC-4448 4290 El Camino Real 9/1/1997
PC-4463 435 Sheridan Avenue 11/3/1997
PC-4465 675 El Camino Real 2/20/2001
PC-4511 502 Driscoll Place 7/27/1998
PC-4611 445 Bryant Street 3/1/2000
PC-4612 528 High Street 3/20/2000
PC-4637 3000 El Camino Real 5/22/2000
PC-4753 2051 El Camino Real 6/13/2002
PC-4779 140 Homer Avenue 2/18/2003
PC-4782 33 Encina Avenue 3/17/2003
PC-4831 2701 El Camino Real 6/21/2004
PC-4843 690 San Antonio Avenue 10/4/2004
PC-4846 1730 Embarcadero Road 10/4/2004
PC-4847 1766 Embarcadero Road 10/4/2004
PC-4917 3895 Fabian Way 10/10/2006
PC-4918 3921 Fabian Way 10/10/2006
PC-4919 528 Homer Avenue 12/18/2006
PC-4956 3388 Alma Village Circle 6/18/2007
PC-4973 449 Addison Avenue 3/10/2008
PC-5034 488 West Charleston Road 3/30/2009
PC-5069 2121 Staunton Court 1/11/2010
PC-5116 4025 El Camino Way 3/21/2011
PC-5150 2060 Channing Avenue 4/9/2012
PC-5158 101 Lytton Avenue 6/11/2012
Flexibility vs. Certainty: Discussion Paper
Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia,
Urban and Regional Planners
July 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
o PURPOSE AND KEY QUESTIONS
o HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
THE BASIC DILEMMA: FLEXIBILITY VS. CERTAINTY
o USERS' PERSPECTIVES
o TRADEOFFS
CURRENT ZONING FRAMEWORK
o TYPES OF ZONES
o PROVISIONS FOR FLEXIBILITY AND RELIEF
o ROLE OF DESIGN GUIDELINES
OPTIONS FOR INCREASING FLEXIBILITY
o APPROACHES TO ZONING
o BASE VS. COMBINING OR OVERLAY DISTRICTS
o RELATED CONSIDERATIONS
o PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING
o USE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
o ANNUAL REVIEW
SUMMARY
Introduction
PURPOSE AND KEY QUESTIONS
This discussion paper has been commissioned by the City of Palo Alto as part of the zoning ordinance update the
City has initiated to implement the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. One of the key issues outlined in the "issues
identification" phase of the update is the conflict between a desire for certainty in the review process and
providing for flexibility in the Zoning Code to allow varied criteria and design based on site conditions, the
applicant's design preferences, or community objectives. This concern was registered to some extent by all parties
in the development review process: applicants, design professionals, public officials, residents, and staff.
Key questions that Dyett & Bhatia has been asked to address include:
How to strike the right balance between flexibility and certainty in zoning regulations?
How do perspectives of different Code users differ on this basic choice?
What are some specific policy options the City might consider to achieve flexibility in zoning districts,
use regulations and standards and nonconforming provisions?
Should the Planned Community District be retained to offer development flexibility, or is it too open-
ended?
Would an annual review process help keep the ordinance current and responsive to the City's needs?
The perspectives presented in the paper reflect lessons learned from a national zoning practice within the context
and policy direction for new zoning set by the City's Comprehensive Plan. The paper is submitted in the form of a
"peer review" of zoning issues and options to guide the Planning and Transportation Commission in providing
policy direction for the zoning ordinance update.
ATTACHMENT D
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
America's first zoning codes were developed by cities in response to the problems of unregulated growth and
development. Retailers were clamoring for protection from invading factories, while homeowners and apartment
dwellers were growing concerned with the influx of nonresidential uses and high-rise development into their
neighborhoods. Since the inception of zoning in the U.S., every zoning ordinance has had two central aims:
Minimizing one property's adverse impacts upon another; and
Encouraging development patterns and activities considered desirable by a community (usually as
expressed within a comprehensive plan or adopted planning policies).
Historically, the success of zoning was measured by how well it dealt with these issues. Consequently, the vast
majority of zoning ordinances in effect today operate on the premise that the grouping of similar uses and
activities and the establishment of common building siting and bulk standards will minimize adverse impacts and
implement established community development policies. More recently, zoning has had to respond to new
mandates, ranging from clean air and concerns about how to foster more pedestrian-oriented environments to
calls for "new urbanism" and a return to traditional City development. Adding these dimensions has placed new
burdens on Code writers.
Zoning can be a positive influence on development, by setting expectations for the quality of design and the fit of
new development within neighborhoods. In taking on this new role, zoning administrators sometimes want more
flexibility than they traditionally have had in order to achieve the greatest public benefits. Design professionals
want flexibility to deal with site-specific issues; they also do not want to be constrained by overly restrictive design
standards and guidelines. Finally, the community often wants to be able to influence project design in order to
ensure a good fit with the neighborhood. This flexibility must be balanced with the need to maintain basic legal
principles of equity, uniformity and due process while also carrying out the Comprehensive Plan's land use policies.
How this can be achieved is the focus of this paper.
The Basic Dilemma: Flexibility vs. Certainty
As the City of Palo Alto considers how best to update its zoning regulations, it needs to address how to find the
right balance between flexibility and certainty that will best implement the Comprehensive Plan. The dichotomy
between these concepts creates tension, not only for City officials and staff who use the ordinance on a day-to-day
basis, but also for homeowners, business owners, and others who may only come into contact with zoning a few
times over the years they may live or work in the City. Everyone wants to know what the rules and standards are
by which new development will be judged - how are decisions made to approve, conditionally approve or reject
applications? And, for many, knowing the timeframe as well as the criteria for approval also is important - who has
appeal rights, and when is a decision final so a project can proceed.
For others, flexibility is important: the site or existing building may be unique, the design innovative and
responsive, or the public benefits so compelling that some relief from underlying requirements may be
appropriate. The purpose of this paper is to explore these perspectives as a way of framing some basic choices for
the Planning and Transportation Commission to consider as it provides policy direction to staff working on the
zoning ordinance update.
USERS' PERSPECTIVES
Expectations about what zoning should or should not do, and how far it should go, are different, depending on
individual perspectives. Applicants view zoning differently than design professionals, and City staff perspectives are
not always the same as residents' or City officials'. At the risk of oversimplification, we offer the following set of
expectations for different Code users as a starting point for thinking about regulatory options.
Applicants
Individuals applying to the City for a zoning approval, a use permit, variance or design approval generally want to
know:
What are the rules that the City follows for development review? These include use regulations,
development standards, review procedures and criteria for decision-making.
What is the timeframe for decision-making, and when is a decision is final? Is it the day the approval
is granted, or is there some stated time they have to wait before they know they can proceed with the
next steps, refine an architectural design, solicit bids and initiate construction?
What relief can they request if a regulation or standard constrains a design solution or otherwise
limits what they would like to do with their property or their building? In thinking about relief, it
often is useful to distinguish concerns about what the allowable uses are (recognizing that use
variances are illegal and the only way to accommodate different uses would be through a zoning
ordinance or map amendment) from concerns about how to accommodate a design or improvement
on a lot. Relief may be needed from physical development standards (e.g. setbacks or fence
limitations) or from performance requirements that relate primarily to the impact of a use or building
design on an adjacent lot.
How important are neighbor concerns in the decision-making process? If they follow the rules, does
the City have the right to change a design solely because of a neighbor's objections? Are there
limitations on conditions of approval or are all elements of a project "negotiable"? Does the City
distinguish "as-of-right" development applications from those requesting variances or exceptions from
standards in weighing how far to go to respond to community concerns?
Design Professionals
Architects and other design professionals typically want to know the answer to the same questions applicants
pose, but because of their specific role in a project, they often want to know more specifically how much flexibility
they can have for site planning and architectural design. If the City wants to mandate certain design solutions as
opposed to "encouraging" a type of design, it should say so to avoid misunderstandings during the development
review process.
An example of a mandated design solution is a requirement for windows or display spaces and a prohibition of
blank walls on retail frontages. In this context, design professionals also want to know whether the mandate is a
guideline or a development regulation. If it's a regulation, then they would have to request a specific form of
administrative relief, typically a variance, in order to deviate from the dimensional requirements. By contrast, if
the mandate is a design guideline, then they may be able to propose a design solution that they believe is superior,
but may not need formal review to incorporate it into the project.
The flexibility that a design professional typically seeks includes:
Relief from overly prescriptive standards, including setbacks, building height, bulk and articulation,
landscaping, location or parking, and design standards (e.g. colors, finishes, roof pitches, etc.);
Relief for buildings with historic or architectural character; and
Relief for uses or activities with unique needs (e.g. theater scenery lofts, Internet server farms,
pharmacy drive-through windows, etc.).
City Planning Staff And Planning Commissioners
City planners and Planning Commission members also want flexibility:
To respond to community concerns;
To implement the Comprehensive Plan and to further public policies;
To reconcile competing priorities, as is frequently the case with a Comprehensive Plan; and
To protect unique and special resources, which may range from environmental resources to historic
buildings, affordable housing, and special retail uses.
Palo Alto Community
While planners and City officials strive to respond to community concerns, residents and business owners don't
always have the same perspective on zoning, particularly if they feel their self-interest is not served. Many critical
issues were decided when the Comprehensive Plan was prepared, but the Plan also includes over 50
implementation actions that directly pertain to the zoning ordinance update. These range from reviewing height
and density limits to establishing new standards for residential, commercial and mixed use development. When
details are worked out, community thinking about Comprehensive Plan direction may evolve, and there may not
be consensus on all of the regulatory solutions proposed.
Neighbors want to know with some certainty what can be built, so there are no surprises once construction begins.
However, if they have concerns, they would like to know what the process is for community input - how much
flexibility the City has to condition approval and what they can do to affect the final result.
Business owners likewise want to know whether they can expand or adapt space to new uses or activities. Being
able to respond quickly to changing markets is important, and lengthy review times are an anathema to that
objective.
TRADEOFFS
As the Planning and Transportation Commission considers what direction to provide for the zoning ordinance
update regarding how much flexibility to provide, we suggest that discussion of choices should address these basic
philosophical issues:
Flexibility vs. predictability: Is the zoning ordinance intended as a rule of law or a rule of individuals?
Should the area for negotiation be wide or narrow? To what extent should this be determined by the
Code or by practice?
Flexibility vs. administrative cost: What are the costs to the applicant, to opponents, and to the City's
tolerance for hearings?
Development cost vs. quality: Standards should be written with an understanding of their effect on
developers' and consumers' costs and on the quality of the environment for both user and community
at large.
Preservation vs. development: Will a particular regulation stimulate or dampen change in uses, users,
or appearance?
Under regulation vs. over-regulation: How does the community find the least number of rules that
will do the job?
Striking the right balance will not be easy, but it can be done if the vision for Palo Alto, presented in the
Comprehensive Plan, is kept in mind. Details will need to be worked out, but Plan policies provide fairly clear
direction, and lessons from similar communities that have recently amended their zoning can enable the City to
avoid mistakes others have made.
Current Zoning Framework
Palo Alto currently has a traditional (Euclidean) zoning ordinance, reflecting a districting approach established in
the 1970s that has been refined over the years but not comprehensively changed. Some flexible zoning
techniques, such as performance zoning and incentive zoning, will be addressed in a separate discussion paper
being prepared by City staff. What we want to do in this paper is address the City's zoning framework and options
for changing it in the context of providing flexibility.
TYPES OF ZONES
The City's zoning ordinance is land use based, following the land use classification concepts in the Comprehensive
Plan. The ordinance includes regulations for permitted uses and conditional uses as well as site development
regulations. The districting framework includes 19 base districts (7 residential districts, 5 office and commercial
districts, 2 industrial districts, and 5 districts for other purposes) and 13 combining districts. The combining districts
for the most part were not included in the original draft prepared in the 1970s. They have added detail to the
Zoning Map to implement preferred planning concepts.
PROVISIONS FOR FLEXIBILITY AND RELIEF
The current zoning ordinance offers a number of ways to introduce flexibility into zoning administration. The most
open-ended option is provided by the PC (Planned Community) District, which allows an unlimited range of uses,
subject to a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, a determination that a "public benefit" is
provided, and site development regulations tailored to the development plan. PC districts abutting residential
neighborhoods have to meet special requirements for "edge" conditions. There are no explicit requirements tying
density/intensity limits to the Comprehensive Plan, but there is authority to impose conditions, as needed to
ensure neighborhood compatibility and harmonious land use relationships.
Other provisions that offer zoning flexibility include:
Variances
Home Improvement Exceptions
Yard Encroachments
Exceptions to Development Standards (NP Combining District)
Use Exceptions (GF Combining District)
Transfer of Development Rights
Design Enhancement Exception Process
Provisions For Nonconforming Uses And Noncomplying Structures
Appeal Provisions
Zoning Text and Map Amendments
We have not evaluated how well these provisions actually have worked; we simply note they are available.
ROLE OF DESIGN GUIDELINES
Palo Alto has adopted Design Guidelines for El Camino Real and for Downtown, and voluntary guidelines for R-1
Property Owners and Builders. The El Camino Real Design Guidelines will likely be updated as a result of the City's
future corridor study.
Within the zoning ordinance itself, the City has established multifamily residential design guidelines applicable to
the RM-15, RM-30 and RM-40 districts. However, these guidelines are advisory, and the architectural review board
is granted explicit authority to interpret them on a project-by-project basis. These create the potential for conflicts
within underlying standards and with performance requirements established elsewhere in the zoning ordinance.
As a general rule, it is best to exclude guidelines from a zoning ordinance in order to avoid any misunderstanding
about what the development standards actually are and to ensure internal consistency. For example, is it City
policy to require underground parking for projects with six units or more? If it is, then this should be a zoning
requirement, not a guideline. If the threshold is flexible, and the undergrounding requirement may not apply in
certain circumstances, it is preferable to explain what these circumstances are or what findings have to be made to
justify waiving a guideline.
The guideline on landscaping for parking structures likewise is not clear in that it calls for "adequate setbacks" to
accommodate planting. Are these greater than the setback standards that otherwise would apply? Is the five-foot
wide perimeter landscaping strip set for parking facilities applicable here? How does the design standard for
parking facilities, set in Chapter 18.83, fit with the design guideline?
Further, guidelines should not incorporate numerical standards (e.g. "trash disposal should be screened by a six
foot enclosure") unless the City clearly intends this number to be advisory, and would allow deviations of 10-20
percent from the guideline. Provisions for small deviations, under 5 percent, should be handled as waivers or
exceptions, or if they are based on unique and special circumstances and specific hardships, as variances.
Options for Increasing Flexibility
APPROACHES TO ZONING
In considering a new zoning framework for Palo Alto that will accommodate the City's interest in flexibility, it may
be helpful to identify the various available approaches to zoning and districting. The most basic concept in zoning
is the idea of a district. Within each district, the zoning code applies a uniform set of regulations. There are three
approaches to be considered in designing a zoning framework, each of which involves tradeoffs in ease of use and
administration and ability to ensure neighborhood diversity and community character. The initial approach is the
traditional (Euclidean) framework for a zoning ordinance, while the other two options are more "design-oriented"
approaches favored by New Urbanist practitioners:
Land Use Approach. Districts are intended to segregate different uses, consistent with Comprehensive
Plan land use designations. This approach emphasizes the needs of a single group of uses or a mix of
uses.
Development Type/Community Character Approach. Districts are intended to create urban or
suburban environments meeting specified standards or performance criteria. This approach
emphasizes the development types over a range of uses.
Geographic/Neighborhood Approach. Districts reflect specific characteristics of the natural or built
environment, such as neighborhood districts, heritage districts, redevelopment areas, Downtown, etc.
The following briefly outlines the basic characteristics of these approaches. As circumstances generally require a
blend (hybrid) of these approaches-as is the case in Palo Alto-the challenge becomes striking the right balance
while avoiding complex regulation. These tradeoffs are illustrated in the diagram on the following page.
Land Use-Based Approach
The emphasis of this approach is the control of uses within each district. Generally only a single use type is
permitted in each district, such as single-family residential or light industrial. Other uses allowed would be
accessory to or compatible with the primary use. The result is a uniform pattern of development within each
district. One advantage of this Euclidean approach is the predictability it offers both property owners and
developers with respect to what the zoning permits on any undeveloped parcel in a district. Another is the fact
that this approach is well understood, resulting in minimized need for staff training and administration, and an
easier transition with respect to community concerns.
A disadvantage of this approach is that it does not work as well in areas that contain a wide variety of uses or a
wide variety of development standards, such as differing lot sizes or building heights. As a result, land use districts
alone are not usually the best way to implement community design concepts. Another is the fact that this
approach may not be responsive to many of the Comprehensive Plan policies calling for mixed use and other new
zoning categories with a range of uses.
Development Type/Community Character Approach
The emphasis of this approach is not the control of uses within each district, but control of the unique
development characteristics and design. While each district may incorporate a broad range of uses, these uses
must conform to strict, detailed development standards designed to recognize and enhance the development
characteristics. Heritage districts are perhaps the most common form of this approach, whereby the historic
qualities of the buildings in the area are to be protected, but a wide range of uses are permitted.
An advantage of this approach is that within established urban areas-where the uses themselves are less important
than how they fit into a neighborhood-the physical form is more predictable. As a result, the standards and
expectations for development character are easily established and time spent on development review reduced. In
terms of the subject of this paper, this approach to zoning offers considerable flexibility in accommodating a broad
range of uses, but limited flexibility in architectural design where the zoning "envelope" is highly prescribed. The
disadvantages of this option are that extensive upfront time and cost may be required to define all of the various
design forms desired, especially where there is considerable design variety existing.
Geographic/Neighborhood Approach
Specific areas in Palo Alto, such as Downtown, Stanford shopping center, the El Camino Real corridor and California
Avenue, could be the subject of special area zoning under the geographic/neighborhood approach. Under this
approach, regulations for each district are individually tailored to reflect the existing conditions and planning
concepts for area development expressed in the respective specific plans. The resultant regulations may include
design examples or criteria to guide the development.
One advantage of this approach is that it can facilitate the implementation of area-specific plans, and the tailoring
of district regulations and standards to plan policies. Another is the fact that this approach may be more effective
than relying on the PC (Planned Community) District, which does not have the underpinning of a specific or area
plan prepared with community input and participation of the Planning and Transportation Commission and City
Council in its formulation. A disadvantage of this approach is the extensive time and effort involved with preparing
such specific plans, zoning and design details, and the administrative cost of training staff to administer the plans
and code on an ongoing basis.
BASE VS. COMBINING OR OVERLAY DISTRICTS
The districts created under the three approaches to zoning described above are "base districts." These districts set
the basic regulations that apply within the district. A community may want to vary some of the regulations within
the base district to respond to particular conditions within defined areas. "Combining districts" and "overlay
districts" are often selected for this purpose, and Palo Alto has used them quite extensively to achieve specific
objectives.
Combining districts are lain over the base district to modify the uses permitted or the standards required in the
base district. Combining districts currently are used to regulate building height and minimum site area in
residential neighborhoods, retail frontages in the City's shopping areas, locations for hotel development, and
ground floor uses within Downtown. Overlay or combining districts also are used in other communities in the
regulation of floodplains, historic preservation areas, hillsides, and transit-station areas.
Combining districts make effective use of the Zoning Map; as a result, they can reduce the complexity of the text
and the rules that apply. For example, instead of having a complicated formula for calculating average setbacks
and variations in setbacks that may be appropriate, Zoning Map designations can be used to indicate specific
frontage where different setback standards apply.
Where combining districts address similar subjects, however, it may make sense to combine them, as in the case of
the 'R' retail shopping and the 'P' pedestrian shopping combining districts, or to merge them into a base district, as
in the case of the 'GF' ground floor combining district or the 'H' hotel combining district.
Combining districts are most effective when they apply to two or more base districts; when they are limited to a
single base district, it may make more sense to merge the standards and map designation into the base district
regulations.
RELATED CONSIDERATIONS
Other considerations related to providing flexibility in the basic zoning framework may include:
Whether to maintain a 1:1 correspondence between Comprehensive Plan land use designations and
zoning districts, or to allow greater flexibility through zoning?
How to protect residential neighborhoods, while also providing incentives for appropriate alterations
and additions that add variety, street life and vitality either with a simplified residential districting
scheme using housing prototypes and performance standards, or with land use districts that rely on
updated residential design guidelines and case by case review?
Whether to maintain the current system of combining districts, or to consolidate and simplify them,
where appropriate?
How to establish development prototypes and performance standards for residential and commercial
uses in mixed use areas and in new zoning categories suggested in the Comprehensive Plan?
Whether to incorporate a stronger geographic focus into the zoning ordinance and eliminate flexibility
provided by the PC Planned Community District?
Because the Planned Community District introduces so much flexibility into the current zoning framework, further
discussion of this approach is warranted.
PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING
In thinking about how to achieve flexibility in zoning, a key question is whether the City's PC (Planned Community)
zoning is a model that should be retained. The PC zoning offers the flexibility of a planned development with a mix
of uses; as such, it works well for "greenfield" development in rapidly growing communities where a city wants to
defer to private developers the details of site planning. In a mature community like Palo Alto, this broad grant of
authority to the private sector may no longer be consistent with current policy direction in the Comprehensive
Plan or may not satisfy the community's desire for some greater degree of certainty in the process.
Approval of development under PC zoning does require a finding that the PC (Planned Community) district "will
result in public benefits not otherwise obtainable" through applicable zoning districts. PC zoning must be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council
also are to cite the specific "public benefits" that are to be obtained.
The PC district regulations do not have a list of specific public benefits desired, such as affordable housing, public
amenities or extraordinary contributions to financing public improvements beyond the amount normally required
for a project's fair share. As a consequence, the community may be concerned that when the City is asked to allow
increased density, as an example, the applicant is not providing a significant community value in return. A solution
would be to clarify what the City's specific expectations are if an increase in development density/intensity is
requested. This could be in the form of a menu of public benefits or a formula that links additional FAR or density
to specific commitments to housing, open space protection or other public benefit.
Alternatively, the PC zoning could be restructured so that there is no presumption that increased density or FAR
would be granted and the primary purpose is limited to allowing flexibility in meeting physical development
standards. With this approach, the underlying zoning remains, but the PC (Planned Community) process could
allow for some variations in standards affecting building relationships, height or massing within a project. Buffering
or transitional requirements would still apply, as they now do with PC zoning, where a project abuts a residential
neighborhood.
Another idea would be to recast PC zoning so it focuses specifically on implementing new urban land use concepts,
such as Village Residential, Transit-Oriented Residential, and Mixed Use. The zoning ordinance update would
define when planned community zoning can be used for these land use designations and explain to what extent
flexibility can be provided and how applications will be judged. The new ordinance would rescind the broad grant
of authority for planned communities, replacing it with more specific and limited authority for specified types of
land use.
The new zoning ordinance also could provide explicitly for specific plans, area plans and neighborhood
conservation plans to be incorporated into the City's regulatory framework through Zoning Map amendments.
Zoning Map designations (e.g. SP-1, SP-2, NC-1, NC-2, etc.) would show where these plans apply. The process
envisioned here would include more opportunities for public participation, design workshops and charrettes than
with the current developer-driven PC zoning, which would be consistent with the public participation policies of
the Governance Element of the Comprehensive Plan. It also would allow for multiple property owners to
participate in the process and development plans would not be limited to sites under unified control.
If the development community is concerned about possibly losing flexibility if PC zoning were eliminated, offering
new provisions for specific plans, area plans and neighborhood conservation plans may allow for a reasonable
alternative. There is, however, extensive upfront time and cost associated with preparing specific plans or other
area plans. The current effort anticipates that area plans would be a follow-up to the zoning update.
USE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
A certain degree of flexibility is inherent in the way that zoning ordinances treat land uses, including permitted and
conditional uses, special uses and nonconforming uses.
Permitted Vs. Conditional Uses
Palo Alto is typical of jurisdictions its size in making distinctions between permitted uses and conditional uses.
Relying on a conditional use permit process offers the potential for flexibility in administering use regulations, but
at a cost to applicants as well as to the City. Also, without clear standards and criteria for evaluating conditional
uses, there is some potential for inconsistency in zoning administration and decisions. If the Planning and
Transportation Commission is interested in reducing the number of conditional uses and the hearings they entail,
they may choose instead to permit with limitations some or all of those uses currently permitted with conditions.
Conditional uses in commercial districts, such as service stations, drive-in facilities and automotive services that are
accessory to a permitted use, for example, could be permitted subject to specific standards or limitations. These
standards or limitations could offer some flexibility in siting or building design as long as the performance criteria
established for the use are met (e.g. buffering adjacent uses, hours of operation, landscaping and screening, etc.).
This approach would require a special use review process, which would likely be similar to an administrative review
process. Administrative review of "special" uses would certainly simplify the use regulations, avoid excessive
reliance on conditional use permits, and streamline approvals by deeming such uses permitted with limited
conditions. Some examples of "special" uses frequently identified in updated zoning ordinances include: service
stations, home occupations, large family day care, and outdoor storage.
The Code then could have three designations for use regulations, which would provide additional flexibility:
Permitted uses - no discretionary review;
Special uses, which are permitted provided specified requirements are met - administrative review,
but no discretionary review or public hearing requirement; and
Conditional uses, which are subject to public hearings and discretionary review - additional conditions
of approval may be imposed.
This three-tier system is simple from an administrative standpoint, and enhances predictability in the application
review process.
Nonconforming Uses and Structures
While many nonconforming uses are benign, some may pose land use issues, and an even smaller number may
pose public health and safety issues, particularly when located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Palo
Alto has provided for some flexibility in administering its nonconforming use provisions with the 'N'
Nonconforming Use Amortization Overlay District. Additional flexibility in administering nonconforming provisions
might be obtained by establishing classes of nonconforming uses and expanding current licensing requirements to
complement and reinforce zoning.
Classes Of Nonconforming Uses
In some cities, such as Cincinnati and Oakland, classes of nonconforming uses are being considered as a way of
recognizing that certain types of nonconforming uses are benign, and some flexibility in applying zoning
restrictions may be warranted. Other communities have used notification and exception provisions, which rely on
case-by-case determinations of whether a nonconforming use is, in fact, benign.
If Palo Alto were to establish a classification system for nonconforming uses, the City may want to start with a
three-tier system such as the following:
Lawfully established residential uses in any zoning district except in districts where no residential uses
are permitted - Alterations and additions would be permitted, subject to design review, and a
nonconforming use could expand with approval of a conditional use permit. A nonconforming use also
could rebuild if damaged by fire, flood or a seismic event whatever the extent of damage.
Uses designated by the Planning and Transportation Commission - After a public hearing and based on
findings, including that continuation would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare,
such lawfully established uses would need a conditional use permit for any alteration, no expansion
would be allowed, and rebuilding would be permitted if up to 75 percent of the building were
damaged or destroyed.
Lawfully established nonresidential uses that are located within or adjacent to a lawfully established
residential use or district - For those that involve activities that may be detrimental to public health
and safety because of the potential to create conditions incompatible with residential use. In these
cases, no alteration or expansion would be allowed, nor would reconstruction be permitted if over 50
percent of the building were damaged or destroyed.
Nonconforming use provisions and options are frequently a major issue as a zoning ordinance is updated.
Licensing
To complement zoning provisions for nonconforming uses, the City could expand its licensing provisions (health or
safety) and link them more closely to zoning concerns. New licensing provisions might be limited specifically to
nonconforming businesses that use hazardous materials, or they might apply to other problematic uses. Many uses
are controlled to some degree by both a license and zoning. The idea here would be to establish a special license
for industrial uses operating within residential or commercial areas to ensure that there are no adverse impacts.
Licensing has generally been used where some form of inspection for health or safety is appropriate, (e.g.
restaurants or gasoline pumps). Where licensing has a very narrow specific purpose, it is appropriate for zoning to
regulate the use with performance standards, intensity limits, noise, buffering or screening requirements. Zoning
should not, however, duplicate health or safety-related licenses.
Potential uses that might be subject to licensing include adult uses, commercial filming, massage, restaurants with
entertainment, pawn shops, and/or tattoo parlors. The City may find that licensing provides improved
enforcement of nuisance conditions and discourages illegal activities for these uses.
The City Attorney's advice should also be sought on this subject.
ANNUAL REVIEW
Most communities adopt zoning text amendments in response to new state or federal law or Council direction or
to implement new land use policies. Map amendments are typically adopted in response to property owners'
requests or neighborhood petitions or to implement new land use policies. These amendments are usually
piecemeal, and rarely is there a systematic evaluation of zoning amendments.
At the state and federal level, legislative review sometimes results in "cleanup" bills to correct technical errors and
ensure internal consistency within major legislative programs. This approach also can be used effectively at the
local level, not only for zoning regulations but also for other implementation programs. In fact, some communities
have been successful in establishing a monitoring and review process following adoption of a comprehensive
zoning update. All of the community concerns as well as problems noted by developers, design professionals and
City staff are addressed in a set of zoning amendments adopted each year.
The annual General Plan report required by the Government Code could be used as the vehicle for reporting on
zoning issues related to Plan implementation.
Such an annual review process would build in flexibility over the long term. As it would heighten awareness of
whether zoning is doing the right job with the fewest set of rules and regulations and whether the City is getting
the quality of development it expects under the ordinance.
Summary
The City of Palo Alto has several means available to enhance flexibility in its zoning ordinance, while at the same
time providing increased certainty in the review process. Options discussed include: limiting discretion in the PC
(Planned Community) zone process, use of a more design-oriented approach to the code or the use of design
guidelines to supplement the code, clarifying the current flexible zoning processes (variances, exceptions, etc.),
reducing or merging the number of combining districts and base districts, reevaluating how permitted, conditional
and "special" uses are addressed, and/or providing a reasonable method for accommodating nonconforming uses
and structures.
These techniques and modifications should be tested in the community through focus groups and workshops prior
to finalization in the zoning update and subsequent implementation. An annual review process will assist the City
to evaluate the effectiveness of its ordinance on a regular basis.
Cityof Palo Alto
ColleaguesMemorandum
proformas
application of the codified
such review must
focus onnature adequate
have d
approved s the code y
"A new look at
'negotiable'PCZones."
ATTACHMENT E
combined with defined
are likely to result in
public benefits not otherwise attainable will result from using a
planned community district
the
despite this categorization, the definition of a public benefit remains elusive.
Without a precise definition, measuring a public benefit and determining whether it meets
the general purpose and intent of a PC zoning designation is cumbersome and
unpredictable.
incentive zoning
ad hoc
i.e.,
e.g.
financial benefits
aesthetic benefits
functional benefits
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
a
Editorial:A new look at 'negotiable'PC zones,"
Guest opinion:Why Planned Community zoning makes so much trouble,"
Community Benefits and Incentives:Issues,
Options,and Case Studies.
Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook:Model Statutes for
Planning the Management of Change,American Planning Association
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 11
1
Chair Martinez: So Mr. Passmore are you going to help Commissioner Keller out at his house 2
with his tree problems? 34 Mr. Passmore: We will do our best to help all of our residents and yes, Commissioner Keller is 5
included. The easy answer to a lot of that is there is no perfect tree. We work very diligently to 6
try to select the best species for the individual site. We realize that trees do have impacts. We 7
try to minimize those while also maximizing the benefits of those trees. And it’s always a very 8 challenging task. There’s obviously some things that we can’t control because its nature and it is 9 somewhat of its own mind. So we do the best we can to take care of what we have and get the 10
most out of it. 1112
Commissioner Keller: If I might add I’m certainly not asking for any particular preferential 13 treatment of me above anybody else, but I’m illustrating that things based on my own experience 14 because I’m much more familiar with it but it probably affects a lot of other people as well. And 15
I’ve heard about other issues. 1617
Chair Martinez: Ok from that personal experience then. So you’ve probably figured out by now 18 that this Commission does much better with drafts of documents than with being presented a 19 final document. So I heard you say that you’re going to have a draft in the next 30 to 60 days 20
and we hope to see you back here within the next 30 to 60 days. So thank you very much. 2122
Mr. Passmore: Thank you. 2324 Chair Martinez: No. 2526
Commissioner Keller: May I suggest something schedule wise? 2728 Chair Martinez: Ok. 2930
Commissioner Keller: I would actually suggest that rather than giving us a document and a week 31
later having a talk about it you might want to circulate a draft to us and then come back a little 32
later. If it’s a hundred some odd page document it may take us a little while to absorb it. So 33 you’ll get better feedback if we have a chance to read it thoroughly.3435
Chair Martinez: Ok. Good suggestion. Thank you all and thanks to you Mr. Passmore for this 36
work.3738
Commission Action: None. Questions and comments only.3940
2. Discussion of Colleagues Memo Requesting Study Session or Retreat Topic on Improving 41
Process for Determining Adequacy of Public Benefits Associated with Planned Community 42
Zones.4344
Chair Martinez: We’re going to move onto the second agenda item since we moved kind of 45
quickly through this. Do you want a couple minutes to set up or Mr. Assistant Director are you 46
ready to go? 4748 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: I think we’re ready to go. I could put on the slides. 49
ATTACHMENT F
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 12
1
Chair Martinez: Ok good. Let me give you a little overview of sort of how I wanted to structure 2
tonight’s conversation. Normally we’re presented with a staff report in which it’s fairly clearly 3 laid out what the issue is, what we’re to consider, and whether there’s a recommendation to be 4 made. This is kind of an unusual situation in that this is a Colleagues Memo prepared by 5
members of this Commission without, at our own initiation. And so we are proposing something 6
which hasn’t yet gone before the Council and the Council may have their own thoughts on this 7
particular item. And it’s somewhat of an unstructured opportunity for us to talk about something 8 important to our City. 910
Given that there’s a couple of caveats I think we need to observe. One is we should respect the 11
role of the City Council to set the agenda on how Planned Community (PC) districts and public 12
benefits are to be addressed. This is an ideational meeting about community benefits and 13 Planned Community Zones. Secondly, related to that there are a couple of projects that are 14 currently under consideration and they need to be left out of our conversation tonight. We know 15
what they are, but we can’t show our bias or kind of thinking on how it should go, what should 16
be the direction. That’s going to come back to us in the form of a staff report based on previous 17
hearings, based on further work of the applicant. And to be fair to everyone and not to be 18 considered prejudging something we need to refrain from discussing those topics. So I think it 19 might be better to make up an example of what your concern might be. 2021
I want to try to proceed tonight giving the three members of, who drafted the Colleagues Memo 22
the opportunity to give you a little background on it and their thoughts on it and then perhaps go 23 to our, open the public hearing and give the public a chance to weigh in before it comes back to 24 the full Commission for our questions, comments, and suggestions about what to do next. So 25
and also staff, give you all the opportunity. So I’ve asked Vice-Chair Michael to introduce the 26
discussion of Planned Community Districts and public benefits to be followed by Commissioner 27
Alcheck and then myself and then we’ll go to the public for their comments. Vice-Chair 28 Michael. 2930
Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you Chair Martinez and also thanks to Commissioner Alcheck for 31
collaborating on the Colleagues Memo. Also Assistant Director Aknin and Senior Assistant City 32
Attorney Silver helped point us in the direction of some useful materials that we, what we 33 reflected. So this afternoon there was a meeting of a Subcommittee of the Planning Commission 34
on the Governance Element of the Comprehensive Plan and one of the values that was important 35
and is likely to be in the Governance Element is the importance of transparency and engagement 36
with the public. Often how the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) operates and the 37
procedural rules that we follow and the public meeting requirements creates a challenge for us to 38 conduct a serious discussion that goes deeply into important issues. And one of the issues that 39
seems to come up frequently in front of the Planning Commission involves the question of public 40
benefit.4142
I was at a meeting I think last week at the Stanford Law School that started off with a title page 43 with the Latin phrase “Cui bono,” which translated “for whose benefit.” And I think that the 44
question that we often face as Commissioners is to keep in mind for whose benefit certain 45
matters or issues or projects will impact. We have multiple stakeholders in the City all of whom 46
have valid but sometimes different perspectives. And in doing the Colleagues Memo one of the 47
ground rules was that we didn’t try to force any agreement among colleagues as to the outcome 48 that we wanted on any issue. We just wanted to go deeply into what the issues were and to try to 49
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 13
identify the alternatives. So in that spirit these slides that I’ve extracted are just intended to 1
provide an overview and a framework for the discussion that may happen tonight and hopefully 2
will ensue for long into the future. 34 So in the municipal code regarding the specific purposes of a Planned Community District is one 5
of the important references to public benefit and if you look at the ordinance the Planning 6
Commission is charged with making three specific findings, which are on this slide and you can 7
all read. The second of which is “public benefits not otherwise attainable will result from using 8 the Planned Community District.” Put another way quoting from the housing municipal code the 9 Planned Community District is particularly intended for unified comprehensively planned 10
developments which are of “substantial public benefit.” Next slide. 1112
This gets to the important challenge of what is a public benefit? It’s not defined in the municipal 13 code and it’s not laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. A number of things may be unclear about 14 what may be a perspective public benefit. What is the nature of the benefit? Might it be 15
adequate? Does it have any value? If so, how much? And it may be controversial. And some 16
of the issues swirling around the public benefit are whether the nature of the project itself is 17
intrinsically beneficial to the public, which I think frequently is the case although not always. 18 And sometimes the impacts of the project and any associated benefits are viewed with some 19 validity as externalities and that may impose different requirements on the process that should be 20
followed. 2122
Then you get into, I guess I’ve touched on this a little bit, the different perspectives that are 23 relevant. And we talked about benefits intrinsic to the project, benefits… sometimes we talk 24 about how to make the project itself a better project. Thinking that making a better project is 25
beneficial to the public rather than something which ultimately fails at its purpose or is 26
unattractive. And then there are benefits that may contribute to specific needs that are identified 27
for the City. And then you get into yeah, you might analyze the benefit in terms of what type of 28 benefit it is. Is it a financial benefit? I mean is it appropriate to request a payment from a 29
developer into a public fund that would mitigate an adverse impact on the City’s infrastructure 30
for example or providing additional parking. Are there aesthetic benefits? And this can be 31
pretty important, but it’s again pretty hard to quantify, but public art, landscaping, so on, planting 32
trees, incredibly important to Palo Alto in a lot of ways. 3334
And then you get into the area functional benefits and this is almost unlimited in terms of the 35
possibilities: public amenities, infrastructure improvements, public safety enhancements, transit 36
passes, electric vehicle charging, recreational facilities, sidewalk benches, you could just go on 37
and on. There are different forms in which the benefit can be delivered to the public. So the 38 Planning Commission has an important function which it’s important for us to understand and 39
discharge effectively with respect to the zoning of the city. And by approving or recommending 40
the approval of a PC that would go to the Council for final action this may be in something 41
which is referred to as incentive zoning, which is important and across America and around the 42
world there is a lot of instances of incentive zoning. And the basic idea is that you may want to 43 provide incentives to developers to build something that the community wants or needs. When 44
you increase the zoning intensity you, that may confer a benefit to the developer to build more 45
profitably and in exchange for that it seems fair that the developer give something back to the 46
public in the form of and we talked about the different types or categories of benefits and that 47
whole discussion is almost inevitable. 4849
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 14
And one of the things that frustrated me the first number of times that this type of discussion 1
arose was, was there a straightforward objective quantifiable sort of process that you could go 2
through to, what’s the math? I mean how do you, I mean for example if it’s an externality and 3 you have, you know, there’s some value created, but there’s some impact and you, you know, 4 fairness dictates making a payment. How much and to what end? So you get into what is the 5
value and what is the cost. And these are questions for which there may not be easy answers, but 6
they are important questions. 78 Now one of the things that Palo Alto’s pretty good at and we certainly endorse and encourage is 9 looking at comparable cities and learning from them about best practices. And the Palo Alto 10
City staff pointed us at a 2012 study that was commissioned for the City of Santa Monica which 11
is about 20 some odd pages long, which is quite interesting and it’s footnoted in the Colleagues 12
Memo. Santa Monica’s different from Palo Alto in many respects and their study didn’t relate to 13 PC zoning but it related to Development Agreements and Conditional Use Permits (CUP). But 14 what they ended up doing a lot of work that is maybe analogous to our situation, which is they 15
tried to objectify and identify what sorts of benefits would be wanted and needed by the 16
community. They looked at their decision making and administrative process relative to the 17
whole public benefit question in their context. And this related importantly to other issues that 18 they face and we face related to the density bonus and sometimes transfer of development rights. 19 And they ended up with publishing a sort of a menu system of community benefits with a sort of 20
tiered point system by which in a transparent and objective way if a developer wanted to proceed 21
with a certain project they would kind of know in advance what it might entail and then the 22
officials maybe reviewing the, approving the project could have the same kind of set of 23 principles to guide their decision making. 2425
So in the Colleagues Memo we concluded with a longer list of potential next steps not presuming 26
what the outcome was and I just extracted from that for tonight’s purposes just a few things. 27
One is the Planning Commission and the City Council annually have a joint meeting to discuss 28 issues that are common to the two bodies and I think it would be useful as we do this this year 29
and in the future to engage about this question and our respective roles and responsibilities. I 30
think the next point is very important to me and that is that frequently we have topics that we 31
think are pretty important and although I want to really acknowledge a lot of the residents of the 32
City, some of whom are here this evening, who are consistently engaged in giving us their 33 thoughts and ideas, but I would love for the public to be more engaged and more involved in the 34
Planning Commission. Because I’m a resident, we’re all residents. We all have our own ideas. 35
We don’t presume to think that our ideas should dictate the public outcome, but we like to 36
represent you. So please tell us what you think and what you want and what you need and if 37
we’re in the wrong direction which direction you think is important. 3839
Now one of the controversial areas just in our little colleagues group is the relevance or necessity 40
of using economic analysis in relation to reviewing public benefit decisions. And I personally 41
come from a situation much like Commissioner Keller who said you can’t manage what you 42
can’t measure and you need data to make decisions. I think oftentimes we’re asked to make 43 decisions and we’re not given data. So I think economic analysis and data is sometimes pretty 44
important. 4546
We’re in the process of working with the staff on the update to the Comprehensive Plan and that 47
within the foreseeable future it’s going to go to the Council for their discussion and approval. 48 And I would personally like to see a more robust treatment of public benefit in the 49
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 15
Comprehensive Plan if that’s something that the Planning Commission has more input to. And 1
just a suggestion as a possibility for the staff is to moving somewhat away from ad hoc treatment 2
or what seems to be ad hoc treatment of review and approval of projects and benefits and 3 consider the establishment of a matrix or menu for eligibility regarding development concessions 4 that are deemed to have a substantial public benefit. And that is really a sort of summary of a 5
much longer Colleagues Memo which has been made available to the public and which we are 6
hoping is going to stimulate lively discussion and lots of engaged residents coming to the 7
Planning Commission to tell us what they think. 89 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Alcheck. 1011
Commissioner Alcheck: As many of you are well aware, I am one of the newest members of this 12
Commission and I’m not sure what sort of precedent exists to help determine how early in a 13 Commissioner’s term he or she should suggest changes to the process, but that didn’t stop me 14 from doing so, because like my fellow Commissioners I’m fiercely dedicated to our 15
Commission’s responsibilities; namely providing our City Council with astute recommendations 16
regarding development and zoning in this wonderful City. And addressing the issues we’ve 17
raised in this memo will go a long way to improving this Commission’s efforts. And when we 18 set out to draft this memo our vision, our shared vision was that this effort would jumpstart the 19 process of ultimately defining the term “public benefit” for Palo Alto. 2021
I think this endeavor presents significant challenges and our hope is that by bringing greater 22
clarity and predictability to this process we will enhance the community’s benefits and their 23 satisfaction, our satisfaction with these benefits. So I’m going to stop there because I think Mark 24 did a great job of sort of setting it up and I’m eager for this process to begin. 2526
Chair Martinez: Great, thank you. I’m a land use person. My training, my background, my 27
experience, my passion is about how we use better land use. So on this Commission I’ve really 28 tried to look at what has been proposed in different situations, and they’ve all been different here, 29
and look at it from a purely point of view is this a good land use or why are we proposing to 30
change the type of zoning that we’re using here, is it to suggest that there can be a better, higher 31
land use, something that makes more sense because it’s near transit or because the City could use 32
this, it makes a better neighborhood. So every PC that comes before us I take a very simple sort 33 of measure and that is first is it a good project in itself. Does it become a good neighbor? Can 34
we mitigate things that the project creates in its doing? And if we can do all that does that 35
suggest that the project itself is a public benefit? 3637
So I looked again at our municipal code trying to understand why is it so vague, why does it sort 38 of leave us out this way and it reads slightly different than our Colleagues Memo. Can you put it 39
up Aaron? That’s important too. So, it’s basically a paragraph. It’s not broken down into three 40
bars that the development must meet or exceed. It’s basically really one thought and the thought 41
is if you can read it in the bold temp the Planned Community District is particularly intended for 42
unified comprehensively planned development which are of substantial public benefit. In other 43 words, the land use itself is of substantial public benefit. So it takes me back to the thought that 44
our role and our responsibility as Commissioner is the evaluation of this proposed development. 45
How it will fit into our City infrastructure and how it will be part of a neighborhood. So the 46
discussion of public benefits has grown to be something greater than what it was originally 47
intended to be. Public benefits isn’t defined in the municipal code or the Comprehensive Plan 48 because it never was intended to be seen as separate from the development itself. So we can talk 49
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 16
about intrinsic benefits but extrinsic benefits moves the discussion away from what the 1
municipal code itself says.23 So I wanted to be part of this discussion because we’re having it in addition or in spite of what 4 our Comprehensive Plan says or what the municipal code says, but it’s a reality of how planning 5
is working in Palo Alto today. So on one hand we need to look at this and see whether we are 6
moving in the right direction, whether it needs better definition, whether it needs to be moved 7
back to its original purpose. And secondly because as a Commissioner I really like to see this 8 body engage in the pursuit of questions about the nature of development, the success of our 9 development, the future of development in the City of Palo Alto. So this is an entirely relevant 10
important discussion and I hope that as the Vice-Chair suggested that we can move forward with 11
a public outreach to really broaden our perspective of where we go from here. 1213 So I’m sorry for taking too much time on that, but I just wanted to inject that perspective as well. 14 Let’s open the public hearing. We have five speakers. Thank you. Vice-Chair? Three minutes 15
each, but we also want you to complete what you have come here to say so if you need an 16
additional amount of time to finish we will try to work with that within our time budget. Thank 17
you.1819 Vice-Chair Michael: So the first speaker will be Neilson Buchanan followed by Bob Moss. 2021
Neilson Buchanan: Neilson Buchanan, 155 Bryant. I’d like to acknowledge one thing, you just 22
got through saying it is I do hear your challenge to us citizens out there to come forward and 23 particular those of us who are trying to represent other viewpoints. It’s not easy to begin to 24 mobilize neighbors and saying look at the complexity of this, this is something that’s going on. 25
I’ve got hopefully I’ve got a houseful of people waiting for me at 8:00 to sort of start this citizen, 26
more responsible citizenry action so it just isn’t me up here reacting to what I’ve been able to 27
think through over the weekend. 2829
I’ll start with an apology. I sent an e-mail out on Saturday. I’d been on a mountaintop with no 30
internet connection trying to edit a document e-mail to you from my iPhone. It did not turn out 31
well. My English teacher in high school would have given the e-mail an F for grammar and 32
words omitted, but the thought and principle behind it were put together as best as people could 33 do over the weekend. I promise to do better e-mail in the future. 3435
Speaking for again a handful of neighbors in Downtown North we have another concern that 36
we’d like to put in context tonight. And I look at Aaron and Curtis over there and I’ve said this 37
before that the work that’s on their plate concerns us. Not only this wonderful document that I 38 am just pleased as punch about wherever it does end up with the Council and you all, but this is a 39
great step forward. But how we’re going to manage this with staff getting a burden of an 40
economic boom, we’ve got 27 University. We’ve got the Development Cap to capture. We’ve 41
got the community benefit situation here and I hope someone is really looking after the welfare 42
of our staff, some of whom are departing rapidly. So the ranks are going to be thin as certain 43 things Curtis is recommending he’s not going to be around to worry about. I don’t say that 44
lightly and I’ve been in staff position in a public agency and I know what it’s like when the 45
world comes crashing down. And we don’t want to do a few things poorly and I know you don’t 46
either. 4748
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 17
Let me just wrap up by saying I hope from Downtown North point of view to bring a collective 1
wisdom of more and more people. It’s going to take probably most of this year in my opinion. 2
But I encourage you and the Council and staff to be really aggressive about the rocks that you 3 have uncovered in this Colleagues Memo. Just so happened my own due diligence tapped into a 4 few other cities and one of whom is Santa Monica where I’ve got substantial contacts. And I 5
never thought I’d be in favor of much of anything coming out of Santa Monica, but I am. But 6
the notion of cost benefits, detriments, and burdens is a fruitful discussion even when you can’t 7
quantify it.89 Just finally the float up notions and I’m sure you’ve seen and I didn’t see terribly detailed in the 10
memo, but the float up concepts that are operationalized in Santa Monica are really worthwhile. 11
Ironically the hotel article was published in the Santa Monica Daily, whatever it is, and I hope 12
you’ll read though that because it did show how very responsible architect citizen of Santa 13 Monica presented to the public his notion of a project. And that rich conversation is one I hope 14 we’ll have in Palo Alto. So thank you again.1516
I wanted to give you the Downtown North “Not Kicking the Can Down” award with a little 17
balloon facilitator that knowing every cost and benefit if you push on one side you get the other 18 one and I don’t know what you want to do with this silly tin can. Our budget didn’t allow me to 19 spray paint it gold, but enjoy it. Thank you. 2021
Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. 2223 Vice-Chair Michael: So next speaker is Bob Moss followed by Winter Dellenbach. 2425
Robert Moss: Welcome aboard. I’ve been fighting the PC process for over 30 years and I’m glad 26
to see that you’re taking it seriously. The best way to describe the PC’s, the vast majority of 27
them that have been approved in the last 30 plus years is it’s a scam. And more than 20 years 28 ago I tried to quantify the public versus the private benefits. And so my idea was to get a 29
spreadsheet where you could put the public benefits on one side and the private benefits on 30
another and try to get a real number you could equate. Now I did not take into account the 31
normal things that you talked about in your letter. Things like traffic impacts, parking, schools, 32
infrastructure because each of those can be very difficult to quantify, but they obviously should 33 be considered. And obviously if you have a zone, the zoning on the land is CS and somebody 34
wants to come in with a project which is 50 percent more dense there have got to be impacts to 35
the community, traffic and parking are just two obvious ones, school requirements depending on 36
what’s in there. So there are a lot of things you have to do in order to try to quantify the two 37
aspects of it. But if you never try you never know.3839
So I sat down with some developers trying to get their perspective and I talked to some people 40
you may have heard of, Jim Baer, Tony Carrasco, Chop Keenan. They didn’t want to touch 41
quantifying private benefits. They didn’t even want to talk about it. They thought it was a 42
terrible idea because it would expose what they were getting versus what the public’s getting. 4344
So you remember Nancy Lytle? She used to be a manager in the Planning Department. She got 45
curious about this so she had her staff try to quantify what the developers actually got and she 46
found there was a very strong correlation between who the developer was and what the private 47
benefits were. The insiders, people like Baer and Keenan got huge private benefits, especially 48
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 18
relative to the public benefits whereas somebody who was coming in from Milwaukee or Santa 1
Clara was not nearly as well treated. That’s true, that’s continued to be true even today.23 Another major problem is that when the developer violates the PC there has never, ever been a 4 penalty. You saw the picture of Caffe Riace sitting on what was supposed to be a public park. 5
800 High is another example; there’s supposed to be a public park area there. That also was 6
turned into restaurant seating within a few months of the building being completed. Alma Plaza, 7
the big benefit there was the grocery store. And when they said that’s the benefit I said what 8 happens if the grocery store goes out of business? “Oh, that’s not going to happen!” It’s true, 9 it’s not going to happen until April 1st and now we won’t have the public benefits. 1011
So if you really are serious about fixing the PC problem you have to do three things. Quantify 12
and consistently quantify the public benefits, quantify the private benefits, and enforce anything 13 that is agreed to by the developer so that if he doesn’t do what he says, if he turns the public park 14 into a café there are real penalties. Otherwise it’s nonsense. 1516
Chair Martinez: Thank you.1718 Vice-Chair Michael: So Winter Dellenbach followed by Herb Borock. 1920
Winter Dellenbach: Hi, I live in Barron Park. For three years I made it a personal project of 21
mine to look at many, many PC’s, some old, some much newer and conducted my own what I 22
think of as an investigation. I was a little hurt that you didn’t mention me in your report. You 23 mentioned lots of other people, but not me and I thought I worked really hard. 2425
But I wanted to point out a couple of things in your, in the Colleagues Memo. Unlike Bob I had 26
trouble with the benefits versus impact language. It’s Number 6 in the objective comparison of 27
benefits versus impacts under the process, the possible objectives, benefits versus impact. I think 28 that’s apples and oranges. Impacts are situational and get mitigated or at least are supposed to 29
get mitigated by the developer and impacts have nothing to do with public benefits. Public 30
benefits are completely different animal. The way, I think there’s a very, I think in part this is 31
extremely simple. I don’t think this is that complex if you really want to seriously deal with this 32
it’s as Bob said quantifying things: quantifying the value of the public benefit, quantifying the 33 public benefit versus the private benefit, the public benefit versus the private benefit. That is 34
apples to apples. The benefit to the public should approximate the increased value the developer 35
derives by being granted the PC zoning change. So figure out the gazillion dollars more that the 36
developer will derive from being granted the PC zoning change and there you have a very good 37
rational yardstick about the value that the public benefits should equal.3839
And enforcement is absolutely critical. In my investigation I found I mean unbelievable things, 40
problems with past benefits us not getting them being transformed into other uses and also the 41
drafting of PC zoning agreements is critical. I’ve saw many agreements that within the 42
agreement sabotaged the public benefits. I mean clearly sabotaged them. But public benefit 43 versus private benefit it’s a good equation and you come up with the math. Thank you. 4445
Chair Martinez: And thank you. 4647
Vice-Chair Michael: So the next speaker is Herb Borock to be followed by Jane Sideris. 4849
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 19
Herb Borock: Good evening. The agenda description for this agenda item is a discussion of 1
Colleagues Memo requesting study session or retreat topic. So if you want to discuss the 2
substance of the Colleagues Memo then what’s the purpose of having a study session or retreat 3 topic? If you want to have a study session or retreat topic this is not the place to discuss the 4 substance. I mean it’s a trap to have a memo written with multiple pages with the lawyers 5
interpretation of some sentences in the zoning code as Chair Martinez pointed out is not what the 6
zoning code says. In fact when the Planned Community Zone was originally in the zoning code 7
it said nothing about public benefits, it was clear that it was a way for developers to get a more 8 intense development and more profitable development then you could under general zoning law, 9 zoning district in Palo Alto.1011
Now in the State law for planning and zoning you might ask Senior Assistant City Attorney to 12
clarify this, there is a provision for uniformity of zoning that you can’t have contract zoning. We 13 have some cities mentioned. I believe they’re both, the ones in California, both charter cities. 14 What good does a PC zone provide for public benefit? Well one thing that it used to be the only 15
way to do was to get 100 percent affordable housing. But now we have Government Code 16
65915 that provides a way to exceed the zoning limits for 100 percent affordable housing. I 17
know there are some housing advocates that are unaware of that, but you can replace one with 18 the other. So what I would suggest is that we do away with the Planned Community Zone and 19 that we enact the identical language that exists in State law requiring uniformity of zoning that 20
essentially prohibits contract zoning.2122
The way this issue is framed is essentially taking as given, which is understandable City Council 23 position since you and your colleagues on the Architectural Review Board (ARB) are appointed 24 by the current City Council that increased intensity of development more than the current zoning 25
code allows is assumed; that that’s what’s going to happen. And I think that’s a mistake. You 26
really can’t quantify by dollars public benefits versus private benefit because the developer 27
won’t do that development if you get them to be equal. So the simplest way to handle this is just 28 simply to do away with the zone district. And if you feel it’s worthwhile to exceed the existing 29
zoning districts by, for the purpose of providing affordable housing you can do that under the 30
Government Code Section 65915. Thank you. 3132
Chair Martinez: And thank you. Assistant Senior City Attorney we were a little bit clumsy in the 33 way we worded this agenda item. Do we have any issues here that? 3435
Cara Silver, Sr. Assistant City Attorney: Yes, Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. I am 36
trying to pull up the agenda wording. There was a revised agenda that was issued that does, that 37
defines this item as “Discussion of Colleagues Memo requesting study session or retreat topic on 38 improving process for determining adequacy of public benefits associated with Planned 39
Community Zones.” And so I think that in order to get to that general topic in that Motion that is 40
entirely appropriate to discuss some of the contents in the Colleagues Memo, even some of the 41
more particular ideas around community benefits in order to get to the question of whether this is 42
an appropriate decision that needs to go to the City Council for further direction or whether it’s 43 appropriate to discuss with them at a, at your upcoming joint session. 4445
Chair Martinez: Great, thank you very much. 4647
Vice-Chair Michael: Jane Sideris. 4849
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 20
Jane Sideris: Good evening Commission and thank you for letting me talk. I think I’m going to 1
be talking about something smaller than what I should be talking about, but I appreciate listening 2
to your plans for, I thought it was very important and I agreed with all of these plans for PC 3 planning. But my specific interest is how already rezoning or applying rezoning is effecting my 4 life in Palo Alto and the, I would like to address the plans for our City that require rezoning 5
especially that make room for higher density. I don’t think that’s always a public benefit and 6
we’re doing a lot of that it seems these days. 78 And there are now several projects that are so unlike Palo Alto and so dense that they are not 9 only unattractive, but they are not safe and in some cases even claustrophobic. For instance, 10
Miki’s; that’s just a shame, that beautiful market and it was a disaster about to happen during the 11
planning. We all said the road in there was too narrow, the parking wasn’t sufficient, and 12
where’s the park? I thought there was supposed to be a park in there for community benefit. All 13 I see are three story buildings going up. And I’ve been in those buildings and they’re scary. I 14 wouldn’t want to be in there in an earthquake. I don’t think that’s a public benefit. It’s poor 15
planning.1617
And now the planning is one more project on Maybell. It’s not a safe place for a senior center to 18 be or a senior housing to be walled in, once again, with narrow opening onto a busy street, 19 backed up onto a bicycle boulevard that’s already so crowded and these people in the senior 20
building being crowded and walled in by 15 three story houses. I think that that’s poor planning 21
and it isn’t for the public benefit in my mind. And it isn’t a benefit for our neighborhood. It’s 22
very unsafe; it’s unsafe for the emergency vehicles that are going to have to go in and out of 23 there. It’s unsafe for the fire engine department there on that Clemo Street. All of this is not a 24 public benefit in my mind. And so I would just like for you to reconsider some of these planned 25
projects and reconsider some of the rezoning that are not a benefit for our neighborhood.2627
Our children have been fenced out of Gunn High School. They can no longer play ball on the 28 parks. There’s no parkland left except Strawberry Hill. There’s very little park space at Juana 29
Briones and it’s very crowded. Tonight when I walked my dog there, there were already 20 cars 30
parked up and down of people playing in the park. It would be a nice if you would rezone that 31
empty place on Maybell for a playing field. Open space. That’s a public benefit. Thank you. 3233 Chair Martinez: And thank you to all members of the public for speaking tonight. 34
Commissioners I would like rather than for us to take considerable amount of time per each of 35
our the things that we have to say to try to go perhaps three minutes per Commissioner and do as 36
many rounds as we can so that we can see if we can try to focus it on the topics that we each 37
bring up and give a little continuity going that way. Anyone care to start off? Commissioner 38 Keller, yes. Three minutes. 3940
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So I know the Chair admonished us not to talk about projects 41
currently going through the approval pipeline, but I assume that that admonishment does not 42
extend to dealing with past projects that are PC’s. 4344
Chair Martinez: That is true. 4546
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So, first of all as a general statement I think that impacts need 47
to be mitigated and that mitigations are not benefits. And I think that that’s something we should 48 be clear and I often see situations where, for example, transit passes. Transit passes that are part 49
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 21
of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures are not public benefits. Ok? So let’s 1
just be clear about that. And I think that’s part of the blurring. I heard a lot about for example 2
during the Stanford process that there are lots of things such as the Go Passes for the Stanford 3 employees as being public benefits. No, those are TDM measures to reduce traffic and I think 4 we need to be clear about that. 56
I think there are several criteria that I think are worthwhile considering. One is who gets to 7
enjoy the public benefit? Is it of general utility, general use or is it a small group of people that 8 get to enjoy it? And what happens when the project changes during approval such as what 9 happened with 101 Lytton, the project at Alma and Lytton was originally a project that was 10
certain height and had concessions because it had housing in it and because that housing drew 11
concessions, but when the housing went away the concessions, some of the concessions stayed 12
and they didn’t, we didn’t go back to square one and say, “Does this still make sense?” Now that 13 may have been a good idea or not be a good idea, but it’s a situation in which the project 14 changed and some of the conditions that applied to it because of what it was before those are no 15
longer equally justified. 1617
What happens when a project changes after approval process? The Caffe Riace example, the 800 18 High example, those are examples of projects that changed after they’re approved. And in 19 particular that’s an example of when benefits that are supposed to be to the public are privatized 20
and how we deal with that. There are issues that we’ve dealt with in the past, for example the 21
Alma Village example situation which the Planning Commission turned down that PC initiation. 22
It then went to Council and which something was given to Council at places, Council Members 23 few of them read it, some of them had talked to the developer beforehand and then it was an 24 approval process of something that most of the Council hadn’t had a chance to really understand 25
and something got approved in a way that locked in and without the opportunity, the initiation 26
actually locked things in the process that are a little different from what we usually had. So the 27
process has changed considerably since then, but that’s a particularly egregious case of what 28 happened with past Planned Community Zones. Thank you. 2930
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka are you ready? 3132
Commissioner Tanaka: So first of all let me thank my fellow Commissioners for putting together 33 this Colleagues Memo. I think it’s actually very timely, especially given some of the recent 34
announcements with Miki’s Market, JJ&S and others. So it’s a tough topic and I think a lot of 35
the speakers from the public made very good points and I think unfortunately this is something 36
which I think deserves a very in depth study session because it’s not an easy answer to resolve. 3738 So in general I’m actually in favor of trying to make these more quantifiable so it’s more clear as 39
to how the public benefit works and who benefits from it. And I think that’s actually a key thing 40
because some of these project I think, you know the number of people who have benefitted is 41
very, very important to know. Is it just a few or is it the general public? Are the people who are 42
getting the public benefit are the people who are affected? Maybe not in a technically mitigate 43 impacts, but does it perhaps make it more palatable to those around there? But in general I think 44
this seems to be headed in the right direction and I think too, I think have an effective study 45
session probably be good to have some sort of, this is kind of an open ended topic. It might be 46
worthwhile to have some sort of process in place of how we’re going to resolve it and how can 47
we get our hands around this. Otherwise we kind of have a very open ended discussion and I 48 don’t know if we’ll have tangible deliverables from this otherwise. Thank you. 49
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 22
1
Chair Martinez: Commissioner King. 23 Commissioner King: Thank you. So two other Commissioners have used the quote that I was 4 going to use tonight already, which is if you can’t measure it you can’t manage it. So we’re 5
certainly on the same page there. and I think relative, how my intent relative to this Colleagues 6
Memo is that I think it’s important for us to go back and understand and interview those people 7
who are still around that have been involved in PC’s. all that stuff’s water under the bridge, but 8 on the other hand it’s valuable information on what worked and what didn’t work in the process 9 and how the projects turned out relative to how people thought or intended them to turn out. So I 10
think it’s important as part of the process to do some history. 1112
It’s also important I think in my mind it’s great to have this information on Santa Monica. I 13 think it’s very easy for elected and appointed officials and staff to operate in a vacuum and not 14 really look at oh what’s being done in other municipalities or other regions. And so I think that’s 15
important to bring into the process and I would love either through interviewing those people, 16
figuring out how we can get that type of historical information and then coming together with 17
probably a facilitator, maybe the Chair as a facilitator or somebody who’s got a little bit 18 specialized in that bring together stakeholders to include developers. I think it’s easy or if you 19 listen to the public generally the people who will come and speak out are those who feel that the 20
developers have clearly gotten the better end of the bargain in the past. And that may well be the 21
case, but I think we need to maintain the intent of the PC or view the intent of the PC which is to 22
come to a win-win solution so that there may be some things that we actually do need as the 23 City, some public benefit, and we want the developers on board. It’s not as if they’re always 24 getting a better end of the deal. So I think we want to understand what works for them. There 25
are certain things like certainly time delays cost them incredibility and so to the extent that we 26
can streamline the process it’s going to make it much more attractive for them in that amount of 27
private benefit that they need is going to be decreased. And I think that’s it for now. Thank you. 2829
Chair Martinez: Ok, since I’m kind of used to being a minority so it doesn’t bother me that I’m 30
the minority in this if you can’t measure it you can’t management debate. Let me tell you a little 31
story, ok? I grew up in LA. I’ve told that story many times. Growing up there in the Sixties 32
there was this amazing development. Amazing because even being in the neighborhood I really 33 didn’t even know this was about to happen, but on the site of the 20 Century Fox Studios 34
emerged this huge development called Century City. And it was shopping and offices and a 35
hotel that became iconic in Los Angeles called the Century Plaza. Now Century Plaza was if 36
you saw the Die Hard movie, the first Die Hard movie it was that hotel featured in that and it’s 37
the place where dignitaries all came, but in the years that happened after it, it went into a decline 38 as the convention center downtown flourished and new hotels were built closer to downtown. 39
This 672 room white elephant went into decline.4041
So a few years ago the developer, property owner, wanted to demolish the Century Plaza Hotel. 42
And the preservationists in LA… yeah, there are preservationists in LA. They were up in arms 43 about this because this hotel really was an example of modernism in the 1960’s of a historic 44
place where many historic events had occurred and they wanted to preserve it. So the City came 45
up with what I’ll call, I don’t know what they called it, incentive zoning and they permitted the 46
developer to increase the density and change the use of the hotel if they would preserve it. And 47
so the developer was able to build at least two big high rise buildings next to it, downsize the 48
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 23
hotel to a third as many rooms, built condominiums on the top floor so it turned into an unusual 1
mixed use building. 23 Now I tell this story because the Century Plaza Hotel has been restored to its previous glory and 4 it’s a beautiful building and symbol of LA. But you can’t measure the public benefit of that. 5
You can’t say that it was a win-win, because I’m sure the developer… thirty seconds please. 6
The developer won ten times as much. But nevertheless this historic building is still there, it’s 7
part of the LA landscape, it lives on for another generation or two, who knows? And it’s an 8 example of a public benefit in the development of this site that is immeasurable. And I’m 9 interested in defining sort of what public benefits are or what they can be. I’m not sure we can 10
measure what we can manage. Vice-Chair. 1112
Vice-Chair Michael: So one of the things that I am very pleased and impressed with in becoming 13 a member of the Planning Commission is that there’s a real diversity of thinking and 14 backgrounds and talents on the Commission. And I’m very convinced that when matters come 15
before us the Commission acts very consistently with extreme diligence and good faith and when 16
we have meetings that go long into the night that’s just sort of evidence of our commitment. But 17
I worry that we are sometimes in our diversity and our good faith and our commitment we 18 manifest diverging approaches to problem solving or to our tasks and responsibilities as a 19 Commission and this may make us somewhat dysfunctional. 2021
And I think this can be remedied in part because I think this concern arises when we lack 22
agreement on what are the basic principles to be applied. I mean this week in the news there are 23 a couple of major cases coming before the Unites States Supreme Court, which I’m sure you’re 24 all paying attention to. But without getting into that, interpreting the US Constitution there are 25
some clear standards that have evolved over time and equal protection or strict scrutiny, if 26
you’ve got a protected class or what have you. And the courts can apply those principles and 27
those decisions can be reviewed higher up on appeal, but that really isn’t how it works with the 28 Planning Commission in relationship to determining whether there’s a substantial public benefit 29
when we have to do this in connection with a PC Zoning request. And when we make a 30
recommendation and it goes to the Council I’m told that they respect our work and they read 31
very carefully the verbatim minutes of our discussion, but in some ways the Council starts all 32
over and it’s not, may not be clear to the community and sometimes not to me what are the 33 principles that the Council is following. 3435
So lacking agreement on the principles and lacking some of the tools for analysis I think that this 36
breeds not transparency and trust with the public, which is clearly our goal and we’re actually 37
writing in stone in the Comprehensive Plan, but it breeds cynicism and maybe a legitimate 38 observation that these things in the past haven’t worked as well as they were intended or maybe 39
they were scams as people said this evening. But I think that the possibility exists that maybe 40
that we can light a fire in the community that people who are thinking about these things and 41
want to make suggestions and contribute into the debate in whatever way is appropriate will do 42
so and really engage with us as they have this evening, and thank you for that, and in the future.4344
But I think I’m looking forward to our collaboration and supportive role and relationship to the 45
Council. And also I think that there’s a very important third leg of the stool here which is the 46
staff of the City of Palo Alto which is, has clear responsibilities and does most of the work. So 47
when we have issues that we have to apply principles and tools for analysis hopefully we can 48
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 24
maybe in the study session that’s coming up we can have some agreement as to what those 1
principles are and what tools we could apply.23 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck. 45
Commissioner Alcheck: I think it’s important to share with all of you that this is not the first time 6
a City has been presented with this challenge and it bears repeating. We are not alone. It’s sort 7
of astonishing to reflect on that because as we developed this memorandum we were struck by 8 the fortune of the City’s position to have developers come to Palo Alto eager to develop and to 9 be able to negotiate with them as opposed to being in the alternative position of having to bend 10
over backwards to woo developers. And I think that’s extraordinary. And I also don’t think that 11
it’s a guarantee. I’m reminded by the fact that the last 15 or 20 years we’ve consistently 12
developed the southern bay area, the peninsula to be home to many startups, especially in Palo 13 Alto and in the last 4 years we’ve seen a tremendous turn around that South of Market (SOMA), 14 a part of San Francisco which for years was so undesirable has attracted startup development and 15
development for the purposes of housing startup to an extraordinary degree that people who were 16
looking for that space on the peninsula are not moving it back up to San Francisco.1718 I say that because it’s not a guarantee that we will be able to negotiate for the best possible land 19 use development forever. And I think that that’s why we’re eager to make sure that when we do 20
it today, when we do it in the foreseeable future, we do it as fast as we can. It’s clear by some of 21
the comments made by our speakers that there is a tremendous displeasure with the process as 22
it’s currently implemented. And I have yet to sit through a full beginning to end PC review, but 23 when that day comes the day that we’re going to make a PC recommendation I’m hopeful that 24 we will benefit from more guidance to execute that process so that it’s more transparent, it’s 25
more predictable.2627
It’s too frequent that we hear about projects that failed to provide the “benefit” and that raises a 28 secondary issue. And issue of enforcement that also deserves attention. I, Commissioner Keller 29
started by saying mitigation efforts are not public benefits. I would agree with that contention, 30
but really that term needs to be defined and we can go back and forth and make suggestions on 31
what we think the definition should be, but until that definition is put in front of us as a 32
Commission we can’t execute the task of evaluating whether the “impacts” of a certain project 33 are justified or outweighed by a benefit, a public benefit. Nonetheless a substantial public 34
benefit. How do we even determine if it’s substantial if we can’t really agree on what it is? 3536
It’s, I want to say one last thing. One of our speakers said today, in her comments she sort of 37
highlighted a key problem here, which is the public benefit analysis is so susceptible to 38 subjective determination. What is claustrophobic to one Palo Alto resident may not be to 39
another. It’s not, it’s too subjective. We should have something that is not subjective so that we 40
can execute this effectively. 4142
Chair Martinez: Before we go on staff do you want to weigh in or have comments that you want 43 to reflect upon? 4445
Mr. Aknin: No, I don’t think I have any specific comments other than saying thank you to the 46
Commission for starting this conversation. I think this is a conversation that we’ll have over the 47
next month if not years. I think it’s something that’s going to be an iterative process that goes 48 through both the Commission and Council and joint meetings as well as many meetings with the 49
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 25
community. But I think it’s important that we start it. As you know as we’ve said in past 1
meetings and the City Manager has said the starting to quantify public benefits is something 2
that’s on the radar so I think continued discussion will do nothing but improve the overall 3 process.45
Chair Martinez: Thank you, and our Senior Assistant City Attorney, you good? Ok. Let’s go to 6
a last round of comments. Commissioner Keller, three minutes. 78 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So in terms of historical data I was part of a previous 9 committee or subcommittee that was of the Planning Commission looking at PC’s and I actually 10
have data that came from Winter Dellenbach and I’d be happy through staff to provide that to the 11
rest of the Commission. Basically she gathered a bunch of historical collection of PC’s. So I 12
think I have that. 1314 Secondly my next comments were exactly to the issue of transparency and reducibility. And I do 15
think that the public benefits may be harder to quantify particularly in situations where they are 16
intrinsic, but where they are extrinsic they should be more quantified. But it is probably easier to 17
talk about the increased value of the development to the developer and that’s probably easier to 18 quantify and I’ll leave that to people who know better how to do that. And I’m pleased that the 19 discussion is not merely based on pro formas but a broader economic analysis of that. 2021
With respect to the Chair’s comment about intrinsic versus extrinsic. If you say everything 22
should be intrinsic then everything will be told to be intrinsic even if it’s not. I heard a comment 23 about 101 Lytton project as project is own benefit. And certainly I don’t think that that, my 24 personal opinion is that’s not the case. Some people may disagree. 2526
I think it’s helpful with respect to the issue of impacts and mitigations is a California 27
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis which there’s a lot of case law on and mitigations 28 and dealing with those mitigations, dealing with impacts and mitigations is well understood in 29
CEQA and perhaps we can borrow some of that for PC’s. Obviously the thresholds are different, 30
but there’s some analysis there that may translate. And also there’s a notion in CEQA of things 31
that from which there is, you choose to allow it because I forgot the exact language, overriding 32
considerations. And I assume that in the PC there would be some sort of overriding 33 considerations where you do have significant impacts that are not mitigated. 3435
Finally I think we should take a slightly broader view than merely the public benefits. And that 36
is we should look at the process. And part of the problem with the process is that we initiate a 37
PC without any clear guidance, without any ability to provide clear guidance. We don’t provide 38 straw polls; we don’t provide clear guidance to the developer in this that came back to us in 39
terms of College Terrace Center. The developer said, “I can’t hear what’s going on because 40
there’s seven different points of view.” And we need to have clearer guidance when we initiate a 41
PC what we want. Those, guidance needs to be clear, we need to make that guidance explicit 42
and precise. We need to have that guidance tracked throughout the PC process. And then when 43 it comes back to us for the final approval at the end of the project we need to track that tracked 44
guidance in terms of what needs to go and come back to us in a report at the end. 4546
I think that’s also part of the issue of this tradeoff between the intrinsicness of a project, 47
extrinsicness of a public benefit is that if there are things to us that we say these things should be 48 in a project and we weigh that in the evaluation of whether to initiate if they don’t come back to 49
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 26
us in the project at the end then the project has morphed in a way that we may not consider the 1
same benefit trade off as coming to pass. And then what happens is that hundreds of thousands 2
of dollars that have been spent on getting approval and it’s too late to change it and people say, 3 “Oh no, let it go,” and that’s a problem. So I think we need to understand better to be better 4 gatekeepers at the beginning. And finally to make sure that we’re willing to say no at the 5
beginning until we get what we want and then we’ll know that it’s more predictable to be 6
approved at the end. Thank you. 78 Chair Martinez: Great. Thank you. Commissioner King, final comments? 910
Commissioner King: Thank you. Yeah, one thing I wanted to acknowledge we haven’t 11
discussed at length is the difficult position that staff is put in on these. Because they’re in, if it’s 12
a something within the zoning oh yes it fits or it doesn’t fit. It’s relatively clear on a project. but 13 these PC I haven’t seen any numbers as to the person hours spent, but it’s got to be incredible 14 and they’re working with uncertainties and trying to help out the developer to the extent 15
appropriate and yet knowing that it goes through seven people here, nine people at Council, and 16
so I want to acknowledge that we should try and make the process as clear as possible to avoid 17
not only wasted energy but also it’s got to be tough on morale if you’re working, nursing a 18 project through for months and months and then it gets killed at the end and the developer 19 probably comes back and says, “Wait, but you told me.” So I just want to acknowledge that. 2021
And secondly the other part of the one of the issues I think with the PC is that, and certainly now 22
it seems like probably every large project developers because there is potential profit its natural, 23 if I were a developer I would do the same thing, are coming in to request a PC. The, not only 24 does that, and I mentioned earlier that that’s the time delay and they certainly factor that in, but 25
the time delay is incredibly expensive for them and so a more clear, efficient, and timely process 26
benefits them. The other part of the equation is that if you add up what percentage of Planning 27
Commission and Council time is spent on PC’s alone it has got to be a material impact so to the 28 extent that we, the process becomes more clear the better it is so that we can work; we, Council, 29
and staff can all work on more beneficial things than these projects, many of which will not 30
come to fruition. Thank you. 3132
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Tanaka. 3334
Commissioner Tanaka: I think most of what I was thinking has been said, but I’ll just emphasize 35
the ones I thought were really good. So one is I think the idea that or the observation that 36
Commissioner Alcheck made about right now in the past Palo Alto has been incredibly attractive 37
to developers and we pretty much have been able to kind of pick which development we want 38 and kind of filter them out. And I think that his observation that that might always be the case is 39
actually a really good one and something that we should keep in mind and think about as we 40
proceed forward. 4142
At the same time though I do agree with, because I have been part of these PC processes several 43 times now about how we initiate and don’t really give clear guidance. Sometimes I walk out of 44
the meetings and I’m not even sure what the developer is going to take from our seven different 45
inputs and so I think actually taking straw polls or being able to kind of come to some sort of 46
rough consensus so that it is clear to developers what we mean and what direction they should be 47
headed because I think if you give seven different directions almost any direction is good then.4849
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 27
And the last part is I think it is going to be very hard to quantify public benefits, especially the 1
intrinsic ones that the Chair has mentioned. But I was thinking that perhaps maybe it’s not such 2
a hard problem to actually quantify the private benefits because it’s very clear how much above 3 and beyond the code they’re going whether it’s Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or site coverage or 4 whatever, you know, daylight planes or whatever they might be. And that one’s probably an 5
easier thing to quantify and so we could at least know what the private benefit of this PC might 6
be. Thank you. 78 Chair Martinez: I wanted to close in quoting the Vice-Chair’s favorite land use policy out of the 9 Land Use Element, the current one, not the one that I invented. Policy L6, “Maintain the scale 10
and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their 11
size and scale.” Now if we don’t understand what that means, if we’re unclear whether a project 12
is overwhelming, whether it creates impacts on its neighborhood that the mitigations are too 13 overwhelming to overcome, then perhaps we don’t need to revise the PC Zone, we need to do a 14 retreat or training in our own understanding of what land use is. It’s clear that a project as 15
described in the municipal code now has to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. It has to be 16
appropriate and it has to contribute public benefits that aren’t, that the development couldn’t 17
contribute otherwise.1819 I welcome the discussion and I thank my colleagues and Commissioners for what we had to say 20
today and the discussion about what these public benefits can be I think is a good one. But let’s 21
not forget our main responsibility and that’s to the land uses that are presented and the ones that 22
are appropriate in size and scale to the City. So thank you all, we are closing the public hearing 23 and this item and I want us to agendize a follow up discussion. I don’t know how we do that, 24 but…2526
Ms. Silver: It would be appropriate to make a Motion and the direction in the agenda was to 27
make a recommendation to talk to the City Council about this. And you may want to have an 28 intermediary step before you have that dialogue with Council and so the Motion can be either to 29
direct staff to agendize a discussion at the Planning Commission or to directly go to City 30
Council.3132
Chair Martinez: Ok I’m going to ask the Vice-Chair for a Motion. 3334
MOTION3536
Vice-Chair Michael: So I would move that when in the near future the Planning Commission 37
confers with the Council, which I believe takes place with a meeting between Mayor Scharff, 38 Vice-Mayor Shepherd, Chair Martinez, and myself about the agenda for the joint session 39
between the Council and the Planning Commission that we confer about the agenda and propose 40
one of the topics relate to a clarification of public benefit. That’s the Motion.4142
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck? I’m looking for a second. 4344
SECOND4546
Commissioner Alcheck: I will second that Motion. 4748 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Care to speak to your Motion? 49
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 28
1
Vice-Chair Michael: Well I think that we’ve touched on just about every aspect of this tonight 2
for which I’m very gratified, but I think one thing that I might propose is that we not put on the 3 agenda a revision and update of the PC process because I think that’s a separate and larger topic. 4 And I think we need to, I think it’s appropriate for us to start with the defined scope of discussion 5
being what is in the public benefit. 67
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck? 89 Commissioner Alcheck: I hope that the City Council will see this memo for what I think it is, 10
which is an opportunity. And I hope that when you meet with the Mayor and Vice-Mayor that 11
this item rises to the top of that meeting that we have with them or at least among the top few 12
items. I imagine it will have a lengthy discussion and I look forward to it. 1314 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 1516
Chair Martinez: Can I add a Friendly Amendment to that, that this Colleagues Memo be sent to 17
all Council Members and the Mayor? That’s ok with you? Any other discussion on this? 18 Commissioner Keller? 1920
Commissioner Keller: Yes, firstly I’d like to now express my thanks to the writers of the 21
Colleagues Memo. I’ve participated in some attempts to revise the PC ordinance before and we 22
got bogged down in a bunch of different issues. I think we’ve made a lot of progress in terms of 23 focusing on the issue of public benefits and I can understand the benefit of focusing on public 24 benefits as opposed to a larger issue.2526
I don’t want us to lose sight of the need to improve the PC process and also understand, I’m not 27
sure if that should be wrapped up in a discussion with Palo Alto Process or not. But it seems to 28 me that earlier definitiveness of the answers, saying no early is something we should be willing 29
to do more often because the later you do it its more costly to everybody. And so understanding 30
how we can do that and how we can improve our decision making process on that because on 31
this Commission and I’ve been here quite a while I know that I’ve heard people say, “Oh, let’s 32
move this forward because the project will get better.” Well, it’s hard for a project to get better 33 unless we’re clear about how we want it to be better. And it will come back in unrecognizable 34
form otherwise. So that’s my comment, but I do think this is a good, focused issue and I look 35
forward to discussion with Council and direction on how we can improve this for future projects 36
that hopefully will get better support by the community because the benefits are more clearly 37
articulated and quantified. 3839
VOTE 4041
Chair Martinez: Great. Anybody else? Let’s call for the vote. All those in favor of the Motion 42
signal and say aye (Aye). Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Great job. 4344
MOTION PASSED (6-0-1, Commissioner Panelli absent) 4546
Commission Action: Motion by Vice-chair Michael to confer and bring to City Council 47
topic related to public benefit, second by Commissioner Alcheck. Friendly Amendment 48
City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 29
by Chair Martinez to send Colleagues Memo to full Council. Motion approved 6-1, 1
Commissioner Panelli absent23
Planning & Transportation Commission review 45
DIRECTORS REPORT. 67
Chair Martinez: Moving right along the Director’s Report. 89 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: Sure, few things. The first, something that I reported on was 10
coming up at a Council meeting at our last Planning Commission meeting and that is the Council 11
had a discussion on some near term parking, downtown parking related items on March 18th.12
And the Council did give direction to staff to proceed with several items. The first was to start 13 an attendant parking trial in a downtown parking garage or lot. The one that we selected was Lot 14 R. The second one, excuse me? 1516
Commissioner Keller: Excuse me. Which lot is Lot R? I don’t know them by letter and I’m not 17
sure anybody else does. 1819 Mr. Aknin: Ok, I’ll, offhand I don’t, I apologize I don’t know that. Jaime was in charge of that 20
one, but I can get that for you.2122
The second one was a City commitment for 50 to 100 parking spaces to be vacated through 23 aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. So that’s something that 24 we’re working on right now is to free up 50 to 100 spaces over the next six months or so and 25
come back to Council with that as well as to the Commission. The third is to evaluate a 26
public/private partnership for a new parking garage on Lot P. That was not specific direction to 27
move forward with a public/private partnership, but it was to investigate it and come back both 28 to the Planning Commission as well as to the Council. 2930
Something that prompted a lot of discussion that is evaluation of restrictions on the creation and 31
use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). This is the one where there was the most debate 32
about. There was people who came up and spoke that say, “Hey there’s been a lot of benefits 33 associated with Transfer of Development Rights specifically related to rehabilitation of historic 34
buildings as well as seismic upgrades to older buildings.” So that’s something that I think there 35
will be further discussion on. As the Commission knows right now there’s basically two rights 36
that can be transferred related to when you either fix up a historic building or seismically rehab 37
an unreinforced masonry building and you can transfer either a bonus Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to 38 another property or you could transfer rights to build without providing parking. So I think 39
they’ll be discussions up to a certain amount, but I think they’ll be discussions related to both of 40
those upcoming both at the Commission, Council, and of course the community. 4142
Other, eliminating other zoning code exemptions to move forward, Staff to bring back a proposal 43 both to the Commission and to the Council about that. As the Commission knows there’s right 44
now a moratorium on the use of something called the 1:1 Floor Area Exemption, something 45
that’s been on the books for a number of years. We’re looking at most likely bringing that 46
forward for permanent elimination or at least consideration for permanent elimination. And 47
there’s also smaller ones like there’s right now a 200 square foot zoning code exemption where 48 you don’t have to park the first 200 square feet of an addition, a commercial addition or a 49
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4978)
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 8/13/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: PC Zoning Reform
Title: Discussion on Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform
Recommendations
From: Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner
Lead Department: Planning & Community Environment
Recommendation
This is a study session with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to review and
provide comments on the Planned Community (PC) District Regulations, as well as possible
alternatives and revisions. No action is requested.
Executive Summary
The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) is asked to review and discuss the Planned
Community (PC) zoning process, including possible reforms. The community has raised several
concerns about the PC zoning process, whereby the City and a developer negotiate site specific
design and development standards in exchange for “public benefits.” The PC process is viewed
by some as too opaque and lacking definition of community benefits. Others criticize the
process as too transactional, allowing neighborhood impacts to be “traded” for benefits
without a clear enough nexus of value and/or geographic location. Others criticize the overuse
of the PC district and the proliferation of projects that do not comply with the underlying
Zoning Code. The process and some of its outcomes have also been critiqued as inadequate and
not well enforced. The City Manager last year directed that PC’s have an independent third
party assessment of value and benefit. There has been criticism that such assessment could be
more robust and that the City should establish a menu of desired public benefits to draw from
in advance of negotiations on a particular application, to shift the negotiations from a reactive
mode to a developer proposal and more clearly to the interests of the public. Based on these
concerns, the City Council approved a “time-out” on all PC zoning requests and directed staff to
return with an analysis of reforms and alternatives.
As the PTC has noted in the past, the PC zoning reform would benefit from greater clarity
regarding the City’s expectations for projects seeking approval under the PC zoning provisions.
The process should ensure projects are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and achieve
the right balance between flexible development standards and the public good. The process
1
ATTACHMENT F
City of Palo Alto Page 2
should also provide ample opportunities for public participation along with a rational process
for applications accepted, or initiated, into the PC zoning process.
Staff has prepared a report, appended here as Attachment A, that identifies the issues
associated with PC zoning that have been identified, summarizes prior analyses and suggestions
for PC reform at a high level, and starts to build reform alternatives. The purpose of this report
is to provide the PTC and the public with a starting place for discussion about PC zoning reform
alternatives.
Staff would appreciate the PTC’s review and comment on the attached materials, as well as
some discussion about the process for seeking public input and next steps. A brief factsheet
has been prepared which includes an initial list of questions for public input with an invitation
to provide input by emailing staff (Attachment B – PC Reform Fact Sheet).
Background
On February 3, 2014 the City Council received a staff presentation and public testimony and
adopted a motion to:
1. Defer requests for rezoning to the Planned Community (PC) zoning district until the
process and requirements regulating the PC zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal
Code are revised, and
2. Direct Staff to return to the Council with an analysis of potential revisions and
alternatives to the PC zone for public input and discussion.
The staff report for the Council’s discussion (Attachment C – City Council February 3, 2014 Staff
Report) contains background on PC zoning and a list of past PC projects. An excerpt of the City
Council’s meeting minutes is attached for reference (Attachment D – City Council February 3,
2014 Meeting Minutes).
Discussion
Chapter 18.38, PC Planned Community District Regulations, of Title 18 provides standards and
procedures for consideration of PC proposals. The City of Palo Alto established the regulations
for PC districts with the adoption of the City’s Original Ordinance on February 19, 1951. Over
100 PC districts have been approved by the City Council beginning in 1951 with PC-1362 at
3401-45 Alma Street for commercial uses and an automobile service station. While many
successful projects have resulted from PC zoning, concerns have been raised by the community
about the PC zoning process and the fact the process could be improved. Generally, there is a
sense that PC negotiations are conducted ad hoc, and that the public benefits achieved may not
be adequate given the private gain and long term implications. Five key areas of concern were
identified at the City Council meeting held on February 3, 2014 as summarized below:
2
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1. “How do we evaluate a PC request?” - Create a clear process with evaluation tools and
introduce predictability to the process.
2. Require submittal of an economic analysis to access quality economic data and
determine costs and benefits.
3. “Where should PC zoning go?” - Identify minimum parcel sizes or areas in the City that
are appropriate for PC districts.
4. “What types of benefits should be required?” – Create a menu of benefits that
developers must select from.
5. Develop an enforcement tool that can be tracked over time.
Staff has grouped the concerns raised by the public, the Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC) and the City Council into three general areas: 1) the Establishment of PC
Districts; 2) Application process; and 3) Public Benefits. These concerns are discussed in more
detail below and the PTC’s “colleague’s memo” is included as Attachment E of the summary
report, along with minutes from the PTC’s discussion of that memo (Attachment F).
Establishment of Districts
As described in PAMC Chapter 18.38, a PC district, which allows an unlimited range of uses, can
be established anywhere in the City subject to a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan, a determination that a “public benefit” is provided, and site development regulations
tailored to the development plan. The code does not explicitly set any other form of eligibility
determination such as minimum land area or use requirement to clarify the types of projects
that should be considered under PC zoning. One major issue with such flexibility, as noted by
Dyett & Bhatia in their 2001 report, included in the PC analysis report as Attachment D,
prepared for the City during the planning process for the Zoning Ordinance Update, is that
there is no explicit requirement contained in the PC district regulations tying density/intensity
limits to the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time. This has meant that applicants can
propose a project that is above the maximum density through a request for a PC zone and a
concurrent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
The PC ordinance also fails to identify a specific geographic location or areas in the City that
may be appropriate for the establishment of PC districts, although the regulations do provide
authority to impose conditions as needed to ensure neighborhood compatibility. For instance,
section 18.38.150, Special Requirements, defines five special requirements for “sites abutting
or having any portion located within one hundred fifty feet of any R-E, R-1, R-2, RM, or any PC
district permitting residential.”
One potential reform that the PTC could discuss is to define the types of projects that may
apply for a PC district either by designating a specific geographic location/area in the City that is
appropriate for a planned development, or by setting a minimum land area requirement for the
development of a PC district. Setting standards will narrow the scope of eligible projects, help
to ensure that projects are appropriate given their surroundings, and ensure that the PC
process is only used for relatively “major” projects.
3
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Application Process
An application for rezoning to a PC district can be submitted for any type of project for any
given zone or area in the City as long as it follows the application process described in Section
18.38.065 of the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. The code does not clearly identify how a PC
request should be evaluated upon the submittal of an application and how the required public
benefit finding should be made. From the developer’s perspective, the current process does
not delineate a specific project application timeline.
Potential reforms that the PTC could discuss would re-define the process and standards for
review of PC applications. As noted earlier, the City Manager last year directed that PC’s have
an independent third party assessment of value and benefit, and this requirement could be
codified.
Public Benefit
There are three general concerns associated with the public benefit component of the PC
ordinance; definition, required finding, and enforcement. According to Section 18.38.010,
Specific Purposes,
“the planned community district is particularly intended for unified comprehensive
planned developments which are of substantive public benefit, and which conform with
and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.”
The code does not define how a project can be categorized as being of “substantive public
benefit.” Is the project considered a public benefit, or are public benefits provided to offset the
impact of the development in exchange for incentives? Some contend that these benefits are
not sufficient while others argue that if the project has no inherent public benefit then no PC
should be approved. As the PTC has noted in the past, the intent of the PC district could be
clarified to ameliorate some of the confusion.
Definition: Currently the ordinance does not specifically define what a public benefit is.
Public benefits were not initially part of the PC district regulations but were added as
part of an amendment made to the code in 1978. Since then, public benefits have taken
several forms including, but not limited to, the development of BMR units, the addition
of publicly accessible open spaces or plazas, public art and the payment of in-lieu fees.
Without a definition of public benefit, there will always be questions about the required
finding. Even with a definition, there may always be different opinions on the public
value of a benefit, but the more explicit and rigorous the standards are, the more
confidence the public can have that a PC is warranted and represents an improvement,
from the community perspective, over existing zoning.
Required Finding: The City Council must make a finding that the “development of the
site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public
4
City of Palo Alto Page 5
benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or
combining districts.” In this instance, the code again fails to clearly define what “public
benefits” are and whether or not there should be a nexus between the amenity and the
incentive granted in exchange for the benefit.
Enforcement/Inspection: Currently the code states that “each PC district shall be
inspected by the building division at least once every three years for compliance with
the PC district regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the district
was created.” The City’s current staff of Code Enforcement officers is inadequate to
regularly monitor and enforce the large number of site specific public benefits. The City
will need to reassess how (and who) to monitor and enforce site-specific PC regulations.
The City has two avenues in which to implement reform for the establishment of PC districts: 1)
revise the existing ordinance to address the issues and concerns identified above; or 2)
eliminate the use of PC zoning for new projects, and develop an alternative approach for the
consideration of PC-like proposals in a new code section. Staff’s summary report (Attachment
A) presents a number of examples for potential code revisions for the PTC’s review and
discussion.
Timeline
Staff would appreciate the PTC’s input regarding the project timeline and next step, as well as
ways to ensure adequate public input. As a starting place, staff will be soliciting comments on
the materials included with this staff report for the next month. Information gathered during
the study session and from the public comments will be used as the basis of a study session
with the City Council, and ultimately as the basis for a draft ordinance for formal review by the
PTC and City Council.
Environmental Review
The PTC’s study session does not constitute a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: PC Reform Summary Report (PDF)
Attachment B: PC Reform Fact Sheet (PDF)
Attachment C: February 3, 2014 City Council Staff Report (CMR #4414) (PDF)
Attachment D: February 3, 2014 City Council Minutes (Item 9 only) (PDF)
Attachment E: Public Comments (PDF)
5
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Draft Verbatim Minutes 2
August 13, 2014 3 4
EXCERPT 5 6
7
Study Session8 1. Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform: Study Session on possible revisions to the Planned9 Community (PC) District Regulations. For more information contact Consuelo Hernandez at 10 consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org 11
Continued from the meeting of July 30, 2014 12 13
Chair Michael: So let me just talk about the just the time management for the study session and suggest14
some of the questions that may come up in our discussion. So the first part we’re going to begin with an15
introduction to the staff report from Consuelo Hernandez who has written, was the principle author to the16
staff report that you and the public have. Then we’ll open the public hearing so that any members of the17
public who are here this evening who submit speaker cards may comment or make a statement, ask18
questions. Then we’re going to just do an opportunity briefly for the Planning and Transportation19
Commission (PTC) to ask any questions for staff about the staff report or about the topic of Planned20
Community (PC) zoning reform. And before we go to the public hearing on the Curtner Avenue Project21
we’re going to try to have time for the Commissioners to engage in some quick brainstorming, something22
new for us to generate ideas or suggest discussion questions that should be part of our study session23 discourse.24 25 If we’re on schedule after completing the public hearing on Curtner Avenue, let’s say approximately 8:0026 p.m., our study session will take up the analysis of the, what seemed to be the top issues emerging from27
our earlier discussion on the topic. And in particular based on the staff report and some of the notes28
from the Our Palo Alto initiative we’d like to shed light on the discussion questions which are found in the29
report on Page 3 and the community discussion questions that are on Page 16 of the packet.30 31
Now what I’ve done just for my own clarity because there’s some overlap on this and I actually thought32
some of the questions that I was curious weren’t there let me just post what I think is sort of the master33
list of questions. And it begins with broadly what are the main concerns about PC zoning? The next one34
would be: whereas many cities including Palo Alto use different techniques to allow variations from35
development standards and allow design flexibility and this says, “See Page 8 of the staff report,” should36
Palo Alto continue to use PC zoning to achieve these objectives or should this practice be phased out in37 favor of potentially more appropriate techniques such as specific or precise plans? Next question is the38 City is currently working to update the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, which will include concept area plans39 for California Avenue and the Fry’s site, East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, and in the past the City has40 revised the Zoning Map after completing a Comp Plan update related to this request to prepare a specific41
plan for South El Camino, which hasn’t occurred, and to review the Downtown Development Cap. And42
the question is should the time out on PC zoning applications continue until many of these long term43
planning projects are approved? Next would be relating to the application process and it’s found in the44
ordinance, which is under the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.38.065 states “That the applicant for a PC45
District shall initially submit to the Planning Commission a development program statement, development46
plan, and development schedule.” But in recent years City Council has begun to conduct preliminary47
reviews of PC zoning proposals sometimes with individual Council Members meeting privately with48
applicants. What effect or value does such preliminary review have upon the process?49 50
The next question is broadly how should a PC zoning request be evaluated by the PTC, by the51 Architectural Review Board (ARB), by Council? Next, should the PC zoning process incorporate a menu of52 potential public benefits, and if so what should be on the list? Next, should there be or could there be a53
City of Palo Alto Page 2
practical definition of public benefit? Next, if one can estimate the economic value of the public benefit 1
and corresponding economic value of the upzoning should the benefit to the public be equivalent to the 2
value received by the applicant or some other ratio? Next, how should the City enforce the commitment 3
to provide public benefits and how should such enforcement be monitored over time? Next, should the 4
applicant submit pro forma financial data about its project to support an off menu request for public 5
benefit? And finally, should the City identify areas in the City or minimum parcel sizes or maximum 6
parcel sizes for PC zone districts? 7 8 So if anybody, my colleagues on the Commission have other questions that don’t, aren’t on that list or in 9 the staff report please, please suggest them. But I’m just trying to make sure that we turned over all the 10 rocks and really had both the high level and maybe the more specific kind of focus that would be helpful 11
to this process. And for the record Commissioner Tanaka has arrived. 12
13
And finally when we wrap up this evening, which hopefully won’t be too late although I like to go as long 14
as we can given the importance of PC zoning reform we should try to arrive at a consensus whether the 15
PTC wants to continue this study session to return to the Commission at a subsequent meeting. 16
Alternatively just note that the Council has scheduled a study session on this topic for October 6th and we 17
could defer further discussion by this Commission until after the Council has their study session. So 18
that’s something to think about. 19
20
Vice-Chair Keller is going to manage time when we get to the Commissioners. And rather than our 21
normal big chunks of five minutes, which to make this more interactive we’re going to try to divide this 22 into smaller say two or three minute segments. So to make a clear point or ask a specific question and 23 then move on. So with that let’s begin with the staff report from Consuelo Hernandez. 24 25 Hillary Gitelman, Director: Thank you Chair Michael, Members of the Commission; Hillary Gitelman the 26
Planning Director and I’m joined by Consuelo Hernandez who is going to give a brief staff report and who 27
has been helpful in organizing staff’s thoughts this evening, which are reflected in the staff report. I 28
guess I wanted to say before we start that some of you have far more experience with PC zoning than 29
we do at this point. And so we are hoping that the study session is a way to get your thoughts and ideas 30
and really start framing the issues around potential alternatives and reform. So that’s the objective for 31
this evening. 32
33
I also wanted to mention just looking ahead to the Commission’s advance calendar your next meeting on 34
August 27th we’re scheduled to discuss the shuttle program and there’s a chance we may not be ready 35 for that. It’s contingent on a consultant report that as of this afternoon we had not received. So it’s 36 quite possible that continuing this discussion on PC reform might be a really, a very appropriate topic for 37 that meeting if we can’t, if this study doesn’t materialize and the shuttle isn’t ripe for discussion. With 38 that I’m going to turn it over to Consuelo who is going to do a real brief PowerPoint. 39
40
Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner: Thank you, Hillary. Good evening Chair, Members of the Planning 41
Commission; I am Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner in the Long Range Planning Division for Palo Alto 42
and tonight is a study session to look at PC reform. And really what we’ve done in the staff report is 43
consolidate some of the concerns that we have identified through your memorandum that you put 44
together last year, some of the comments that are received from the public, and from a Council hearing 45
that took place earlier this year. And I realize that the staff report contained a number of attachments 46
that had attachments contained within those and so through my presentation I’ll help guide you by giving 47
you the page number and referencing the actual attachment. 48
49
Just to give you a brief background as the Chair pointed out local jurisdictions use a variety of planning 50 techniques to introduce flexibility to the normal or standard development standards including planned 51 developments, specific area plans. In Palo Alto the PC zoning has historically served to achieve some of 52 those similar goals or objectives. These techniques essentially afford local jurisdictions with the ability to 53 encourage unified planning and development. And PC zoning was established in 1951 with the adoption 54
of the City’s zoning ordinance. In 1978 it was adopted to include public benefit and as you all know 55
City of Palo Alto Page 3
public benefit wasn’t defined in that ordinance and has been one of the main reasons or one of the main 1
concerns raised in the community for the lack of definition of what exactly a public benefit is. 2
3
The regulations have been in place since 1951 as I mentioned and about 100 PC’s have been approved 4
since then. Attachment C of the summary report or Page 33 of your packet is our draft log of the PC’s 5
that have been approved. And we realize that it doesn’t contain all of the detail that you are probably 6
expecting, but we wanted to give you just a draft of what staff has been putting together. 7 8 And on February 3rd the City Council called for a time out and asked staff to work on an analysis for 9 potential reform and alternative ideas. And a copy of that staff report is appended to your staff report or 10 your packet on Page 75, and it also contains the pipeline project at 2755 El Camino. The minutes from 11
that meeting are Attachment D and that’s on Page 115. And so again as I mentioned what staff’s done is 12
really consolidated all of those different analysis and reports that have been prepared thus far to really 13
start to outline the issues with PC’s that have been identified, summarize prior analysis, and suggestions 14
for PC reform at a very high level and to start to build reform alternatives without identifying a specific 15
change in the code right now. 16
17
And just to give you a little bit of background this is what the code currently outlines is the PC zoning 18
application process. An application is initiated at the Planning Commission level. If the PTC acts 19
favorably the development plan is then sent off to or referred to the ARB. The ARB then looks at the 20
development plan based on findings for architectural review only. The PTC then completes its final 21
review and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then reviews PTC’s 22 recommendation and takes final action. And before they can actually approve a project under the PC 23 regulations they have to make three findings and in summary they have to determine that the existing 24 regulations of whatever that particular parcel is zoned for is inadequate to accommodate the proposed 25 project or that it doesn’t allow sufficient flexibility. The second is that the development of the site will 26
result in specific public benefits not otherwise attainable through the normal or the specified zoning 27
designation. And again, it doesn’t actually define what a public benefit is whether it’s the project itself or 28
one of the things that are offered by the developer. And the last finding is that the proposal is consistent 29
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The entire section chapter for PC regulations is on Page 19 of 30
your packet. 31
32
And again to summarize some of the key areas of concern that were brought up at the City Council 33
meeting on February 3rd is how do we evaluate a PC request? And one of the things that was considered 34
or mentioned to ameliorate this concern was to establish a clear process for the evaluation with 35 evaluation tools and a more transparent process that will aid the public, the Planning Commission, and 36 the City Council in reviewing a PC request. Another alternative or another suggestion was where should 37 PC go? Currently the code allows you to request a PC zoning change for any parcel, any property in the 38 City as long as the Council can make those three specific findings and naturally that the ARB and the PTC 39
can make the appropriate findings for specific elements of the application, but is it as the Chair 40
mentioned is there a possibility to identify specific locations in the City that are more adequate for a PC 41
zoning or maybe the types of projects that are appropriate for this type of request? Again, what types of 42
benefits should be required either by defining what a public benefit is or having a menu of public 43
benefits? And another suggestion was to develop an enforcement tool that can be tracked over time. 44
45
And so there really are two avenues in which PC reform can take. We can either revise the existing 46
ordinance to address issues and concerns including creating criteria for the establishment of PC districts, 47
and staff has started to build some of those potential revisions and they are contained on Page 15 of 48
your packet, and this is just to start the conversation and the discussion. Or we can eliminate the use of 49
PC zoning for new projects and develop an alternative approach for PC like proposals in a new code 50 section. And the policy, I apologize; the summary report gives you summary of what other local 51 jurisdictions do to achieve a similar goal. 52 53 And so what we ask of you tonight is to review and comment on that PC reform summary report and 54
discuss the process for seeking adequate public input and next steps. Chair, I appreciate the addition of 55
those questions. What we did is starting to solicit comments from the public around these three general 56
City of Palo Alto Page 4
questions and there are things that we haven’t considered and we really do appreciate you adding those 1
questions. I am here to collect more information. And what we’re asking the public is to share with us 2
what their concerns are with PC zoning and perhaps we haven’t captured that in the summary report. Or 3
what… if the PC process is reformed to include a menu of potential public benefits, what should those 4
benefits be? And finally any other ideas on PC reform. And we’re hoping that the information gathered 5
tonight and from the public will inform a report to the Council and a study session we hope to have with 6
them later this fall. And that concludes my staff report. We’re here to answer any questions you may 7 have. 8 9 Chair Michael: Thank you very much Consuelo. And by the way, I thought the staff report on this topic 10 was very thorough and excellent. So thank you for your hard work and that of your colleagues. So you 11
finished on a high note referencing questions for the public so let’s move to the public hearing. And I 12
think we have speaker cards for six speakers and Vice-Chair Keller will announce the order in which they 13
will speak. 14
15
Vice-Chair Keller: The first speaker is Fred Balin to be followed by Phyllis Cassel. You’ll have three 16
minutes. 17
18
Fred Balin: Thank you. I agree with the Chair, a lot of good information and discussion in this packet. I 19
want to start on the top, bottom of Page 1, “The process should ensure projects are consistent with the 20
Comprehensive Plan.” We know they are not. As many times as the word Comprehensive Plan comes 21
into the actual ordinance they are not followed. The clearest way to know is that when a PC comes to 22 you and comes to the Council it changes the Comp Plan designation at the same time. That should not 23 happen. Alma Plaza was one of four neighborhood commercial centers in Palo Alto. How does it come 24 as a PC and change it so it becomes 75 percent housing? College Terrace Center, neighborhood 25 commercial, you could build 0.4 commercial after the last Comprehensive Plan we put in mixed-use so 26
you could build 0.5 residential. It’s near El Camino you get a bonus, 0.5, ..5. How does it turn out to be 27
over 1.0 office alone? Regional office, and as we know from Monday night to a single big client? And 28
therefore and what was the land use designation changed to when they finally figured it out and it came 29
to the Council? Oh, mixed-use. Why? Because they tossed in a few Below Market Rate (BMR), but you 30
had mixed-use anyway to put in there so the whole scenario is crazy. 31
32
Now what’s the problem here? A big part of it is that Palo Alto does not follow its Comprehensive Plan in 33
many cases, especially in PC’s and it doesn’t have to. We’re a charter city; we don’t have to follow it. 34
Now Director Gitelman has talked about following the Comprehensive Plan. We need to ensure that that 35 happens. There needs to be a very simple ordinance that can be put in by the Council that the 36 Comprehensive Plan and the zoning that follows it will be consistent. And PC zoning is part of the zoning 37 code, it is an ordinance. No PC should come before you unless it is consistent with the Comprehensive 38 Plan. 395 Page Mill Road, what was that doing in there? The property had already been rezoned to 39
research and office, which is a research park designation. Then they come in and want to triple the 40
office space? What was the land use designation going to be there? The Area Plan for California Avenue 41
Area had to be finished first. It was completely premature. Put that note, put that ordinance in right 42
now. You’ll calm this community tremendously because no project would be able to go forward unless it 43
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And believe me it’s a pretty hard and fast way to go because 44
any good attorney would be able to have gotten Alma Plaza or JJ&F’s College Terrace Center thrown out 45
if they took it to court. They are not consistent. Thank you. 46
47
Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Phyllis Cassel to be followed by Robert Moss. 48
49
Phyllis Cassel: I’m not that tall. I’m Phyllis Cassel. I live at 621 Wellsbury Way. And I am a former 50 Planning Commissioner and was Commissioner for about 13 years, which means I saw about 26 PC zones 51 in the time I was there because the average number of PC zones that are approved, not seen, but seen 52 are about two a year. And that’s been pretty consistent. What I did last winter was sit down across the 53 street and start going through all the PC zones. And between what I could get online and what I could 54
get over there I did all of it, but life overtook me so I don’t have a nice, neat report to hand you 55
unfortunately. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 5
PC zones have changed over time and the first thing to note is that there actually were 125 PC zones 1
approved, but that’s because 20 of those were amended PC zones because once a PC zone it’s always a 2
PC zone. And if you want to change the use, even the use on that PC site you have to come back and 3
get an amendment to your PC zone. So about 20 of them, roughly I don’t have, if I say an exact number 4
someone will go count them and get a slightly different one, were actually PC zones that were then 5
amended either to a different use or to a different size. Four of those PC zones were actually changed 6
back to a standard zone, which means that today we have approximately 100 as they told you active PC 7 zones. So the number they’re using is correct, it’s just that we changed these every so often because 8 you can’t do anything. You can’t add more than a minimal number of square feet to your PC zones 9 without coming back in for a complete PC amendment. 10 11
So I’ve seen a lot of them. They started out as very small. We have a PC zone as small as one house up 12
in the hills. When what they needed to do with this, I only have three minutes so I want to write the rest 13
of it down. We need a number of things. I don’t want to see you change I’m going to lose myself here… 14
we need to continue to have a PC zone. You may want to put a maximum size on your PC zone, but not 15
a minimum size. It may be used with smaller projects. I don’t want to see you end up with PC zones 16
that can be bought. I want to buy my PC zone and have this zone because I can buy a police station. 17
Boy is that tempting. We can’t afford a police station and we need it and no one wants to pay for it. So 18
that isn’t fair, but we do need PC zones because they’ve been used very creatively. When we didn’t have 19
a zone, zoning changes take forever in Palo Alto. Anything takes forever if it goes to City Council. So we 20
have a zone, mixed-use zone, but we didn’t have a mixed-use zone we had a design guideline that said 21
we wanted mixed uses on El Camino. So (interrupted) 22 23 Chair Michael: If you need more time you can continue. 24 25 Ms. Cassel: Well, I won’t take too long because I dictated six pages in a half an hour this morning and 26
that doesn’t work. So the PC on El Camino in this case was a mixed-use zone and we were using it 27
because we had design guidelines that said we were supposed to be putting in mixed-use zones and we 28
wanted mixed-use zones. These had been, design guidelines had been done by the ARB and reviewed 29
by City Council, but we didn’t have a zone for it. So for a while we were putting in mixed-use PC’s, but 30
we didn’t need to continue to put in mixed-use PC’s because we changed the zone, but the zone is bigger 31
than a single site. 32
33
We’ve used these for BMR units. We used 10 of these are two unit condominiums that are located in 34
developments that are on the old school sites when they put up single family units they wanted to put in 35 a two unit BMR condominium. We don’t have any zone that allows for that. We allow for two units 36 together. You can own it and rent one or in some areas with another zone you can actually have two 37 rentals, but you can’t have a condominium. That’s not in the zone. So sometimes we just can’t think 38 ahead of time for the creative uses that are needed. So a PUD or a large zone that needs an overall area 39
plan is one thing and shouldn’t be done as a PC, that’s true, but smaller units and smaller sizes often 40
need to be done that way because we cannot anticipate tomorrow what new technologies and new ideas 41
come before us. I’ll put some of the rest of it in writing because it’s not fair for me to take too much 42
time. Thank you. 43
44
Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Robert Moss to be followed by Mark Weiss. 45
46
Robert Moss: Thank you Chair Michael and Commissioners. As you know I’ve been complaining about 47
the fallacies of PC zoning for decades. They are a real problem and let me mention a few things that the 48
staff report doesn’t cover. One of the intentions of zoning and land use is so that everybody, both the 49
people who live on the site and the people who are going by and the people who are considering 50 development know what is there and what is allowed. PC zoning eliminates that. It’s a wildcard zone. 51 So you may have something zoned R1 or RM30 or CC and somebody comes along with a PC and 52 completely changes what’s on that site and what’s in the environment. Lousy idea. 53 54
So let me address some of the points that staff made of the issues. First, I’ll talk about an economic 55
analysis. As you know on a number of PC’s I have come in with that. I’ve given figures on what the 56
City of Palo Alto Page 6
benefit was to the developer and the benefit is to the community. And inevitably the developer is 10 to 1
20 times more rewarded than the community. So there you should do two things, you should quantify 2
both the public and private benefits and you should limit the spread. Now I don’t know what that limit 3
number should be whether it’s 5 times, 10 times, 2 times, but you should pick a reasonable number and 4
that’s the limit so that it doesn’t incentivize people looking at PC zoning because they can upzone so 5
much. 6
7 Where should PC zoning go? Well, I can give you some zones where it absolutely should not go. Prohibit 8 it from RE, R1, R2, you might want to consider only allowing it another way of doing it in say GM, CC, 9 and CS, not CN because that’s not what CN zone was created for. Since I created it I know what it’s for. 10 11
What kind of benefits? Well, let me give an example… oh, and then there’s the other how do you 12
enforce it? I’ll give you two examples. On Page 33, 2800 West Bayshore, PC 1889, the benefit for that 13
was a playground for the community and after about 10 or 15 years the playground got bad and they 14
took it out. And they were never required to replace it and they were never required to pay any fees. So 15
there’s if you insist on something being done you have to insist that it is done. Second, how do you 16
quantify public benefit? What’s adequate? Page 34 near the top, 630 Lytton, the public benefit for that 17
PC was a $35,000 traffic study. So you know how much that was worth. We have to have not just an 18
enforcement tool, but actual enforcement. I could give you dozens of examples of PC’s which are 19
violated today and have never ever been enforced. We have never penalized anybody for violating a PC. 20
How can they lose? 21
22 Finally, how do we evaluate a request? Let me suggest this, you put a limit on the increase of 23 development per site. For example, you cannot reduce the side setbacks by more than say 50 percent, 24 the rear and front setbacks by more than 50 percent or 25 percent, the height by more than 5 or 10 feet, 25 the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) by more than 25 percent. So everybody knows what the parameters are. If 26
you put that down and say no PC can exceed the existing zoning by these amounts, everybody’s playing 27
the same game and it’ll make it a lot easier on both you and the Council. 28
29
Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Mark Weiss to be followed by Herb Borock. 30
31
Mark Weiss: Mark Weiss, 1788 Oak Creek Drive. One, commercial real estate developers have too much 32
say and sway; leadership, Council, Commissioners, and staff should listen to residents first. Two, 33
Planned Community “PC” zoning is the most concentrated form of abuse of the system in recent years 34
and should be amended, enforced, or outlawed. Three, the 27 University project Arrillaga Office Towers 35 should, Arrillaga Office Towers should be vigorously opposed by residentialists as part of taking back the 36 town from these powerful oligarchical special interests. 37 38 Very high on my list of things to do as part of my campaign is to bone up on all things PC zoning, 39
Planned Community, which seems more and more people are identifying as a source of the bulk of abuse 40
that people sense about losing control of the community to developers. PC zoning seems like a mulligan 41
in golf terms, something that lets people start over or ignore the rules. It’s like a get out of jail free card 42
as they would say in Monopoly the board game. Fred Balin’s five part series says with a link, says among 43
other things that Karen Holman and Greg Scharff ran in 2009 on a promise to reform PC zoning. I would 44
say that Karen has been tougher on projects than Greg has. Kudos to Fred Balin for putting so much 45
thought and hard work into this. The series focuses on Alma Plaza project as a case study and also links 46
to a similar article recently by Bob Moss on transparency. I wrote both of those posts in October of 2012. 47
I was running for City Council. I did no other campaigning virtually and I spent no money on my 48
campaign, but it got 6,000 votes. 6,000 votes. People from fall 22 were already complaining about PC 49
zoning, keying in… that it’s a key problem. I think the referendum on Maybell was as much a referendum 50 on PC zoning as on the project itself. PC zoning needs to go. 51 52 Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Herb Borock to be followed by our last speaker, Pat Sausedo, and 53 I’m sorry if I butchered your name. 54
Herb Borock: Good Evening Chair Michael and Commissioners. At the beginning of the meeting the Chair 55
referred to some questions and framework, which seem to be read from some written communication 56
City of Palo Alto Page 7
that the Commissioners and the staff had received and this has been something that has happened in the 1
past. So if there’s anything that you have copies of that should be available at the meeting (interrupted) 2
3
Chair Michael: If I can interrupt on that point? I wrote those questions on my home computer this 4
afternoon and you heard them at the same time that everybody else heard them for the first time. 5
6
Mr. Borock: Ok, thank you. But to the extent that there is any such communication such as the Council 7 Members e-mails to the Director and Jim Baer that’s clearly something that’s related to the agenda item 8 and should also be available. 9 10 I believe that the PC zone district should be eliminated from the zoning code except for the language 11
that’s needed for the existing PC zones such as minor amendments to them and enforcement and 12
inspections. What we can do for and have done for special cases that don’t fit within our general zone 13
districts is we’ve had several different things. For example, Chapter 18.60 of the code or the Alternative 14
Development Standards for Stanford Lands. We felt it was necessary to create three additional zoning 15
overlays that could be used. We had the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan that had 16
an alternative multi-family designation, detached houses on smaller lots, and a residential transition zone, 17
which by the way the last one was able to create 100 percent affordable housing without a PC zone. And 18
for the Stanford Hospital we essentially created new zoning. 19
20
One of the things that has been of concern is how do we create 100 percent affordable housing projects? 21
One possibility would have been through special language that was implementing the State Housing 22 Density Bonus Law, but the Council chose not to do that. However, the Regional Housing Mandate 23 Committee’s draft of programs includes a Program H2.1.6 to consider density bonuses under concessions 24 including allow greater concessions for 100 percent affordable housing development. 25 26
Now why do developers want PC? They purchase a property for a price that’s negotiated that will give 27
them a fair return on their investment based upon the current zoning and then they apply for a PC zone 28
to get a higher return on investment. What do the residents get out of that? Very little if anything. 29
30
I was disappointed that Bob Moss didn’t follow through on his original proposal to have a ballot initiative 31
on this November’s election on the PC zone district. I believe it was a good idea to hear what the 32
candidates would have said for, about initiative to eliminate the PC zone district. The details that you’ll 33
be talking about from the staff report are not of interest to me because you either want to eliminate the 34
PC zone district or you do not. Thank you. 35 36 Vice-Chair Keller: And our final speaker is Pat Sausedo. 37 38 Pat Sausedo: Good evening Chair and Commissioner, I’m Pat Sausedo representing the Building Industry 39
Association this evening. There are just a couple of points that I’d like to make on behalf of the building 40
industry recognizing that you’re struggling with your PC zoning at this point in time. We do believe that it 41
will be important that if Palo Alto determines that the existing PC zoning doesn’t work for most future 42
housing projects it will be necessary to demonstrate how your alternative to PC zoning will facilitate 43
adequate densities and height in future development projects to implement your goals and objectives for 44
housing as contained in your Comprehensive Plan and your Draft Housing Element that you have within 45
the City of Palo Alto. We also believe as you go through this process it would be a good tool and would 46
like to see a first step in demonstrating how Palo Alto’s base zoning works and providing a delineation of 47
how many units have been permitted under Palo Alto’s base zoning over the past three to five years. 48
And we think those, that would be a really good tool as you continue in this process of analyzing your PC 49
zoning and figuring out what you ultimately will be recommending to your Council. We appreciate and 50 we will be continuing in this effort with you on the PC zoning. Thank you. 51 52 Chair Michael: So I’d like to thank the members of the public this evening who made very thoughtful and 53 very well informed comments that will help us in the discussion. So let’s close the public hearing for now, 54
perhaps in part two if any other members of the public arrive or members of the public who are already 55
here want to submit another speaker card we can provide that opportunity. So let’s come back to the 56
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Commission and between now and as close to 7:00 as we can make it let’s give everybody a chance to 1
ask any questions for staff or about the report, about the topic or if you have a particular idea that you 2
want to suggest that should be part of our discussion when we reconvene let’s have at it. So who would 3
like to go first? Commissioner Alcheck. 4
5
Commissioner Alcheck: Alright so I’ll kick us off here. And that’s it. No. Thanks for the staff report. I 6
had not read the report, the flexibility versus certainty discussion paper before. And I found that to be 7 really tremendous because it didn’t really take a position on what we should be doing, but rather sort of 8 presented the benefits and costs of the various options we have here in our approach to nonconforming 9 development or redevelopment. You know you’ll often hear Palo Altoans reverently refer to our Comp 10 Plan as our Bible. It’s been said on this Commission before. It’s our driving document and it’s the basis 11
by which we evaluate nearly every proposal brought before us. The irony is you’ll hear every person 12
involved in this process from the Council to the staff to Commissioners to residents acknowledge that the 13
document is antiquated, beyond its expiration date, and fails to meet the needs of our current City. And 14
so we’re constantly, I shouldn’t say constantly, we have been constantly engaged in its update since I 15
joined the Commission and that fact I think creates this tension between the PC zone’s flexibility and its 16
lack of consistency in its execution with respect to our Comp Plan. So in that regard the flexibility that PC 17
zoning allows alleviates this problem that maybe our Comp Plan is just a little behind our current needs. 18
19
In its place though the ambiguity specifically of the substantive public benefit requirement I think creates 20
a much greater challenge. In fact that in my opinion that is the greatest challenge in the equitable 21
implementation of the PC zone. You know the staff report acknowledged this idea of requiring it to be in 22 certain areas of the City as opposed to having no specific zone and I wondered whether there was 23 certain projects that would not have occurred because of that. I mean are we really trying to eliminate 24 certain, is that really a problem? 25 26
You know we heard… we also, the staff report also suggested limiting the PC zone to a certain size. I’ll 27
finish here. A certain size project and we heard from one speaker tonight with 13 years of past 28
Commission experience that that would be a mistake and I agree. The alternative and I’m referring to 29
Jim Baer’s suggestion, which would be that when proposals exceed a certain size think 27 University that 30
those sorts of projects that it would be more prudent for those sorts of projects to have to go through a 31
specific plan or development agreement process that seems actually far more, far more effective. So I’ll 32
stop there for now, but. 33
34
Chair Michael: Commissioner Rosenblum. 35 36 Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you and I also want to thank you for the work on the staff report. It’s 37 quite, it’s quite comprehensive. Having said that there I think I’m going to use my three minutes mostly 38 to try to lay down the questions that I found would be helpful in trying to come to some decisions on this 39
because I’m pretty sympathetic to many of the speakers particularly that PC zoning is fundamentally out 40
of alignment with a lot of the purpose of zoning. That if that, if the purpose of zoning is to allow 41
predictability in certain areas then the potential of a wildcard at any time undermines that. So I think it 42
should be used with great discretion and in fact it hasn’t been used that often in the last, since 2000. It’s 43
something like less than two projects a year as you’ve noted. In the last 5 years it’s been something like 44
one project a year. 45
46
So the questions I would have are for just some baselines, which is what percentage of total units 47
approved have been under a PC zoning? And so that means the denominator and numerator are PC 48
zoning and total units that are non PC. I’d like to know how much is this that we’re actually talking 49
about? I’d like to know what proportion of them are above one acre and what proportion of them are 50 below one acre? Again to the alternative viewpoints I would be interested to hear why a minimum and 51 not a maximum? I had thought that having a certain min threshold, actually set a maximum not a 52 minimum, that a certain min threshold made sense that there are some bigger projects that come up that 53 just don’t fit into any zoning. I understand that that will be the case, but I would like to understand the 54
distribution of the PC projects. 55
56
City of Palo Alto Page 9
And then finally I’d like to know the distribution and I’m not sure if this is easy, but it would be really 1
helpful of category one. So in the three step process of determining whether or not a project qualifies, 2
which is: first it doesn’t fit within current zoning restrictions, second there’s tangible public benefit, and 3
third it’s in line with the Comp Plan. What is the trigger for number one? What was the distribution of 4
the trigger? Why did it not fit specifically? Because I’d like to see we are undergoing a fairly major 5
process of reviewing many City policies. If there are some common triggers then that should be put into 6
zoning. This should be a very exceptional process and if it consistently comes up then that’s something 7 to consider whether or not that should just be part of the zoning code recognizing that it’s hard to 8 change zoning and the whole purpose of this is to have a flexible alternative. But if it’s the same trigger 9 that occurs more frequently I’d like to know what that is. 10 11
Finally, I would like to see a retrospective. I don’t know if someone has done this of the projects that are 12
alive how many of them are deemed successful by the measurement on which they were evaluated and 13
approved? So when they’re brought… just 20 more seconds this will be fairly easy. When they’re 14
brought there’s some justification that says this will be, this will provide great housing alternatives for this 15
area and a vibrant source of groceries for the residents of this area, etcetera. To what extent have we 16
gone retrospectively and said “Ok, these would be considered runaway success. Neighbors all agree 17
now.”? I know that’s fairly qualitative, but I think it would be helpful to say do these things ultimately 18
turn into benefits for the area or do they become albatrosses for the area? That’s it for me. 19
20
Director Gitelman: Chair Michael if I could just ask a quick follow up? I missed the first data request. 21
Was it about number of housing units? 22 23 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. Total units under PC divided by total units approved over the same 24 time period. 25 26
Director Gitelman: Ok. I’m just, so the Commission’s aware we’re trying to capture some of these notes 27
on the screen so that it can benefit your later discussion. We’ll try our best to keep up and maybe we’ll 28
catch up during the break too. 29
30
Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you. 31
32
Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 33
34
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so I don’t have that many new comments per se, but I will say that I agree 35 with Commissioner Alcheck’s comment about the Comp Plan. I’ve been on the Commission for a while 36 now and the Comp Plan is still being worked on and I don’t think anyone can claim that the current 37 approved Comp Plan is state of the art or reflective of what the community thinks today, what they need 38 today. So with that and I think unfortunately I don’t know if it’s realistic to expect that the Comp Plan 39
will be real time, will always be updated. I mean that’s the ideal thing where we have this Comp Plan 40
that’s truly reflective of what the community needs and wants all the time I think is probably not realistic. 41
I’d love to hear feedback from staff if they know of cities where Comp Plans are always updated 42
regularly. And because of that and I think because of the nature of what’s happening in terms of there’s 43
certain cycles, business cycles, there are certain opportunities that come to the fore and you know it’s 44
hard for us to… we can zone for something, we could plan for something, but as a City we don’t build it 45
ourselves. We don’t finance it. We don’t develop it ourselves. And so it’s not within our power to say 46
when and how do things take shape. And so some of these things are truly opportunities for us to see 47
whether it could be crafted to actually be an overall net positive for the community. And so I think 48
unfortunately inherently unless there’s a way to really keep the Comp Plan truly updated and reflective as 49
to what the community needs and wants I think it’s inherent that we’re going to need something like a 50 PC whether we call it a PC or not. So I think that’s my first point. 51 52 I think the second one is really about equitable implementation. And I think that’s actually one of the 53 core issues right now. Some of them are easy, which is like if the developer promises a public benefit 54
there should be the enforcement of that public benefit. There should be the financing from the 55
developer of the enforcement so I think that’s a no brainer. I think those are some really easy, easy PC 56
City of Palo Alto Page 10
reform that we can do and we should do and we should do quickly because I think that, that removes a 1
lot of the reasons why we shouldn’t do a PC. And then that I think those are the easy ones. 2
3
I think really the harder question really is like how much of a public benefit is a public benefit? And that’s 4
something we struggle on because it’s by nature these are exceptions so there’s not a formula we could 5
plug in and say oh, this is sufficient for the increase in FAR or site coverage or whatever it might be. And 6
so I think that’s one that we have to struggle on and I think unfortunately that’s probably the work of this 7 body, the City Council, the ARB, for us to decide because these are going to be exceptions. I don’t think 8 there’s going to be a formula we could ever truly develop. I think that’s just not realistic. It’s going to be 9 an exception. 10 11
So just to summarize I think something like PC’s will always have to be, we’ll still have to have it. But I 12
think what we should do and do quickly is fix some of the basic problems with the PC like enforcement 13
and financing of the enforcements. 14
15
Chair Michael: Commissioner Gardias. 16
17
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Chair. So just addressing this from the general perspective and this is 18
the first time I speak about this I think that there one of the reasons behind is that the zoning was 19
established we entered the age of transparency and then on both sides on the developer side and on the 20
public side it’s increasing because of various factors. But then when you take this into account you may 21
need to understand that developer needs to have, needs transparency to establish his perspective on the 22 project. I would like to have the clarity of the requirements, how much he can build and what’s the 23 threshold for his benefits. And I think that in the e-mail that was or in the letter that was provided by 24 Jim Baer before the meeting some of this aspects are clearly defined so from the process perspective 25 that’s an opportunity to give the developer benefit of early requirements as opposed to late requirements 26
that pretty much would cost him a lot, right? And then of course build into the zoning requirements as 27
much of the definitions so he will know where he stands. 28
29
From the public perspective that’s on the opposite side of course. Public would like to have transparency 30
of the process as well, right? So public would like to know early and then also I think that we were 31
beaten with some unexpected results of negotiations that maybe were not disclosed promptly to the 32
public and then public was taken by surprise so pretty much we should build into the process 33
transparency and clarity for the public purpose so they can come to the meetings and then have their say 34
on the benefits. And then of course they would like, there would need to be also established cap from 35 the perspective of public as much as certain limits should be known to the developers certainly it should 36 be known to the public. So if you just see those two sides of the picture that may give you some 37 guidelines for drafting some corrections to the existing PC zone. Thank you. 38 39
Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 40
41
Commissioner King: Before you start my clock can you explain the process we’re using tonight? We’re 42
doing three minutes each now and then do we have a subsequent round or is this everything we want to 43
discuss, all our comments are three minutes and then we’re done for tonight? 44
45
Chair Michael: No, we’re just beginning. In a few minutes we’re going to start the discussion on the 46
Curtner Avenue project, but we’re just going to let you and Vice-Chair Keller make brief comments or 47
questions about the staff report so that when we come back after the Curtner project then we’ll have a 48
completely open discussion and we can go as long as we want. 49
50 Commissioner King: Got it. Ok, thanks. Ok, then I’ll just I’ll limit to a couple general comments. So the 51 simple, in my mind the simple answer is to just say well, right now in general people aren’t very happy 52 with the PC and so let’s eliminate it. But it sounds like and in my personal opinion is some of the recent 53 projects that during my paying attention and then being on the Council or on the Commission were ones 54
that I felt were the College Terrace and the Lytton Gateway were more in the buying, paying for zoning 55
where they got large blocks of office space well above and beyond the native zoning in those on those 56
City of Palo Alto Page 11
sites and so those I think, well I don’t think, I don’t feel as a citizen that we were well served by those PC 1
projects. And in fact with the Lytton Gateway then it was interesting because then the benefits of the 2
developer kind of measured those and said oh, per square foot of developer benefit we paid X in 3
benefits. And they must have been very happy because then they came back and actually used that in a 4
subsequent project to say, hey we’re absolutely happy to pay this much in benefits per square foot we 5
get. So I would take that as an indicator we didn’t get a great deal if you’re trying to measure it in did 6
we get a great deal. 7 8 So, but on the other hand it sounds like and I was very happy to have former Commissioner Cassel came 9 and spoke to us with her the side that well this is a flexible, a tool that can help site specific problem 10 solving for sites that normally wouldn’t, that might not work and that there were… it was a positive tool. 11
So I would like to see Commissioner Rosenblum asked for data supporting what’s happened in the past. 12
I’d also like to hear the narratives in the form of case studies from those who have institutional memory 13
such as Phyllis and developers that have been in the process how it worked for them, how the former 14
Commissioners and those involved, Council Members, how they felt that it worked and did serve the 15
community. So I’ll finish on that for right now. Thanks. 16
17
Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 18
19
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So I appreciate the staff especially numbering the pages of the large 20
document with all these different sections. That was a great benefit. I’d like to see that. And thank you 21
to former Commissioner in terms of mentioning that there was precedent for 13 years on the 22 Commission. 23 24 In terms of what data might be useful to have the list not only show amendments but also show the 25 public benefits that were received, any enforcement actions that took place, and maybe some 26
commentary of that about analysis of that if there’s any reasonable thing to say. Also a project 27
description and how it exceeded zoning. That seems to be useful for our analysis of there. There was a 28
in terms of the Housing Density Bonus Law discussion there was a suggestion by Commissioner King that 29
we do instead of pro formas or kind of analysis that we actually do fair market value. And maybe fair 30
market value is the way to do a PC. You take the fair market value of what could be built under current 31
zoning, you take the fair market value of what’s being proposed, the difference is the benefit to the 32
developer. That’s compared to the cost of building that which you have to calculate someway and the 33
cost of public benefit and then they should be somewhat commensurate. 34
35 There’s a discussion about the idea of what the public benefit should be, but I think that the interesting 36 thing is what are the proposed in terms of concessions? There should be some limits or menu of what 37 the concessions are increased, what is the increase in zoning that one could allow through this? And I 38 think that that might do that. Also the issue is that I think that to the extent that we do have PC’s they 39
should be rare and perhaps even an automatic vote of the people once they’re approved to make sure 40
that the people support this change in zoning. 41
42
One of the things that’s a problem that we currently have with PC process is that the PTC makes 43
recommendations of the project, on the project when the project is initiated, but that goes nowhere. 44
There’s no tracking of it. So we should in the process of initiating the PC to the extent that we continue 45
to do that, we should do that through making recommendations that get tracked throughout the process 46
and are then followed up by the ARB and then when it comes back to the Planning Commission we say 47
either these recommendations are followed or not and if they’re not followed why not? But right now for 48
example when the Maybell PC came to us there was a, there would have been a majority on the 49
Commission to recommend that there be fewer and smaller market rate housing units particularly on 50 Maybell and what came back did not reflect that. So I’ll leave my comments for later. Thank you. 51 52 Chair Michael: So I think my colleagues on the Commission made excellent points and hopefully this gives 53 us a lot to work on in the second part. I think that the work that staff has done particularly with the 54
beginning to make a log of the PC projects on Page 33 of the staff report is really helpful. And I think 55
that some of my colleagues have suggested additional information that could be used to expand the 56
City of Palo Alto Page 12
usefulness and value of this if you showed each what type of project, whether it’s commercial, residential 1
or mixed-use some description of what the project is so if people can understand what it’s referring to if 2
there’s a distinct description of the public benefit that would be good. If there’s been any enforcement 3
issue or not and I think this qualitative notion of whether or not the objectives of the project were 4
achieved may be subjective or controversial, but I think if you can figure out some way of reflecting if 5
there was further inquiry would be worthwhile. That would be useful. 6
7 On the PowerPoint Page 3 if you can maybe switch and put that up? This is the PC zoning application 8 process. And in the staff report it suggests that there may be sort of a first action by Council, which isn’t 9 shown in this process. And I think this is what this slide is just what the statute or the ordinance says, 10 but it’s not what happens. And I think one of the issues in governance in Palo Alto which is of concern to 11
the community this is an election year is are we walking the walk and talking the talk and are we doing 12
what we’re supposed to be doing the way we’re supposed to be doing it? So I think to me there’s an 13
issue of if the nature of the preliminary review by Council which may take place in a study session on the 14
agenda of a Council meeting and may actually be sort of preceded by individual meetings of the applicant 15
with members of Council, which then the Council Members may disclose the fact of such meetings, but 16
frankly I think that the policy that the Council follows with respect to such ex parte communications 17
leaves me very dissatisfied that there is never in my brief experience of Council Meetings a real disclosure 18
of what was actually discussed. But developers seem to be quite eager to always have these meetings; 19
therefore, they must be getting some value from them and introducing bias into the process. And so I 20
think that having this process if a PC is to be initiated by Council the ordinance should be amended to say 21
that Council initiates PC’s. If the ordinance says that the Planning Commission initiates PC, the Planning 22 Commission should uphold its responsibilities and that would be important to clarify. 23 24 And with that my time’s up. So let’s, let’s take just a quick five minute break and regroup and then when 25 we come back we’ll go to the hearing on 405 Curtner and so that will be at about 7:15. 26
Chair Michael: So how’s the Information Technology (IT) team doing? Have your… is the plan working? 27
28
Hillary Gitelman, Director: Chair Michael if I could just introduce this idea of ours was to try and capture 29
the thoughts of the Commissioners in that first round of questions, get them on the screen so we could 30
use them to guide us and prioritize a conversation. We didn’t get a comprehensive list up there and we 31
weren’t able to use the Curtner break to make it comprehensive because we only had one piece of 32
equipment. So I’m not sure this idea’s going to work, but we’ll leave that up there and we’ll continue to 33
fiddle with it. If it’s helpful, wonderful; if it isn’t this is just one of those experiments that we tried that 34
didn’t quite do the trick. 35 36 Chair Michael: Ok, well let’s… we’re reconvening the meeting. And what we had originally intended was 37 to have a very interactive discussion about a very important topic and to use the first segment to 38 introduce some of the concepts that we think should be examined in more detail. And in the spirit of 39
innovation instead of giving long segments of time for Commissioners to really dig into something in 40
great depth or ask a number of questions and what have you thinking that if we have shorter blocks of 41
time then we can go back and forth more, have questions for staff, and my intention is to have 42
effectively no limit on how many times you can involve yourself in the discussion if you think you have 43
something to add to the discussion. 44
45
So where we were, was we had an excellent staff report, we had some informed comments from 46
members of the public, we had a round of questions, comments, ideas. So let’s continue that. I had 47
tried to just for my own edification sort of organize the questions that were in the staff report, which the 48
staff was hoping that we would sort of address directly and that of course would be a good use of our 49
time. Those are on Page 3 of the report and Page 16 of the report, but I think my exercise I went 50 through was intended to liberate our thinking that if there are other questions that should be asked we 51 should ask and answer whatever questions that we deem to be truly relevant. So with that let me turn to 52 the Commission and open the discussion on Planned Community (PC) zoning reform. And let’s go three 53 minutes and actually Arthur, the Vice-Chair Keller you spoke last and I know that you had organized a list 54
of comments that you wanted to investigate and you had only made it part way through. Do you want to 55
just start and? 56
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Vice-Chair Keller: Sure that’s fine. If that’s ok? 1
2
Chair Michael: Yeah, that’s fine. Yeah. 3
4
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. I agree with the suggestions that have been made about greater use of 5
specific plans or some cities call it precise plans as a way of reducing the need for PC’s. One thing that 6
we can consider is the idea that there’s no real need for double dipping. In other words you don’t need 7 to have the combination of Bonus Density Housing Law with PC’s because the benefits of the Bonus 8 Density Housing Law could be folded in to what is in a PC so that, in terms of that. And the baseline 9 that’s considered for the PC could be the baseline including the Housing Density Bonus Law so that 10 handles that. I think we might think about more context specific or context sensitive zoning regulations. 11
We have already some of that in terms of height limits, but for example some of the issues for example 12
on El Camino Real and the adjacency issues in terms of what’s behind it might affect the kind of zoning 13
that you have and what you can… in more fine detail of that. 14
15
Some people have talked about the idea of what public benefits menu should be. I’d like to talk for a 16
moment about what public benefits don’t include and I actually am frustrated and annoyed when PC’s 17
claim these as public benefits or list them among the public benefits because they’re not. Impact fees 18
including increased impact fees for doing the development. Those are not public benefits. Mitigations for 19
impacts such as the cost of transit passes that are used to mitigate the increased traffic. Those are not, 20
those are impact fees not public benefits. Required amendencies such as art, those are not public 21
benefits. Required setbacks, those are not public benefits. Future taxes, such as transient occupancy tax 22 and utilities users tax, those are not public benefits. The property taxes people will pay, those are not 23 public benefits. And urban design features and quality and character of project, etcetera that are mainly 24 of benefit to the project or is more of benefit to the project than to the public, those are not public 25 benefits either. And furthermore mitigations should last for the life of the project, not just for 10 or 15 26
years. If the project is going to be there 50 years the mitigations need to be there 50 years or however 27
long the project lasts. 28
29
I think that if there’s a waiver of fees that should be subtracted from the public benefits proposed 30
because those are negative public benefits if you will. And I think most importantly we need to say no 31
early. We need to say what we want and if we say no we don’t want that I think we could help the Palo 32
Alto Process. Palo Alto Process is made worse when the projects move all the way to the City Council 33
because not enough input comes to the Commission and comes in the early stage and then people’s 34
anger is raised up when it comes to the Council after a lot of money has been spent by the developer and 35 time has been moved on and then people start raising objections and that’s a problem. So we need to 36 make sure, we need to try to front load the objections as much as possible and say no early. 37 38 Finally one last thing is that people talked about enforcement. Well enforcement makes sense if the 39
developer still owns the property. But if the developer builds a multi-family residential property sold off 40
to condo development and the developer is long gone and the public benefit disappears whom do you 41
penalize? Thank you. 42
43
Ms. Gitelman: Chair Michael? If I could make a suggestion it would be really great to get the rest of the 44
Commission’s thoughts on what should be on the menu versus what shouldn’t be on the menu taking the 45
cue from Vice-Chair Keller it might be one way to just kind of get to one of the central issues here if we 46
could hear that in this round of comments. Just a suggestion. 47
48
Chair Michael: Ok, I’m fine with that although if Commissioners have other burning things that they want 49
to get to I don’t want to restrict their thought process. But Commissioner Alcheck is one of the coauthors 50 of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) 2013 memo on public benefits. Maybe you can 51 focus right in on this concern. 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so the staff report highlighted some philosophical issues that are inherent in 54
this debate. I’d like to highlight some of them and add some of my own for us to reflect on during this 55
discussion. Should this exercise in PC reform result in a zoning ordinance that provides us with greater 56
City of Palo Alto Page 14
flexibility or greater predictability? That was one of the philosophical questions. Do we wish to 1
encourage preservation or redevelopment? Is it growth or atrophy that we seek? You know having 2
spent a great deal of time evaluating this PC process. I am very eager to see it reformed. In our 3
colleagues memo we articulated an alternative approach requiring a developer to pay a substantial 4
amount to a fund intended to alleviate a high priority problem facing the City. In this alternative we 5
eliminate the vague and ambiguous public benefit evaluation, which I think is the greatest challenge to 6
this whole process. And this evaluation was fundamentally flawed because the requirement assumed 7 that the developer would be in the best position to articulate a public benefit. So this idea of a menu as 8 some sort of opportunity for us to not put it in the developer’s court to come up with a public benefit I’m 9 suggesting let’s, this is not the community that you should be seeking that menu from. 10 11
The more and more I think about it, the more obvious it seems to me that our City’s leadership should be 12
articulating our City’s needs not one off developers and not Members of this Commission. Frankly we 13
devote a very small percentage of our time compared to our City Council Members. They seem to be the 14
most engaged, committed, dedicated members of our community. They seem to be in the best position 15
to identify what are our City’s needs. We elect these people to make many difficult decisions on our 16
behalf. Let’s empower them to identify what our City needs, but can’t afford. While they compile that 17
list the PTC and staff could work together to create a formula to determine the payment required of the 18
developer in exchange for this flexibility. 19
20
And while we’re at it, let’s change the name of this zoning process as well. The PC zone is tarnished. Of 21
the 100 plus projects 5 or so have made it a third rail politically and I’d like to emphasize something here. 22 This approach that I’m suggesting was first discussed in our colleagues memo. This accomplishes many 23 seemingly philosophically opposed tradeoffs. Follow me here, it provides predictability and flexibly. This 24 incredible memo by Dyett and Bhatia is entitled Predictability Versus Flexibility. This does both. It 25 provides predictability and it creates and it allows for flexibility. At the same time, I’m going to finish 26
right now, it allows for redevelopment but also funds preservation. We’ve got Commissioners here who 27
were on the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC). They know all too well what is not being 28
preserved. We would be encouraging redevelopment, allowing for it, and funding preservation. We 29
would be accommodating growth and at the same time this approach would stymie atrophy. I think that 30
should be our goal. 31
32
I think that the notion that Mark Michael raised earlier about who should kick off the PTC process there’s 33
an inherent tension here on who is in the best position to evaluate public benefit and my argument would 34
be City Council Members should just give us a list. We’ll come up with the formula and maybe we can 35 accomplish a lot of different philosophical tradeoffs. 36 37 Chair Michael: Ok, Commissioner Rosenblum. 38 39
Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you. I want to return to some of the questions I asked earlier and see 40
if you have quick answers to any of them. The first and if you just don’t have it then just we’ll move on. 41
What is the percentage of projects… are we talking about five percent of units or area approved in the 42
last say 5 years or 10 years? Are we talking about 2 percent, 10 percent? 43
44
Ms. Gitelman: We’re going to have to get back to you on that. 45
46
Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, but order of magnitude do you have any? No. Ok. I think that would be 47
really useful to put this in perspective since we’re talking about atrophy or stymieing. I agree that the 48
idea of having flexible process is really important, but what I want to know is this a big part of what we 49
do or a smaller part of what we do? 50 51 The second is around the triggers. I’d love to know what the main trigger is that forces something into a 52 PC project. So for example, in the staff report you append I thought this was really useful an actual PC 53 application. And it wasn’t clear to me in the application maybe I just didn’t read it thoroughly enough 54
what the specific trigger was that said this project cannot be approved within the current zoning. It was 55
City of Palo Alto Page 15
very clear on what the public benefits were, the calculation of public benefit and that was again very 1
useful. What are the main triggers that make these projects not fit in current zoning? 2
3
Ms. Gitelman: We’ll have to analyze I think maybe the way to do that is just come up with a short list of 4
possible answers to that question (interrupted) 5
6
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. 7 8 Ms. Gitelman: Density, use (interrupted) 9 10 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, is it mixed-use? Is it more units than otherwise and if it’s more units 11
then that raises a big question to me. Because the zoning is specifically there to restrict the number of 12
units and there are bonuses for Below Market Rate (BMR), there are things that we’ve thought of from a 13
public policy perspective that would allow us to violate the zoning restrictions that are already 14
contemplated. So I would love to know what is it that’s violating these and if so what does that say 15
about our zoning? Do we want to address it through that? Is there another process that’s better? And 16
again, my view is this should be a really rare process. I think one per year seems pretty rare so it seems 17
to already be fairly rare, but if there’s some common threat among these then that would seem to be a 18
good candidate for addressing through some other means. 19
20
And finally, around the calculation I thought that Vice-Chair Keller had a very good idea. I’m not sure 21
how to do it exactly, but is the delta between the market rate with the zoning exception versus market 22 rate without zoning exception recognizing that there’s some… we talked about the Jewish Community 23 Center (JCC) as a big PC project. I don’t understand. There is no market rate for that without a PC 24 exception. So there’s no way to contemplate the difference between those two things, but in some cases 25 when there’s just a density difference there probably is an easier way to contemplate the difference in 26
economic value to the developer and then some proportion of that in quantifiable benefits. And then 27
finally I think this group does owe you an answer of what are those benefits that should count, what 28
shouldn’t we count, but I’ll give... I’ll stop talking now. 29
30
Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 31
32
Commissioner Tanaka: I was listening to the comments from the Vice-Chair, Commissioner Alcheck, and 33
others and I thought the idea that Commissioner Alcheck had of well let’s say the public benefits are only 34
come in the form of cash. And the Vice-Chair talked about well let’s figure out what is the value of public 35 benefit by looking at the market value versus and the market value without exceptions and the market 36 value with exceptions. And maybe that’s the simplest thing, right? Maybe we could turn it into make it 37 very concrete, turn it all into dollars and so it’s a bit of a radical idea because just about most public 38 benefits we see come in the form of a lot of what the Vice-Chair talked about: art projects, a bunch of 39
really random stuff which really is hard to quantify and people to some people it’s incredibly valuable and 40
to other people it’s incredibly unjust and perhaps dollar to dollar it is a great normalizer. And I think 41
about just in terms of this item as a whole and how we don’t all barter because we all hold different 42
values and money is kind of the great equalizer and maybe that’s their answer here, maybe that’s how 43
we kind of solve the PC process that we’ve been having here. So I’m not fully sold but I’ve been thinking 44
about that and I’ve also been thinking about well, what about enforcement? Well if the person is paying 45
the money you don’t have to worry about who do you enforce. Do you enforce it with the current, the 46
guy who developed it or the guy he sold it to? And in this case it would be the developer because he 47
financially gained and it’s not like he could pass a time bomb to the guy who borrowed from him. So it’s 48
actually quite an interesting idea and I don’t know if from staff if there’s any precedence in other 49
communities where there’s just there’s PC or exceptions whatever other communities call them they 50 basically equate in dollars and basically paid in dollars so it’s very clear, fairly transparent process. 51 52 I think where this part really becomes complicated is kind of what the previous speaker said, which is the 53 issue of course is sometimes there’s not an exception versus non-exception comparison or easy 54
comparison done. So then it becomes a little bit harder as to well what is, how much is this exception 55
worth? So that gets to be a little bit tough, but it’s probably more concrete then most of the other things 56
City of Palo Alto Page 16
we get like oh, we’re going to provide a tot lot here for 20 years or a painting on the building or whatever 1
it might be, which is incredibly hard to value and judge and say it’s fair or unfair. 2
3
Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 4
5
Commissioner King: Thank you. Regarding the, what should or shouldn’t be on the menu first off I’m 6
concerned that potentially that really supports the zoning for sale thing. What I’m, what I… to me the PC 7 in it should be used for projects where something just doesn’t quite fit as we are hearing back in the day 8 they were doing these projects, oh this they were on a school site couldn’t really make a project work, 9 but and I don’t know the specifics of this, but it sounded as if it was friend, community friendly and yet 10 made a project work for a developer because our zoning just didn’t support that. When I’m hearing this 11
menu thing oh, it sounds very much like a developer and many of the projects we’re seeing its, they were 12
really coming and saying what they want to do is we want to build more than the existing entitlements of 13
office space. And so how can we do that? And their process tends to be fishing for what can we do that 14
will allow us to build that extra or excessive relative to zoning space and so and if we’re saying oh, all you 15
have to do is go in this little pull down menu and say oh I’m going to kick in this completely unrelated 16
project, pulled out five things and I’m going to kick in $5 million and then I get to overbuild relative to 17
the existing zoning. I don’t see that that’s a process that I would ever support as a PC process. And 18
particularly in fact we got a letter from a developer today saying some of the things they included were 19
photovoltaic all electric building and I just unless we have a community discussion that says we think 20
having buildings with those attributes or features is a benefit to all of us that we’re going to pay for in the 21
form of the externalizing the overdevelopment relative to existing zoning I don’t, I wouldn’t want to see 22 that on a menu. Again, unless we have that community discussion we really feel that everyone agrees to 23 that, with that. 24 25 And then this is a big part of the philosophy around this the phrase “not otherwise attainable” and so 26
there’s this discussion of oh, the phrase was used we can’t afford a police building. Well, I think we can 27
afford it. We may choose not, the voters may choose not to afford it, but then are we going to say ok, 28
so voters won’t vote for this so what we’re going to now do is externalize the detriments of an oversized 29
project strictly because we want the money from that just as the massive 300,000 square foot one we 30
looked at or we were presented with earlier. We’re going to have these benefits just because people 31
won’t vote to it that’s not we can’t afford it that’s we choose people or voters are choosing not to afford 32
it. So I’m just very concerned about this interpretation of “not otherwise attainable.” That’s enough for 33
this round, thanks. 34
35 Chair Michael: Commissioner Gardias. 36 37 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Chair. So I already spoke about this subject so I would like to just 38 very briefly recap the principles on which the farther arguments of mine are based. So there are three of 39
them and I already mentioned them, but let me just repeat. The first one is transparency of the process. 40
That has to be clearly articulated in the zoning regulations and then steps needs to be updated to 41
accommodate the transparency. The second is the clarity of the benefits for the public and for the 42
developer. And the third is early requirements, knowledge of those early requirements. And once we 43
apply those principles I think it would allow us just to modify the zoning regulations and then satisfy lots 44
of criticism that we receive from the public and developers. 45
46
There is one item that is also missing from the PC zone regulation, which is pretty much some limit on 47
the deviation from the Comprehensive Plan. That needs to be articulated somehow. Is it going to be 48
quantified or is it going to be in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan? I don’t have the answer for this 49
yet, but there needs to be a clear answer for the developer so he knows that ok wherever he’s going to 50 propose PC rezoning then he can go up to this height or up to this Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or whatsoever, 51 whatever would be this benefit he needs to early know how much he can exceed this and then public 52 needs to know from our documents where the risks or deviations may pop up, that would allow the 53 public to know it would be California Avenue, University, or some packets of other areas of development. 54
Thank you. 55
56
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Chair Michael: I’ll take my turn before we go to the next round. I really appreciate the opportunity 1
tonight to talk about some of the issues that were addressed in the colleagues memo from 2013. On 2
Page 8 of the colleagues memo, which is Page 52 of the staff report there is a reference to what was 3
done in Santa Monica relative to, it wasn’t PC’s, but they had I think development agreements. And they 4
and this was kind of suggested to us by Senior Assistant City Attorney Cara Silver who had been in Santa 5
Monica and knew something about this that in some process in that community they actually established 6
some sense of priorities, which included trip reduction, traffic management, affordable workforce 7 housing, community physical improvements, social and cultural facilities or historic preservation. And 8 that was their list. And we could have something that would be our list that might be similar. I think this 9 is good thinking by Santa Monica and I think if that kind of context was respected then Palo Alto could do 10 something equivalent that would meet with our current needs and values and so forth. 11
12
One of the questions that came up early in the work that Eduardo Martinez and Commissioner Alcheck 13
and I worked on was just understanding to the extent that there is some ambiguity about public benefit 14
perhaps the development itself is beneficial that there’s some intrinsic benefit of the nature of this that 15
would not have been built if not for the development agreement or the PC. But if it’s not a benefit that is 16
in some objective way intrinsic to the nature of what’s being built then the benefit may be extrinsic and 17
this maybe just be payment of something into a fund or something that is separate and apart from the 18
project. And part of our research relied on some work done by an economics professor from Dartmouth 19
who advanced sort of the common sense notion that if you’re going to give somebody a benefit of X, but 20
you’re going to charge them something for that benefit of X it’s rational for them to go all the way up to 21
99.9 percent of X because you get something. So I think that one of the things where we’ve really fallen 22 down on is we’re very shy about extracting the full value for the public of the what’s conferred to the 23 private party. And I think that some rigor in terms of that negotiation, that appraisal, that estimation 24 that is easily doable. It’s done all the time in commercial transactions. It could easily be done in this sort 25 of a transaction. I see no reason why it shouldn’t be done and I would suggest that we should be selfish 26
in protecting the public and go all the way up to 99 percent of X or at least fifty-fifty. I mean not a small 27
fraction but a large fraction and that would particularly apply if it was an extrinsic benefit. 28
29
Then I think one of the areas where I’ve become frustrated and maybe even a bit cynical is how difficult 30
it is, I’m just going to go over, to actually update the Comprehensive Plan. How difficult it is to sort of 31
revise the Zoning Map. How difficult it is to do these guideline master planning issues. And I think 32
because it takes so long and is so difficult the way we do it to do these things that forces the City into ad 33
hoc consideration of projects that would otherwise be reasonable or legitimate. But to delay these 34
completely while we grind through a process that may take not months or years but may take decades to 35 do something that you’d think would be more routine from a governance section and this is the one part 36 of the Comprehensive Plan that hasn’t been updated or redrafted at all. I think that the Palo Alto Process 37 has got some pretty significant dysfunctional aspects and I think that whether it’s resourcing the 38 Department of Planning and Community Environment so that you can do what in the business world we 39
used to call blocking and tackling, I mean just regular prompt updating of these plan resources then 40
would allow consideration of the project approvals without causing public distrust and a sense that we 41
can’t function without some maximum flexibility because we can’t rely on the overall planning process. 42
43
So I’ll just stop at that point and invite the next round. And last time we started with Vice-Chair Keller 44
and the time before we started with Commissioner Alcheck. Does anyone else want to kick this one off? 45
Commissioner Tanaka. 46
47
Commissioner Tanaka: Well, maybe I’ll just continue on my train of thought because the more I think 48
about it the more I like this, which is maybe using dollars as the great equalizer. So can staff talk about 49
are there other cities that have done this and if so what’s the results been and what’s the public opinion 50 been and where are the pros and cons of such an approach? 51 52 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you Commissioner Tanaka. I think we’re going to have to do some research. If I 53 understand your, the idea. You’re suggesting basically create a payment requirement for a legislative 54
change, so like if a project developer is seeking rezoning to this particular zone district there would be a 55
requirement for a cash payment that would be used towards some pre-identified purpose? 56
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Commissioner Tanaka: Well, I guess I’m not going to say pre-identified purpose. I think the issue that 1
I’m thinking about is it’s hard for the community as a whole to say oh, this is what we want. Because if 2
you talk to 10 different people you get 10 different answers and everyone values things differently. And 3
I think this is why money was invented was to kind of equalize all of that. And I was just thinking about 4
what Commissioner Alcheck was saying and I was kind of expanding upon which is well what about 5
instead of having these intricate lists which nobody agrees on because that’s what’s going to happen. 6
We’re not all going to agree on what is the public benefit list. We may be able to agree on maybe what’s 7 not a public benefit perhaps. I’m sure that’s possible. Rather than having all of this debate, which at the 8 end I think will not satisfy the community maybe what we do is we make it very crystal clear it’s like ok, 9 here is the value of the public benefit. It’s X dollars. And maybe using Vice-Chair Keller’s approach of 10 well here’s the exception versus the non-exception, here’s dollar value, do they equate? Maybe we take 11
the Chair’s idea of let’s try to extract some fair share of that wherever that might be and we keep it very 12
simple so there’s not this incredible, incredibly subjective political process which is very opaque and very 13
subjective. And so I don’t think we’re probably the first Planning Commission to think of this and so I’m 14
curious to know where else has this been done and what has the results been? 15
16
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: If I could weigh in a little bit I personally am not aware of any 17
other city that has set up their PC system like that. There may be some cities, but I’m just not aware of 18
any city. I think that one of the issues that it raises is there’s a long established line of case law that 19
states that before a government can extract a monetary payment from a developer that that payment 20
must be related to an impact that the project is going to have on the immediate environment. And so I 21
think that that type of structure would be legally problematic even sort of menu extractions or other 22 types of extractions that don’t relate to project impacts possibly could be challenged. Right now I think 23 that the case law would support a system like that, but certainly there are groups that are taking a look 24 at those areas and at some point we probably will see taking those challenges based on that approach. 25 26
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. 27
28
Chair Michael: Commissioner Rosenblum. 29
30
Commissioner Rosenblum: I think the idea of turning everything into dollars is interesting because it is a 31
great equalizer, but I also don’t like zoning for dollars. I think it’s, I think the definition and Commissioner 32
King already made this point, but I fully endorse it which is this isn’t a place where we have zoning and 33
then if you pay a certain amount you can violate that zoning. These projects have to be something that 34
has to be of public benefit to begin with that otherwise are not contemplated by the zoning rules and will 35 be of such benefit to the area that it should be viewed as an exception. 36 37 So I’ve actually started going backwards. I’m slow, so I’m only four in like going in reverse order of the 38 projects that were approved. And so some things like Edgewood Grocery as far as I could tell is an effort 39
to get Edgewood a grocery store. And in order to do that it seems like they have to add enough housing 40
units, etcetera to make the project economically feasible, but in this case it is in violation of the FAR for 41
that area. In the case of 101 Lytton it was in violation of heights. In each case there does seem, it does 42
seem to go against what I said previously and in many of these cases it does seem like the calculation of 43
increased economic value can be done. And if my small sample of four holds it seems like many of them 44
are either increased floor area, increased density, increased height. And therefore they lend itself to 45
fairly simple calculation. It’s not clear to me in the case of say 101 Lytton why that is such a public 46
benefit to have a taller building in that space that that would be a considered subject of a PC zone. It is 47
more clear to me that if there’s a neighborhood that traditionally has wanted a grocery store and 48
somehow the zoning did not allow for the economics to make a grocery store work and therefore as part 49
of a project they made a mixed-use project I can see at least the argument for it. Again, I would say 50 that’s probably better addressed by zoning if there’s, if this area is not dense but wants a store then they 51 need to realize that stores are supported by dense areas and that’s why the zoning code was written the 52 way it was. 53 54
But so this is a bit of a rambling speech, but it goes back to my earlier request, which is I think if we 55
were to actually look at the violation of each of these it would be very revealing about what things were 56
City of Palo Alto Page 19
the nature of project that as Commissioner King said we really want as a community, intrinsic benefit, 1
and why. And then in terms of the calculation I am more convinced now that the calculation can be done 2
fairly simply, which is if it is a case of increased FAR, increased density, or increased height that’s an 3
economic calculation that we can do. And then as far as the monetary value I, here’s where I do agree 4
in that case a cash payment instead of trying to assign value to the number of electronic vehicle charging 5
stations and increased lights, etcetera to say this building would not have been built without this. It’s 6
extremely important. Here is the ratio of fees or to the developer rents the developer would get with 7 versus without; therefore, in exchange for this kind of project it will cost this much into a fund that the 8 City can use for mitigations or other things. But at any rate I’ll stop now. 9 10 Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 11
12
Commissioner King: Thank you. Let’s see, where was I? I would also like to address a little bit of the 13
history as I see it and I don’t have a detailed history, but part of the problem is sort of a shame on us 14
that we as an organization or many of the problems of the undo, sort of lack of either organizational 15
alignment or organizational follow through in the past there weren’t really accessible records. In fact ex, 16
former Commissioner Cassel was talking about how before some year all the stuff’s just in paper format 17
so somebody has to go through and dredge all that stuff up. And I’d asked before I came on the 18
Commission for the then Planning Director for a list of the PC projects and we didn’t have that list at the 19
time. It looks like we’ve got to where we have a fairly complete list, but probably not a lot of detail. 20
21
And so if we do choose to move, continue with the PC I think we need to the process needs to use or 22 acknowledge that alignment from beginning of the project to follow on enforcement. We’ve, I think now 23 the to paraphrase we’re sort of throwing up our hands, we don’t have enough people to enforce even 24 where we know we should be enforcing and so we if we choose to move, continue to move forward with 25 PC we do need to have enforcement. We should write the whatever agreements with an eye towards or 26
a focus on ease of enforcement and decide whether who pays for the enforcement. I don’t know if it’s 27
what it’s fair for us or the developer. Again, developers are often out of there once they sell the project 28
particularly in things such as condo complexes. And then also that information would be clear and 29
published so then there are plenty of citizens who would like to go out, would be quite happy to help 30
monitor, they’re obviously not going to write a citation or actually do the enforcement, but there are 31
people out there who defiantly are vigilant and would help us be aware of any violations. 32
33
Let’s see… oh, the other thing that’s interesting to me and I certainly don’t know the answer it’s an 34
interesting part of this question is that we’re hearing some people say oh, regarding size to which PC 35 zoning if we stick with it would be applicable you need to be, should only be large projects and others are 36 saying oh, they should only be small projects. So that’s, I’ll be interested to see how that discussion 37 moves forward. That will be interesting. And also regarding the where, what part of town or where 38 would that be applicable. And if in fact what we’re looking to do is not help developers who have a 39
viable option of development under existing zoning just make a larger project if what we’re really trying 40
to do is find those site specific challenging or spots where we’re getting a for instance I’m sure the 41
Opportunity Center was mentioned as a PC. I did not know that had been a PC project, so I think most 42
of the community would agree that was a community benefit, the building and its use itself. Those are 43
the types of projects and so I don’t know that we why we want to limit geographically if we’re trying to 44
support projects like that. It just doesn’t seem like they would fall into one specific geographic area. 45
Thank you. 46
47
Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 48
49
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So the first thing is it was a comment made at one of the public hearings 50 about PC’s by former Mayor Rosenbaum and he said we shouldn’t have, Palo Alto should not have zoning 51 for sale, but if you do sell zoning at least get a fair price. And that speaks to what Chair Michael said and 52 we should capture most of the value that’s increased there, but I disagree with Commissioner Tanaka 53 that that value should be captured entirely in cash. For example, there are some benefits that you 54
wouldn’t think make sense to capture in cash. Now whether or not you like the project at El Camino and 55
Page Mill Road that is still pending, the idea of widening Page Mill Road is a public benefit that has a 56
City of Palo Alto Page 20
value you can ascribe to it and is something that you would prefer rather than having in cash. So to the 1
extent that the project can actually provide the benefits to me that that’s a better thing than providing it 2
in cash payment. Similarly I feel the BMR project you can actually ascribe a value to having a BMR 3
project and all the units that are built under the BMR program and therefore that presumably would 4
pencil out in such a way that justifies the increase in zoning. So in particular we should capture most of 5
the increased value in this regard. 6
7 Secondly, the PC zoning or whatever it becomes is a legislative discretionary act. And if we don’t provide 8 it, we don’t allow the discretionary act of the legislative act of providing a PC zone then the developer 9 builds only to the existing zoning. And so therefore for allowing increased zoning in exchange for an 10 agreement that they make some payment commensurate with that increase in zoning it seems that a 11
condition of approval of that is not to sue us for the supposed the idea of taking for requiring that cash 12
payment or other payments other benefits in exchange for that increased value. And if they don’t want 13
to take that bet then don’t take it, but if you make the deal pay the price. 14
15
Lastly, there’s an increasing trend towards enforcement of these deals. So an example Transportation 16
Demand Management (TDM) measures currently have no enforcement. In the draft Transportation 17
Element there is strict enforcement and a series of how that is done and paid for by the property owner 18
and therefore that should be mirrored in terms of the PC process. I actually went through the PC’s since 19
2006 to answer Commissioner Rosenblum’s question. So if I may basically talk about which ones are 20
housing, which ones are not? 21
22 Chair Michael: You can do that. A minute or so. 23 24 Vice-Chair Keller: Yeah. So 3895 Fabian Way was a two housing projects, one below market and one 25 market rate condos. 3921 Fabian Way is the JCC and the senior housing project. 26
27
Commissioner Rosenblum: Commissioner Keller, my question was why did they violate zoning rules not 28
the nature of the project. 29
30
Vice-Chair Keller: No, I understand, but the issue one of your questions was how many of them were 31
zoning. One of your questions was about how many units were produced. So I figured that part of that 32
would be to identify at least in the last seven years or so. 33
34
528 Homer Avenue I have no idea what that is. 3388 Alma Village Circle was the housing plus retail 35 supposedly trying to retain retail at Alma Plaza, which it didn’t do that well. I don’t know what 449 36 Addison Avenue is either. 488 West Charleston Road is housing. It’s a BMR project. It’s called the Tree 37 House. 2122 Staunton Court is the College Terrace Center and there includes a small amount of BMR 38 housing. 4025 El Camino Way is senior housing. That’s I think the Avant project, is that what it’s called? 39
2060 Channing Avenue is retention and revitalization of Edgewood Plaza and there is some housing along 40
with that. And 101 Lytton Avenue is it was originally some idea of having housing, which would justify 41
some sort of daylight plane kind of thing because of mixed-use, but the housing went away. There was a 42
public benefit of a nonprofit space, which some of us thought might be a 501(c)(3), but it went to I think 43
a 501(c)(6) is the organization rather than a 501(c)(3). So it’s not a tax deductible nonprofit, it’s a 44
nonprofit association. Thank you. 45
46
Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 47
48
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. So we have some seriously underfunded needs and we can’t afford to 49
address them and yes if we prioritize a police station above all else we can afford it, but that is not a long 50 term solution for our infrastructure problem. The list is far too long. So with that in mind, with that 51 serving as this concept of public benefit this complete, there’s a list, right? There’s a tremendous list of 52 all the things going wrong, going sideways quickly. With that in mind, ok? Some, I think some, this 53 argument that it’s zoning for sale doesn’t, has no effect on me. Newsflash, it was always zoning for sale. 54
And this isn’t only before in some instances we were selling unenforced promises that represented 55
City of Palo Alto Page 21
completely valueless sacrifices. That’s all. Café Riace comes to mind, doesn’t it? We sold it. We sold 1
the exceptions for some plaza. Someone on the other side of town is going to say, what? 2
3
I urge us to view this approach as one that is about achieving true public benefits. And I think frankly 4
we’re not elected. We are not elected representatives that should feel empowered to determine what a 5
public benefit is. The people who make that determination should be directly accountable to the citizens 6
of this City. Maybe they’ll get it wrong and the citizens can then approach them and hold them 7 accountable. And if the nine or seven or five whatever it will be members of the City Council say you 8 know what here are some real issues that we’re struggling with to afford instead of selling public art or 9 public plaza that may or may not be of value let’s fund a police station with this fee, this development 10 fee. In this pay to it’s, again, it’s not about selling zoning and pocketing cash. It’s about funding our 11
preservation and our rehabilitation. And I think in this pay to exceed approach we should be focusing 12
our efforts on the real challenge, which is how do we determine the formula for setting a payment? I’m 13
not suggesting we do it tonight. I think we go to the drawing board and we get creative and I think it’s a 14
mistake to assume that it’ll be cheap. 15
16
Commissioner Rosenblum is eager to hear what the triggers are. I suspect that they’re going to be very 17
closely tied to FAR, density, and height. Judging by comments of my fellow Commissioners in previous 18
meetings there’s a lot of openness to exceeding height. So I would suggest that that may be is less 19
valuable than FAR and density. We might be willing to have a lower fee for going 55 feet than we would 20
for potentially doubling the FAR. I think the value; the importance of understanding the triggers is that 21
it’ll help us determine the value of each of the exceptions. Which ones are more valuable? Which ones 22 seem to be the ones that I mean it’ll be fairly obvious once we do the approach what they’re going to, 23 what the most valuable exception will be. 24 25 But let me sort of conclude with this. In our last election 6,400 people voted down a project that our 26
staff, this Commission, our City Council overwhelmingly approved. In a City with 66,000 residents that’s 27
both unfortunate and not surprising. I’m a believer that silence is consent. Unfortunately silence does 28
not elect Council Members. So we’re in this situation that has essentially resulted from a very small 29
minority having a very vocal voice, but I continue to think we made the right decision on Maybell. And 30
the only way that project could have gotten built there is by the PC process. I think we need to have, I 31
think we need to preserve this process but create predictability. There’s a formula you know going into 32
it. What’s it going to cost? And someone comes to the Commission they can what’s the public benefit? 33
This $2.5 million is going to go to pay X. You don’t like it go to your Council Members and tell them you 34
don’t think that’s an appropriate public benefit. Set the formula higher, make it expensive. If Arrillaga 35 wants to completely donate all of his wealth to this City’s rehabilitation for four buildings maybe we 36 should consider it. He could probably fund our entire IBRC list. Anyway. 37 38 Chair Michael: So is it my turn again? It’s my turn. So I think it would be possible to make to propose 39
amendments to Chapter 18.38 and continue to use PC zoning in a way that meets the goals and 40
objectives. I don’t think it would be as hard as one might fear. I think there should be a definition of 41
public benefit inserted into this Chapter. I think that there should be some clarification of the 42
enforcement mechanism inserted into the chapter. I think that the reference to action by Council, which 43
is .120 on this I thin Council is not acting in the manner prescribed by the ordinance and I think if the 44
City, if the Council would like Council to have a different role the Chapter should be amended to show 45
what the role the Council is accountable to play. And so I don’t think that that’s something that would be 46
all that difficult or take all that much time. I think if you possibly engage with some of the expertise 47
that’s in the community I think Phyllis Cassel having sat through 26 PC applications should be a resource. 48
Even in the private sector people like Jim Baer, others who have enormous volume of experience, not 49
that one agrees with their own objectives or motivations, but their experience is exceptional and should 50 be tapped so that when you build out the database it has all the information that is required to set the 51 right policy. 52 53 Then I keep coming back to I think having one of the mechanisms that’s in use in well managed 54
communities for flexibility for development standards is important. The fact that Palo Alto has used this 55
for almost exactly as long as I’ve been alive maybe its life expectancy is kind of fulfilled. And maybe we 56
City of Palo Alto Page 22
should move on to one of those other tried and true best practices that may be more appropriate to a 1
mature city that Palo Alto now is. I think the reason why this is not attracting a groundswell of obvious 2
enthusiasm is because we’re stuck on the endless effort to update the Comp Plan. When the Comp Plan, 3
if and when the Comp Plan is ever updated, which it happens when it happens it’s, it may be a land use 4
bible that’s a little bit too high level to have the specificity to address some of the particular development 5
challenges that we face. So I think that is the fundamental tension as to why the administration of land 6
use requires those site specific ad hoc flexibility that has been provided for 63 years by PC districts. 7 8 But I think that I would urge Council and the community to extend the moratorium on PC’s and apply 9 maximum urgency to completing the Comp Plan update. Include in the Comp Plan update the resources 10 or the vision, the policies, the programs, and the resources to undertake whatever neighborhood or 11
district specific plans that seem to be currently contemplated or needed. And when the Comp Plan 12
update is done, when the Zoning Map is updated to reflect the Comp Plan update, when the specific 13
plans are done as soon as possible (ASAP) then bring back PC zoning for those exceptions for which 14
flexibility above and beyond the Comp Plan, above and beyond the updated zoning, above and beyond 15
the specific plans is actually useful. Then you’ll have something that the public will not be cynical about, 16
but that requires attention to sort of first things first and doing the blocking and tackling and requesting 17
of the community, of the Council, the City, the resources to do those major planning efforts which you’re 18
working so hard at. 19
20
We have let’s see, let’s do a time check. It’s 8:45. I think this has been a more interactive format than 21
sometimes we fall into and I’m absolutely willing to continue it. But let me just turn back to staff and 22 initially we talked about trying to have a method for focusing our thinking and our comments. Are you 23 seeing value in the way we’re expressing ourselves? 24 25 Ms. Gitelman: Well, thank you Chair Michael. I think this has been extremely valuable. I think the hour 26
is late however and maybe what we could do is commit before we come back in two weeks to organize 27
the thoughts here and present them back to you in categories or in some hierarchy of ideas and then 28
continue the conversation on the 27th. 29
30
Chair Michael: Ok, I’m perfectly happy to go with that. So we have the meeting on the 27th that the topic 31
that was on our tentative agendas is not going to be ready so we could have further study session on PC 32
reform on the 27th. 33
34
Ms. Gitelman: Right. I’m not 100 percent sure on the topic we had scheduled the shuttle. It may work, 35 but it may not. And so either way I think we can schedule a second session on PC reform and we’ll bring 36 back these notes organized in some fashion. And to the extent we can start to answer some of the 37 questions you had about the list and expand the list of PC’s we will do that as well. I don’t know how 38 much of that we’ll be able to do before the next meeting. 39
40
Chair Michael: Ok. Well let’s if there’s anything that anybody wanted to leave the staff with this as a final 41
comment that would make our next session on the 27th as valuable as possible let’s quickly go. 42
Commissioner Tanaka. 43
44
Commissioner Tanaka: I just have two homework requests for staff. So one is basically Vice-Chair Keller 45
talked about well, gee if the developer wants to basically get more than the code allows and they agree 46
to the deal how can they contest it? So I think it would be, I think Vice-Chair Keller made a compelling 47
argument in my mind, but I’m not the lawyer so I’d love to actual hear a legal opinion maybe not today, 48
but something if really there is a legal argument that says oh, yeah if you accept an exception to your 49
deal to give you an exception to FAR you could go back to the City even though you agreed to the deal. 50 I don’t know. That doesn’t make sense to me, but if that could be figured out. 51 52 And then I think the other request would be to see if there’s anywhere, any other cities in the United 53 States that have done this in terms of really trying to make the public benefits less obtuse and less 54
subjective and actually just equate them to dollars. And if they’ve done that what have the results been 55
City of Palo Alto Page 23
and how’s the program look like? And I think to me this would be very informative. And if we’re the first 1
that would be also good to know. So that’s what I’d like to see for next meeting. 2
3
Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 4
5
Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, so firstly there’s a saying that I like which is be careful what you ask for you just 6
might get it. And perhaps as a converse of that which is be careful what you reject you may get 7 something worse. And in particular each of the iterations of Alma Plaza from my perspective got worse. 8 There was less square footage of retail, which is what neighborhood centers are supposed to be about 9 and more housing, which is not what a neighborhood center is supposed to be about. And I’m afraid that 10 the same thing may happen to the Maybell project that building all market rate housing may have more 11
impacts in the community, but at least not height, but some other impact. So I’m not sure about that. 12
13
With respect to the Comprehensive Plan being a land use bible I’d have to say that just like America 14
some people got more religion and some people got less. And I think that’s something about the way 15
Palo Alto works. Also with respect to PC projects just because the project is paid for because of the 16
public benefits doesn’t mean it’s desirable. And if we don’t think a project is desirable I’m not sure I 17
would take the trade of Mr. Arrillaga paying for all the IBRC backlog in exchange for building the tall 18
buildings by 27 University. I’m not sure that’s the trade I would want to take because of the impacts that 19
would occur to traffic gridlock. 20
21
And finally the list stops short. I believe the Channing House amendment was a PC that postdated the 22 PC 5158 so that may not be on your list and it wasn’t an amendment, it was a new PC. So that should 23 be added as well. And I’m wondering if we do this on the next, two weeks from now if we should have a 24 Motion to continue it either to that date certain or what should we do about that? 25 26
Ms. Gitelman: Since it’s a study session and not a noticed public hearing I don’t think that’s necessary. 27
We’ll just put it on your agenda again. 28
29
Vice-Chair Keller: Ok, thank you. I’m finishing early. 30
31
Chair Michael: Commissioner Rosenblum. 32
33
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, again quickly just to finish off the same thread that I started what 34
would be really useful is a table that starts with the attachment you already have, which is the list to 35 make this easier probably everything since 2000, which is only, which is 20 projects would probably be 36 acceptable. I did four of them myself in about 15 minutes so I think it’s about an hour of work, but 37 essentially the columns include total project size in units and acres. It would be the proposed value of 38 public benefit, what this public benefits were, specifically, and what the violation was that made it be a 39
PC project to begin with. And then I think it would be super useful and that would answer a number of 40
questions. First, are we getting a raw deal? Are we extracting the kind of value for the increase of value 41
that the developer got? It would have some commonalities around violations to zoning that we want to 42
consider when thinking about zoning more generally. If you can go farther back that’s even better, but 43
just in consideration of staff time I think that would probably go far enough. But I think that for me 44
personally that would go a long way towards understanding the economic value that we left on the table, 45
the nature of these projects, why they go under the PC process versus normal processes, and I think 46
would lead to a good discussion. 47
48
Chair Michael: Ok, so let’s, that will conclude the study session. So thank you very much. I think this 49
has been very productive on a topic of some importance to the community. 50
51
Commission Action: No action taken, Commission provided comments, this item continued to date 52 certain of August 27th to continue study session. 53
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5058)
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 8/27/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: PC Zone Reform
Title: Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform
From: ŽŶƐƵĞůŽ,ĞƌŶĂŶĚĞnj͕^ĞŶŝŽƌWůĂŶŶĞƌ
Lead Department: Planning & ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ
Recommendation
This is a continued study session with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to
complete the Commission’s review and discussion of possible revisions to the Planned
Community (PC) zoning district regulations, as well as possible alternatives. No formal action is
required.
Executive Summary
The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) is being asked to review and discuss issues
related to the PC zoning district regulations, as well as possible reforms and alternatives. At the
August 13, 2014 study session, members of the PTC indicated that PC zoning has provided
useful flexibility to meet community needs, but should either be reformed or replaced, and --
most importantly – it should be used infrequently.
In the Background section of this report, Staff has summarized the PTC’s comments from the
previous study session into five general categories. Staff has also created an expanded list of
Planned Community Zone Districts approved or amended between 2000 and 2014, including
the additional data requested by the PTC (Attachment A – Working Draft: Planned Community
Zoning Districts 2000-2014). To accompany the expanded list of relatively recent PC zones, staff
has provided a summary of the public benefits that have resulted from PC zoning since 1952,
including the number of housing units that the zoning has made possible (Attachment B). A
brief discussion and clarification regarding cash payments in lieu of public benefits is also
included in the Discussion section of this report.
At the continued study session, the PTC should focus on reviewing whether the summary
provided captured all of the PTC’s issues relating to the PC Zoning district regulations and PC
process. Also important is PTC’s input on ways to ensure adequate public comment as the City
decides how to proceed. The PTC’s comments and suggestions will be taken to the City Council
as a part of their review of the PC Zoning issues, tentatively scheduled for October 6, 2014.
1
ATTACHMENT G
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Background
On August 13, 2014, the PTC held a study session to review and provide comments on possible
revisions and/or alternatives to the PC district regulations. As a starting place for discussion
about PC Zoning Reform at the initial Study Session, the staff report included a summary report
that identified issues and concerns associated with PC Zoning. The Summary Report included
the PTC Colleague Memorandum on PC zoning and a technical report prepared by Dyett and
Bhatia on Flexibility vs. Certainty in zoning.
At the first study session, the PTC’s discussion was divided into two segments: a brainstorming
session to identify ideas related to the PC zoning regulations and process; and a general
question and comment session on the issues with PC Zoning. Overall the members of the
Commission acknowledged that PC Zoning has provided a unique opportunity for flexibility in
developing specific sites within a zoning code that is otherwise determinative. The Commission
also agreed that defining public benefit is the greatest challenge in PC zoned projects along
with the enforcement of such agreements. The Commissioner’s comments also touched on the
proper sequence of the review process.
Staff collected the comments received from the PTC about the issues with PC Zoning and
grouped them into five categories: (1) Public Benefits; (2) Enforcement of Public Benefit
Agreements; (3) The Processing/Application Process; (4) PC type projects and the
Comprehensive Plan; and (5) PC District Regulations. A summary by category follows:
1. Public Benefits:
x We need to clarify how public benefit is defined. Can public benefit be defined by a
menu of items or should it be based on the objectives of the project and needs of
the adjacent area that justifies the special zoning?
x Public benefits should not be confused with mitigations identified to address
impacts or design features/requirements that all projects must address.
x Public benefits should take into consideration the needs of the immediate
neighborhood. A public benefit should not be an infrastructure project that the
community chooses not to provide; rather it should be a benefit to the
neighborhood or community ambience that the community cannot afford.
x Public benefits and their maintenance should be structured so that they continue to
benefit the community in perpetuity.
x The manner of provided benefits needs to be evaluated, can it be a fee that is used
to a designated community need? Can it be property conveyed to the City for a
specific purpose? Or must it be provided “in kind” and built by the developer?
2
City of Palo Alto Page 3
x Public benefits should be reviewed and their acceptability and appropriateness
determined by the City Council early in the review process.
2. Enforcement of Public Benefit Agreements:
x Insure that the public benefit obligation goes with the property from developer to
future owner(s).
x Public benefit agreements need to require owner participation in a systematic
monitoring that is cost efficient to the City and results in effective enforcement and
compliance.
x Future property owners and tenants need to be held responsible for ensuring that
public benefits are continued and maintained for the duration originally defined.
3. Processing/Application Process:
x There needs to be a clearly defined and transparent process for both the developer
and the public to review projects requesting a zone change to a PC district.
x There needs to be clear communications among the various reviewing bodies during
the processing of PC projects and we should track initial recommendations of the
PTC throughout.
x Since a PC Zone is implemented via an ordinance ultimately approved by the City
Council, there should be an initial review before the planning project review of a PC
project. This review should be at the Council level and should include a discussion of
the appropriate public benefit to balance the project request and the Council should
decline projects at the initial review stage that do not meet the community’s
objectives, needs, and values.
4. PC type projects and the Comprehensive Plan:
x PC Zoning addresses the fact that the needs and opportunities of the City can
change faster than we can assess the need for policy and regulatory changes on a
City- or area-wide basis. PC zoning makes the City more nimble in responding to
community needs.
x The parameters that define a PC eligible project as being different from a “normal”
project in terms of land use should be more clearly defined.
x Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan required for PC type projects should be
reviewed within the context of the Plan to determine if the project might be better
addressed through a precise plan or other mechanism.
3
City of Palo Alto Page 4
5. PC District Regulations:
x Regulations need a clearer purpose section which clarifies the intention of the zone,
the alternatives to the zone, the kind of intrinsic and extrinsic benefits the
neighborhood and community expects, and the value to the community of the zone
to address the need for flexibility in both zoning and long term planning consistent
with the intentions of the adopted planning tools i.e. Comprehensive Plan.
x To insure flexibility in the zoning code and to provide a better understanding for
developers and the community, the PC district should be refined to include
development parameters such as a limit on the percentage of reduction in various
setbacks, floor area ratio, and/or height.
x An economic analysis of the cost and benefit should be required of all PC projects in
addition to environmental review. This analysis should compare the value of the
property under existing zoning to the value of the proposed development, and use
that to evaluate the proposed public benefit.
x PC exceptions should be periodically reviewed to determine whether the zoning
standards of the established zoning districts should be modified, thus reducing the
need for PC projects in the future.
In the course of making these comments, Commissioners noted the need for additional
information on previous PC district actions which might help clarify the broader issues.
Specifically, the PTC asked that staff expand on the draft working log by including the following
information for each PC district approved between 2000 through 2014: 1) the project
description; 2) a list of the public benefits required for each PC; 3) the type of PC; and 4) what
was the trigger that caused the project to require a PC designation rather than compliance with
its currently assigned zoning.
Discussion
Since the early 1950’s the City of Palo Alto has been using PC Zoning to enable the use of
particular properties in a manner not specifically addressed in the City’s zoning districts. The
use of PC Zoning has allowed the community to be responsive to the opportunities presented
by quickly changing needs and values. Examples of this flexibility include mixed residential and
commercial development, pre-zoning of properties annexed to the city, and the desire to retain
certain specific neighborhood strengthening land uses such as grocery stores.
To facilitate the PTC’s further discussion staff has prepared a more detailed log of PC Zoning
districts between 2000 and 2014 including a project description, a list of the public benefits
required for each PC, the type of PC, and the trigger that caused the project to require a PC
designation rather than compliance with its currently assigned zoning (Attachment A – Working
Draft: PC Zoning Districts 2000-2014). Accompanying the table is a preliminary analysis of the
4
City of Palo Alto Page 5
type of public benefits that have been required over the 62 years that the zone has been in
place (Attachment B –Synopsis of Public Benefits Required and Gained).
As previously discussed, over the 62 year period that PC Zoning districts has been in place,
project developers have provided a variety of public benefits. Among the most frequently
gained public benefits are below market rate housing units, senior housing, pedestrian oriented
landscaping, and various kinds of public parking, public art, and (early on) pre-zoning for
annexation to the City. At the end of the analysis is an initial tally of the affordable housing
units provided by using the PC zone. Since 1952 when the PC District regulations were first
used, it is estimated that a total of 1,097 of affordable housing units have been developed.
Oftentimes the density of an affordable housing project needs to be more than the base zoning
in order to be financially feasible. This is especially true in communities such as Palo Alto that
have robust design guidelines. The data collected in Exhibit B demonstrates that PC’s have been
effective in providing well designed and economically feasible affordable housing projects and
also suggests that some flexible zoning tool, whether it be a PC or an affordable housing
combining district or overlay, be in place to facilitate this type of housing.
During the general discussion about public benefits, several PTC members asked whether a
better approach might be a cash payment in lieu of providing defined public benefits. Cash
payments were discussed as being attractive because they could be based on a proportion of
‘value added’ by the enhancement to the project, and because this would eliminate the
problem of enforcing ‘public benefits’ on future owners of properties developed under the PC
zoning. In these Commissioners’ view, the City Council would identify priority “public benefit”
projects for funding, and developers would make payments in exchange for project design
features (e.g. density, height, or other development standards).
The Mitigation Fee Act places limits on the City’s ability to require cash payments (sometimes
referred to by the legal term monetary “exactions”) on normal development projects. The
Mitigation Fee Act requires that such fees only be imposed to mitigate project specific impacts
and that the fees be based on actual costs incurred by the City. (This concept is referred to as a
“legal nexus” and was articulated in a series of United States Supreme Court cases known as
the Nolan/Dolan cases.) Under the Mitigation Fee Act, the City cannot impose cash payments
as conditions of normal zoning permits. However, the Mitigation Fee Act expressly exempts
fees collected under a Development Agreement.
Many cities have used Development Agreements to exact payments from developers.
Frequently cities tie payments to tangible community benefits but other times City negotiate
payments which are not dedicated to a particular benefit or identified project. Tying the
payment to the development potential of a site, can pose difficulties. For instance, how do you
value the development potential of increased density requested for affordable housing, when
the value of the proposed project could be less than the value of a base zoning project. While
monetizing the payments may not work in every case, there may be benefits to exploring this in
certain cases.
5
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Next Steps
Information gathered during the PTC study sessions and from the public will be used to inform
a study session with the City Council tentatively scheduled for October 6, 2014. Based on the
City Council’s discussion, staff will develop a draft ordinance for public input and review by the
PTC.
Environmental Review
The PTC’s study session does not constitute a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). However, the ordinance that is ultimately developed to reform or replace
PC zoning will require review.
Attachments:
x Attachment A: Working Draft PC Zone Districts 2000-2014 (PDF)
x Attachment B: Synopsis of Public Benefits (PDF)
6
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Draft Verbatim Minutes 2
August 27, 2014 3 4
EXCERPT 5 6
7
Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform: Study Session on possible revisions to the Planned8 Community (PC) District Regulations. For more information contact Consuelo Hernandez at9 consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org10
Continued from August 13, 201411 12
Chair Michael: For our next topic, which is Planned Community (PC) zoning reform, a study session on13
possible revisions to the PC District Regulations. And before we go to Consuelo for a staff report let me14
try to frame what I hope will be the outcome of the discussion and then you can comment on that as well15
from the staff perspective. I believe that the work put in by staff in the staff report is excellent. It16
frames most of the issues and is particularly helpful because it captured very faithfully the full range of17
comments from the Commission and Commissioners at our last meeting. It was very clear that these are18
all individual ideas and insights and it wasn’t taking a vote or consensus of the Commission. And you did19
an excellent job of capturing all of them so thank you for that.20 21
You did an excellent job of identifying what I believe are the major issues. One is the process for22
establishing a PC zone. Next would be whether or not there’s a definition or clear understanding of what23 constitutes public benefit. Another is the possibility of establishing a menu of potential public benefit24 contributions. Another would be, understanding how to use economic analysis in relationship to the25 potential increase in valuation from up zoning. Another is the lack historically of an effective enforcement26 mechanism regarding public benefit in PC districts, which for example might be some sort of a27
performance bond or contractual liquidated damages or indemnity or something of that nature. Another28
challenge is the requirement under the ordinance that the PC zone be found consistent with the29
Comprehensive Plan when the Comprehensive Plan update process is so prolonged and the30
Comprehensive Plan may be arguably long in the tooth if not out of date. As well as the potential update31
of the Zoning Map that typically follows the update of the Comprehensive Plan. So when you have both32
the Comp Plan and zoning ordinance on such long cycles it tends to exacerbate the need for flexibility33
and interim action. Another is the potential reliance on development agreements in addition to or instead34
of PC zoning where it might be a viable alternative or something that allows for the payment by the35
applicant of a fee for the as part of the agreement. And so I think those are the structurally some of the36
items that are important for this discussion to touch on.37 38 Now we heard last time that there’s a long history to the use of PC zoning in Palo Alto and a lot of it has39 been very beneficial. Some of it is controversial and arguably has been a problem, which we’d like to fix.40 So it might be useful for our discussion tonight to focus on what’s not working. What are the problems?41
And I after reading the staff report I think you’ve hit on most of the issues. I put them in a slightly42
different order just as I was taking notes. The first is whether or not the ordinance should be revised.43
And I think clearly this is a good discussion. It might be revised to add a definition of public benefit. It44
might be added, revised to add a menu of public benefits. And it might be revised with respect to the45
process by which PC zoning is initiated. Is it initiated at the first at the Council level or does the PC46
initiate? The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) initiate?47 48
Then you hit on the issues relating to whether or not there’s an effective enforcement mechanism and we49
should talk about that. You also hit upon how in the process we might utilize an economic analysis either50
an independent economic analysis or disclosure by the applicant of the pro forma of their financials and51 use that to some, to achieve some commensurate public benefit. And what exactly is commensurate52
City of Palo Alto Page 2
would be an interesting discussion mitigated by risk, time/value of money, in perpetuity, there’s all sorts 1
of subtleties to that. 2
3
To me another issue which you didn’t really flesh out is that to the extent that there is a process and a 4
system by which applicants submit their proposals for PC zoning oftentimes they will seek out discussions 5
with members of Council, members of this Commission privately to have what’s called an ex parte 6
discussion of the proposal. And I think both the Council, if I can be so bold as to suggest anything to the 7 Council, and the Commission should consider it relevant to relook at the policy of each body on ex parte 8 communications regarding quasi-judicial matters. That this may be perfectly constructive and above 9 board, but the manner in which it’s done is probably something which bears on public trust in the 10 outcome. 11
12
So those I think are the big issues as I see them. And once again I think we have an excellent staff 13
report, but maybe we’ll turn it to staff and you can update us on any thinking you’ve had since we had 14
our last meeting. 15
16
Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner: Sure, thank you Chair Michael; Consuelo Hernandez, Senior 17
Planner. Good evening members of the Planning Commission. We don’t have a formal presentation for 18
you tonight since it is a continued study session. And really what we did is took some of the feedback 19
that we heard from you last time to collect additional data specifically concentrating on 2000, the period 20
between 2000 and 2014 and added additional columns to the original data set that we provided, which 21
included what was the trigger for PC zoning and what were the public benefits associated with those 22 particular projects. And we also cleaned up a lot of the addresses and added the common name for the 23 development to make it easier for you to look at, look at that. And in the staff report as Attachment B 24 we also started to prepare preliminary analysis of what the typical public benefits have been since PC 25 zoning has been in place. And we started to build on how those public benefits have changed over the 26
last 14 years. 27
28
And the last component that we added is on the second page of Attachment B is an initial tally of the 29
number of units that have resulted from PC zoning. And I just wanted to add one clarifying point that I 30
did not include in the staff report or in that attachment is that it only includes the Below Market Rate 31
(BMR) or low income units that we explicitly identified as a public benefit. So there are some instances 32
where BMR’s were generated out of a PC zone, but they weren’t specifically identified as a public benefit. 33
Specifically if you look at the JCC the public benefit identified is a variety of housing types, but it doesn’t 34
explicitly state that 24 BMR units actually resulted from that project. 35 36 And in order to frame the discussion today we were hoping that the PTC could concentrate or focus the 37 discussion around as the Chair mentioned making sure that staff did capture all of the comments that 38 you made last time about your issues or concerns with PC zoning and what recommendations you have 39
for the Council either to reform the existing ordinance, change the name perhaps of the approach for this 40
type of flexible tool that we have in our code currently, and any input you have on how we can outreach 41
to the community on making sure that we capture everybody’s input on their issues for PC. And staff is 42
here to answer any questions and that concludes our staff report. 43
44
Chair Michael: Thank you very much. Before we go to the public speakers we have two speaker cards 45
and if there’s anybody else here who would like to speak please submit a card and then you will be 46
recognized. I know that on occasion the Commission will take straw votes just to get a consensus of 47
where we are and I’m typically not in favor of that because it’s in situations where I don’t think that the 48
nature of the vote is well articulated and therefore it’s not clear to me what our voting really signifies. 49
But I’m wondering if tonight we might consider using straw votes on some of the key issues if that would 50 help us give you kind of feedback that would lend weight or credence to our interest? 51 52 Hillary Gitelman, Director: Thank you Chair Michael. I don’t think we would be adverse to that. It may 53 be easier than full straw vote on some of these points. It seems that there was a lot of agreement and 54
commonality between the Commission’s comments last time and if we use the bullets in the staff report it 55
might be possible to say does anyone disagree with the next bullet because I think there are many of 56
City of Palo Alto Page 3
these that wouldn’t take a lengthy discussion to demonstrate some level of consensus, but we’re open to 1
discuss that procedure further if you want to take the public testimony and then we can decide if that 2
would work for you or not. 3
4
Chair Michael: Great, thanks. So let’s go to public testimony and then maybe we’ll just have a complete 5
round of comments from Commissioners and then we’ll consider if it would be useful for us to try to 6
achieve consensus by straw voting. Let’s go to the public speakers and give them three minutes. 7 8 Vice-Chair Keller: The first speaker is Robert Moss to be followed by Patricia Saffir. 9 10 Robert Moss: Thank you Chair Michael and Commissioners. I think you did a very good job of 11
summarizing what the staff report says and some of the major issues and I want to touch on just a few 12
of the points they made which I think are very useful. Under public benefits I certainly agree we have to 13
clarify what a public benefit is. And we have to have a public benefit that not only means something, but 14
as it said later on is ongoing. If we have a public benefit that vanishes in a relatively short period of 15
time, but the change in the zoning and land use goes on forever that’s not a real benefit. Also the 16
benefit should be related to the nearby area. It shouldn’t be a citywide benefit. For example, one that’s 17
on hold right now the PC proposal at El Camino and Page Mill where one of the proposed public benefits 18
was improving the street lights on California Avenue, which is four to eight blocks away depending on 19
what part of California Avenue you’re talking about. That’s not specific to the site. Not appropriate. 20
21
The benefit has to be structured so as it says it’s maintained constantly. That means if the public benefit 22 is a payment of money the money is going to get spent and it’s not necessarily going to get spent on 23 something related to the project. So just accepting cash as a public benefit is a really bad idea. 24 25 Under enforcement as you know the PC requirements have never been enforced. There’s been no 26
penalty. So there should be a requirement first on ongoing PC’s and then you might consider going back 27
to the existing PC’s and say if the public benefit no longer exists you must restore that benefit or you will 28
be fined and give them a period of time before the benefit can be put back in place: three months, six 29
months, whatever. And then after that is a fine: every day, every month, whatever. But otherwise 30
there’s no enforcement. It’ll never be done. 31
32
Under four, parameters defining what a PC is and how it’s different from the normal one I think it’s very 33
important because many times the PC is not that much different from standard zoning and sometimes 34
someone comes in and says well I’m going to put more housing in. Well maybe we should change the 35 zoning from RM 20 to RM 30 and you get more housing in, but we all know what the parameters are of 36 the zoning. So it’s got to be very clearly identified what you’re getting and why. 37 38 The Comprehensive Plan really is our overall guiding principles. And all too often the PC violates 39
Comprehensive Plan policies and principles. When that happens the PC should be rejected. Either 40
rejected or significantly modified so that it does comply. And finally the economic analysis of the cost 41
benefits both to the developer and the City is extremely important so you know what the real benefits are 42
on each side. 43
44
Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Patricia Saffir and I apologize if I’ve mispronounced your name. 45
46
Patricia Saffir: It’s Saffir, but I don’t really care much. I couldn’t pronounce it when I married my 47
husband either so. Chairman Michael and members of the Commission, I just have some general 48
comments (interrupted) 49
50 Chair Michael: If you could speak into the microphone that would be great. Thank you very much. 51 52 Ms. Saffir: I’m sorry. I just have some general comments and opinions as a longtime resident of Palo 53 Alto. I’m here tonight to ask you not to recommend getting rid of the PC zoning, the current process and 54
not to severely restrict it. I believe the process has generally served us very well for many years. Now 55
City of Palo Alto Page 4
because the voters who chose to vote rejected a project approved by the Council we seem to be sort of 1
panicking and I don’t think we need to do that. 2
3
I agree that the process should provide clear information to the public at an early stage and opportunities 4
for us to voice our opinions. I also agree that there should be mechanisms to make sure that the 5
promised benefits continue to exist. It may also be a good idea to restrict the maximum size of the PC 6
projects and use a more inclusive planning device such as a PD district for very large areas. But I do not 7 think that other specifications and restrictions are a good idea. Zoning is by nature an arbitrary and 8 restrictive process. We cannot possibly foresee when beneficial opportunities may arise which cannot be 9 realized under the exact zoning. We need a flexible process so that we will not miss out on these 10 opportunities. 11
12
Regarding public benefit to me the project itself should have value to the community and this should be 13
the major public benefit. I particularly do not like the suggestion made at your last meeting that 14
economic quid pro quo should be the major or the only public benefit factor. For example, if a developer 15
proposes a well-designed BMR project I don’t care if calculation shows that the privileges granted under 16
the PC have increased the value of his property significantly. We need that kind of housing and that’s 17
what matters and there are other examples where the same logic might apply. 18
19
So to conclude, please don’t cripple a useful process which has gotten us some fine projects. I want you 20
and the City Council to have to work and think and exercise your judgment. Thank you. 21
22 Chair Michael: So I would like to thank the public for turning out in such, with such quality statements 23 this evening and to suggest that we have two vacancies coming up on the PTC and applications can be 24 submitted to the City Clerk if you’re interested in serving up here on the dais. You would probably do a 25 great job. So with that let me turn to the Commission and we’re going to basically take as much time as 26
we need to on this topic, but we’ll do it in rounds. So if five minutes isn’t enough to get started would 27
somebody like to? Commissioner Rosenblum. 28
29
Commissioner Rosenblum: First, huge thanks. I had a ton of requests at the last meeting. I think you 30
fulfilled most of them. So I really, really appreciate that. 31
32
So the table that you produced in particular I found really useful and it wasn’t actually what I thought the 33
results would be. I had thought that if you did the survey of all PC zone projects since 2000 the 34
preponderance of them would be, would have been triggered by height or density or setback variances, 35 etcetera and that doesn’t appear to be the case. And it encourages me that good zoning changes would 36 actually make the PC zoning process something that is more rare and does allow us to capture the 37 exceptional opportunities that the last speaker was referring to while allowing what seems to be the most 38 common triggers to move forward without an undue or special process. 39
40
So in particular I might be reading it wrong, but there were 20 projects since 2000. It seems like only six 41
were triggered because of density, height, or footprint, specifically and there’s an overlap between the 42
two in density there were six of which four had a major BMR component. And that seemed to be the 43
prevailing reason for their density. Height, specifically were three of which there’s an overlap, but there 44
are a variety of others. There were some that were auto related and I don’t, I have a question for the 45
staff, which is, I thought that we had an automotive dealership overlay? I didn’t realize that this would 46
trigger the PC zoning process. 47
48
And so I’ll just ask a couple of these and then I would love for you to respond in bulk. There was one for 49
childcare onsite and I guess I understand that. You can’t just, there must be a special process for going 50 through to affirm that you want a childcare center onsite. But the other one I found interesting is mixed-51 use was the number one trigger and so that’s one that I want to go down a bit of a longer road on 52 because there’s a lot of theory around the benefits of mixed-use developments. And if by nature any 53 mixed-use development triggers a PC process that strikes me as an opportunity to find what is a standard 54
for mixed-use that we like that should not have to trigger this special process. And then finally I 55
identified some projects that just seem because of their nature they are so unusual that there can’t be 56
City of Palo Alto Page 5
any zoning that you could really contemplate that should accommodate them and the PC process 1
probably is appropriate for the benefit that those projects bring. 2
3
But just to loop back around to the couple of questions I had what is the reason first for the number of 4
mixed-use? Is it the case that there is not a zoning that contemplates mixed-use adequately and 5
therefore so many projects get caught up for that trigger? 6
7 Ms. Hernandez: First I just want to clarify that the automobile and the child care they were actually 8 amendments to original PC’s. 9 10 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. 11
12
Ms. Hernandez: So at the time the automobile overlay wasn’t in our zoning ordinance and child care in 13
that instance wasn’t identified as a permitted use in that particular PC. So that’s the reason for those two 14
changes. 15
16
Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. 17
18
Ms. Hernandez: In terms of the mixed-use if you look at the when they were approved our zoning 19
ordinance was updated in 2007 to include a lot of more language for mixed-use. So that can explain 20
some of the reasons why you see some of the PC’s having that mixed-use component. 21
22 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, because if this is the case then we really are talking about extraordinarily 23 small number of projects that get triggered. So this table to me again is fairly revealing. If we feel like 24 we have solved the majority of issues that lead to mixed-use, that the automotive overlay was a relic of it 25 being originally a PC zone and therefore each amendment gets put in as another PC zone, child care also 26
falls in that same category. I’ll have to go back though this, but I think of the 20 projects since 2000 27
we’re probably talking about a very small handful that are the problem children. So what do we do about 28
them? But at any rate I’m quite encouraged by the table that if we went and saw well given the state of 29
zoning today if it does accommodate for many types of mixed-use what are the number of projects that 30
would have to have gone through a PC zoning process? My guess is it’s probably fewer than eight, but at 31
any rate we have to go back to the data, but I’m encouraged by that at the very least. So thank you for 32
preparing that data. That’s very helpful for me. 33
34
Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 35 36 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m hoping we can do a few rounds tonight so I’ll keep my initial comments short. 37 It occurred to me that I found the table extremely informative. I’ll be less subtle than Commissioner 38 Rosenblum. You know I think if our local news weekly was especially motivated to provide much needed 39
information on this issue they would just reprint this table in its entirety in their upcoming edition. I think 40
the community should be aware of these specific PC projects and I would almost encourage, I’d 41
encourage us to go a little farther into the past so that we could resist the anticipated suggestion that it’s 42
not comprehensive. You know after reviewing it I was almost shocked that we ever proceeded to have 43
this discussion without such a table and it’s overwhelming to me that the City Council even put the PC 44
process on hiatus without such a table to sort of defend the program. 45
46
I appreciate your thought, your comments today about our one of two community members who spoke 47
about the process. When we wrote when we went through the process of writing the colleagues memo a 48
year and a half ago we spent a long time kind of talking about what should a public benefit be? Should it 49
be, should the use itself if accomplished by the project be a public benefit or should they be extrinsic? 50 Should it be unrelated to the actual development of the site? I may be using that word wrong. And it 51 occurred to me after looking at this that there are some very defensible land use designation changes 52 that support a PC. And if we eliminated the PC and bear in mind I made a lot of comments at our last 53 meeting about this quid pro quo kind of pay as you go zoning that conflict with the comments I’m making 54
tonight, but my point is if we eliminated this PC what process would an owner of a property in Palo Alto 55
have to get creative on their site? It seems like a really adequate avenue for someone to suggest a 56
City of Palo Alto Page 6
senior housing project or a grocery store, something that is not in line with what is the current site is 1
provided for. 2
3
And after reviewing some of the bullet points that we talked about last time particularly… sorry, 4
particularly the idea that we should have benefits confused with mitigations it occurred to me that if for 5
example a project was seeking to exceed a certain limitation and we were attempting to achieve some 6
very creative goal or some very appealing project BMR, senior facilities, etcetera; if the project itself 7 provided mitigation that essentially removed the concerns that we had with exceeding that limitation, I’m 8 being very vague here, then to what extent do we want to be a community that accommodates the 9 development of projects that make sense for our community that may exceed certain limitations, but take 10 actions to mitigate them? What would be the process by which someone could develop a senior center 11
that might exceed a height limit, but didn’t, but mitigated concerns related to traffic or parking or other 12
issues that the height limitation was there to protect? I may not be making myself really clear here, but 13
after reviewing the table and thinking to myself wow, we’re a lot more cynical about this process than 14
this table suggests we should be. And these limitations that we have are designed to protect us from 15
certain results that we don’t want. If they are mitigating for those results maybe the public benefit can 16
be the use and maybe that evolves. 17
18
Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 19
20
Commissioner Tanaka: So I only have three brief comments. So first one is, I certainly think this table is 21
really good. It kind of shows all the projects that were approved. I think the issue though is that the 22 question the issue is that this table is really of approved projects. We actually had a lot more projects 23 that were not approved that are not on here. So if we actually were to do that I think the results might 24 be quite different than what’s on this table. But anyway I just want to make that comment. I do think 25 it’s useful though, but I think it’s a little bit misleading too in terms of what really happened. 26
27
And then I think my second comment is I think from what the reason why the PC is needed is because 28
we have this Comp Plan process where we’re updating it or at least we’re trying to update it as fast as we 29
can. It’s a very arduous process, long and arduous process and so I think why a lot of these land use 30
histories pop up is because the Comp Plan takes time to update. And it takes a while to update all of the 31
zoning codes. And so I think this is kind of why the PC actually worked is because it allowed you to 32
tweak it slightly to make it a better overall for the City. 33
34
But with those two comment things said, I just want to support what the Chair was proposing, which is 35 do some straw votes. I think we’ve all spent the last session kind of giving our two cents as to what we 36 thought was good, what was bad, but I think to be truly useful here I think the Chair’s proposal of having 37 some straw votes and having an organized way of kind of going through this so that staff could take 38 some of the input and synthesize it into something actionable I think would be good. So I’ll just… so 39
that’s through the Chair maybe there’s a way for us to do that in an expedient fashion without staying 40
here too late tonight. 41
42
Chair Michael: So I’m prepared after everybody’s had their first round of comments to take Commissioner 43
Tanaka up on his suggestion if staff concurs. Commissioner Gardias. 44
45
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Chair. So before I get to the PC zone I’d like to just make a comment 46
on this mixed land use as it just came up. I think it’s a historical ballast and pretty much a different 47
perspective of the planning that is historical and may I think that we’re shifting slowly away from this and 48
that mixed-use is becoming a reality throughout all the zones. So for the discussion I think it’s not very 49
much relevant as already argued. But I share your perspective. 50 51 So going back to the PC zone there’s I’d like to just go quickly through the sort of variety of points so 52 bear with me for a couple of minutes Chair if you don’t mind just take more time a bit. So there is a 53 relationship I think that’s not defined very well between PC zone and the Comprehensive Plan. 54
Comprehensive Plan and Robert Moss already talked about this for a moment. Thank you very much for 55
your comments. It’s a higher, higher level document and then PC zone is a lower level document. So 56
City of Palo Alto Page 7
from this perspective there should be designation in the Comprehensive Plan of this where we as a city 1
have an interest in growth or development. And then all the PC zones there should be only within those 2
areas. And I’m talking about the geographical area of interest and an interest could be about along the 3
traffic corridors, could be along some commercial corridors: University, California, El Camino, so forth, 4
right? But then if you have this clarity between these two documents then the public would know 5
immediately ok well this is, this PC is not relevant to me because I’m beyond this area and then also 6
would focus us on those areas where we should be discussing this with the applicants or developers that 7 the potential concession from the City perspective in exchange for some benefits, public benefits. This is 8 just this is about to just address this relationship between these two documents. 9 10 So from the perspective of public benefits and the other one the opposite side is that pretty much 11
applicants benefit or zoning benefit. First of all I think that in terms of the, of this what somebody 12
already addressed, right, about the benefits, it should be an intrinsic benefit to the commercial site of the 13
project of the applicant. In this case that pretty much we would like to have this benefit, this public 14
benefit that is not realized in the original application of the developer. It could be housing, affordable 15
housing that would be part of the project or it would be outside. But we should not be allowing some 16
public benefits that would be enhancing and just truly giving benefit to this to the project itself because 17
then otherwise it’s just the clarity of this the public benefit it’s not specifically defined. It would benefit 18
rather the development on the specific lot as the public. 19
20
So from perspective and I talk about in the past, about how we can define both so there is a we would 21
need to somehow establish some sort of definition clarity what both the zoning benefit and public benefit 22 would mean and then of course to make sure that applicant or developer knows where he stands very 23 early there would have to be categories. Then of course that may be defined further in the granular 24 detail by the Council, but then it would just bring the clarity early to the process to the developer that he 25 knows where he stands. This is something that I could just I could subsidize and then in exchange I 26
could add some benefit in terms of the height, encroachment, or some other aspect. So then if we have 27
this categories of benefits, public benefits the developer knows that he may achieve and then made the 28
specific projects then maybe there would not be a need to just go very quickly to the Council to discuss it 29
because pretty much everything is clear. So why would we bother. It would be in the clear process. 30
There is no need to just go and just have specific negotiations. The process is clear unless it’s a large 31
project, right, that maybe would have to be like an exception in the process or maybe two step process. 32
If you fall within the parameters you’re fine, if you go beyond that you’re not fine. 33
34
And then from this perspective I can take another two minutes or? Thank you. So then we may 35 establish stack ranking or both,. For example, so this is from the perspective of the public benefits. That 36 for example, this is on our first rank of addressing, this is on the second. From the perspective of 37 benefits just making sure that we exchange something for something, we can either just monetize them, 38 just convert them to the dollar value or convert them to some points and then developer or applicant 39
would know and public would also know, that if he goes over the height limit by let’s say 10 feet. It 40
would be I don’t know benefit of $5 million dollars of the net present value and then for this $5 million he 41
would look up the list. And here there are two items for $5 million dollars at the top. So that would be 42
immediate clarity and we would know what we can exchange for what. Maybe I will come back to 43
further, to some other comments later on, but you know this is just a… thank you. 44
45
Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 46
47
Commissioner King: Thank you. How many minutes are we doing this round? Is it five? Ok, thanks. 48
Let’s see. Thank you the as… I’ll echo the comments the chart’s very helpful. I would say that I think 49
particularly in that due to its popularity it may be of continued use and I would like to make sure that the 50 things you mentioned are corrected, which are because one of my big concerns is the double dipping. I 51 know we’ve discussed this where we have had applicants come and present as benefits mitigations that 52 are would be required regardless of PC status. And so I’d like to make sure this chart does not reflect 53 any double dipping. I think you mentioned that the JCC project some of those might be in the chart were 54
not actually public benefits, they were BMR, they got something else for providing the BMR units they got 55
something else under State housing law. Is that correct? 56
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
Ms. Hernandez: I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. They identified as a public benefit a variety of residential 2
uses. That’s all that it reads. It doesn’t explicitly state the number of BMR units, but the BMR program 3
triggered the development of 24 units. So while it’s not identified as a public benefit they did provide 24 4
BMR units. 5
6
Commissioner King: But that was even if it were not PC that would have been, that would have existed 7 (interrupted) 8 9 Ms. Hernandez: Correct. 10 11
Commissioner King: As part of the State law BMR. Ok. 12
13
Ms. Hernandez: As part of the City’s BMR program. 14
15
Commissioner King: City’s BMR program. 16
17
Ms. Hernandez: Correct. 18
19
Commissioner King: Ok, but regardless of if it were PC. So I’d like to make sure, so I’m not quite sure 20
which one you’re talking about but any of those where you have mentioned something that we’re not 21
explicitly a public benefit to attain the PC status that would have existed regardless of PC that those are 22 clearly shown as not a public, it should not be a… maybe it would say at the top of the column “PC public 23 benefits” or something of that nature. Does that make sense? Are you guys following? Ok. So for 24 instance, I’m looking at so on Altaire Walk so those 56 BMR senior apartments were those as part of the 25 State or City housing bonus? 26
27
Ms. Hernandez: Those were explicitly identified as a public benefit. I’d have to go back and cross check 28
what the requirements are for that site to see if the BMR program required them to have a certain 29
number of units, of BMR’s. 30
31
Commissioner King: Ok. So I’m, I can’t say I’m, the one thing I’m clear on is that we should not be 32
letting applicants, and are showing what has happened in the past be reflecting a public benefit that 33
resulted from the PC process separate from the BMR units being used to get a developer enhancement 34
separate from the PC process. 35 36 Ms. Gitelman: If I can just clarify am I right that you’re saying we should be clear when BMR units are 37 being provided because they’re required versus when they’re being required because they’re a public 38 benefit. 39
40
Commissioner King: Yes, although yeah, exactly. Correct. 41
42
Ms. Gitelman: Ok. 43
44
Commissioner King: Yeah. 45
46
Ms. Gitelman: We can try and do that. 47
48
Commissioner King: Ok. Because really we didn’t get anything as the public benefits as the City we didn’t 49
get anything extra if they would have been built anyhow under the previous zoning. Ok. Let’s see. 50 51 And then and I know the amount of work may be not realistic to ask, but in this trigger for PC when for 52 instance these say they’ll say that density and such it would be valuable, but again I know it may be an 53 insurmountable amount of work to show what could have been built under the existing zoning at that 54
time. And I know there’s some that probably may not have had existing zoning or was so I’m the one 55
thing that this gives us is general categories but not specifics of what, how big was a project? A 1,000 56
City of Palo Alto Page 9
square feet larger than it might have been because we needed to do this things? So that would be, the 1
more information would be valuable. 2
3
Then from the big picture so if we do waiting and in the previous times when we’ve done motions and we 4
did waiting and the straw, I’m sorry, we did straw polls it was really binary. Does it pass or does it not 5
pass? And so it seems that that would not be the, in my mind that would not be the best way. It should 6
not be binary. If we do straw polls on these we should actually retain the count of how many 7 Commissioners supported versus did not support so that we don’t lose information because it may be one 8 to six, which is quite different than three to four, right? 9 10 And then lastly in trying to figure out a framework for going forward looking at ok what’s right with a PC, 11
what’s not right? One of the things in looking at this matrix that I see is that and others may want to 12
slice and dice slightly differently, but for me some of them are a nonprofit creation of a project perceived 13
to serve the community not otherwise available such as the BMR housing, senior housing, things that are 14
really just that the community is perceived to believe that we want more BMR housing and that we’re 15
willing to change existing zoning, work outside existing zoning or senior housing, those types of things. 16
And for me those types of projects seem a perfect fit for the PC type process. 17
18
The other, then you move moving down what in my mind is a continuum then there’s the for profit 19
creation of a project perceived to serve the community not otherwise available and so these might be 20
let’s see, Sunrise at Palo Alto, which is for profit and yet provides senior housing. There was the recent 21
one… Channing House similar for profit. Someone’s making money and yet it fulfills a perceived benefit 22 that wouldn’t otherwise been available to the community. Those are to me less clear that they’re the 23 value to the community. And then next would be a for profit project strictly for profit not generally 24 perceived to benefit the community in and of its own, but then offering some public benefit either usually 25 often with funds or amenities related to or not related to the project itself. And so if we’re trying to so 26
now my thought is that we should look at that as a framework splitting the PC into its separate 27
components what has been done and looking at them, those portions separately. Thank you. 28
29
Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 30
31
Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, thank you. So let me make a couple of observations first and the observation is 32
that one of the findings for a PC zoning if I remember correctly is that no standard zoning rules apply. 33
And in order to have a PC you can’t use a standard zoning. And that’s part of the reason why mixed-use 34
as was mentioned by staff in the zoning ordinance update in the 2007 time frame a lot of mixed-use rules 35 were put into effect and particularly for the CN zone and the CS zone describing what that is and so 36 zoning rules have changed over time. In addition the Housing Density Bonus Law now exists, which 37 provides some sort of escape for zoning rules to the extent that there is some amount of BMR housing. 38 39
One of the things that the Council chose to do differently than the Commission when we looked at the 40
Housing Density Bonus Law is the Commission had an idea that when you had a project that was 100 41
percent affordable housing than it was possible for there to be additional concessions considered. And at 42
the urging of the public the Council took out that provision. So let me throw out first an idea about how 43
this could happen. Let us suppose the PC zone were limited to either projects that were primarily or 44
exclusively BMR or senior housing and that’s because of the Housing Density Bonus Law restriction on 45
that. Secondly it applies to PC amendments because you have to be able to amend an existing PC and 46
the only way to do that is to have in a new PC that amends the existing PC or changes it to an existing 47
zoning. And the third thing is public projects because you’re not going to have a standard project, a 48
standard zoning for a public safety building or a parking garage. So if you think about that as the limit of 49
PC zoning and then anything that doesn’t fit into that category either happens through a precise plan 50 process for which there’s a long understood process for how to deal with it, in particular South of Forest 51 Avenue (SOFA) 1 and SOFA 2 had a precise plan process that was arduous, but successful. And I don’t 52 think anybody could argue that they are not successful, but they are quite arduous and I’m not sure why 53 there’s an allergy on the staff to having precise plans or area plans done in the future. I think we should 54
try doing more of them instead. 55
56
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Secondly, for things that don’t fit into that there is also the possibly of a development agreement which 1
provides for an increased potential for discussion of public benefits in a process in which there’s more 2
flexibility and the ability to ask for more things like pro formas or if you desire what thing was mentioned 3
by Commissioner King is what the value of the project would be under existing zoning and what the value 4
of the project would be in an appraisal with the as proposed then you can try to capture some of that 5
value. You can do that better in a development agreement. 6
7 Now in terms of the process let me suggest that the process could be preliminary review by the Council 8 in a study session, not a formal action followed by the PTC initiating with recommendations, which 9 doesn’t exist now. Right now we initiate, we turn, we approve it or don’t approve it, but we actually 10 don’t make formal recommendations. In this case we would make formal recommendations that would 11
be tracked through the staff and Architectural Review Board (ARB) review process as the PC moves 12
forward. Then that comes back to the PTC where we have a potential for initiation, sorry, for 13
recommending to Council and we get feedback on the recommendations we made, which were not 14
requirements but we actually get feedback on them and we see how they were changed or whether they 15
were followed and then finally the Council approve. 16
17
One thing on this is that first of all we should be willing to say no early on projects we don’t like instead 18
of wasting the developer’s time and the public’s time on projects that we think are ridiculous. And in 19
terms of that what happens is that if you have such a situation then we don’t get into the scenario that 20
sometimes happens where we say well the developer spent so much money on that let’s just approve it. 21
We should try to avoid that by stopping it early. 22 23 And finally in terms of ex parte communication, which was brought up I think that the Commission should 24 relook at its policies on ex parte communications firstly. We have gone back and forth on that a couple 25 of times, but in particular it should apply to PC’s, development agreements, and quasi-judicial matters. 26
And perhaps there could be a recommendation to Council in terms of increasing their all avoidance of ex 27
parte communications prior to the final PC recommendation to Council. Thank you. 28
29
Chair Michael: So I just have a couple of comments to add to the very thoughtful and excellent 30
comments from my colleagues. First just to very enthusiastically concur that the data is extremely 31
helpful, so thank you for that. And this sets a new standard of quality that we hope is possible to attain 32
on other issues of similar importance. It’s very helpful to have data to have proper analysis and leading 33
to good decisions and good public policy. 34
35 So I’ve been on the Commission not quite three years and there’ve been not quite three PC’s during that 36 time. The one PC was the 101 Lytton, which stimulated I think a very chaotic almost random discussion 37 at the PTC of what on Earth is a public benefit and led directly to the work by esteemed Chairman 38 Martinez, my colleague, and Commissioner Alcheck and myself on the colleagues memo on public 39
benefits, which I think is still relevant in terms of posing questions at the end of the memo for what 40
maybe should go into the revision of the ordinance, but I won’t belabor that at the moment. 41
42
The very limited data that I have with just the 101 Alma, the Edgewood Plaza, and then the El 43
Camino/Page Mill project which is on hold is that there, and I guess Maybell had also the PC aspect so 44
four. Was that there seems to be a pattern and it’s a fairly limited data set of applicants seeking to do 45
something more than was allowed by existing zoning in terms of the development of the land. Either 46
more units, more floor area, a little more height, reduced setbacks, something that would give them a 47
chance to create something that would be more valuable, more useful, maybe more beneficial to the 48
public, but not permitted under zoning. There seems also to have been an opportunity to ask for doing 49
something less than might otherwise have been required in terms of maybe number of parking spaces or 50 who knows what requirement that might have been avoided as a result of the approval of the PC. So we 51 are getting something more or avoiding a requirement that would otherwise be applicable? And in each 52 case it’s again very limited data that seems to be of economic value to the applicant hence the sense that 53 was the public being treated fairly whether it’s the existing neighborhood or the adjacent the most 54
impacted area or the City overall in terms of the bargaining for that went on between the applicant and 55
the staff and the Commission and the Council and so on, which led to some suspicion that maybe this 56
City of Palo Alto Page 11
wasn’t a great process. But now that we have the data we can see this more objectively and I think that 1
it’s, I think it’s been recognized by the work of the staff, the comments from the Commissioners, the 2
people who have come from the public to make very, very useful and relevant comments and the former 3
Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel who came in during a time when there was 26 PC’s during her 4
tenure on the Commission many of which are on maybe not on your chart because they’re prior, they 5
predated, but were things that were beneficial to the public and couldn’t have been achieved through 6
existing zoning and were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 7 8 So with that I’ve identified I think four broad areas where we might use a straw vote process to get the 9 sense of the Commission and some of these questions have subparts. And if, with the indulgence of my 10 colleagues in the interest of time let’s just go with my list and at the end if there’s something that we 11
want to vote on that we didn’t get a chance to vote on then we’ll maybe try to identify that. 12
13
So the first question I have is since we have, since the Council has indicated that the PC zoning is on 14
hiatus or time out is whether we feel that the PC zoning process should resume? And the first subpart is 15
whether we think it should resume promptly and then the second part and we’d vote separately is should 16
it resume only after revision of the ordinance? And if this is a clearly defined question and if you really 17
feel strongly about this you can raise both hands. No, we’ll count your votes. 18
19
Ms. Gitelman: Chair Michael can I, I’m sorry, I’m sorry to interject so soon in this process because this is 20
trending in a great direction. I just wanted to make sure the Commission was aware that the study 21
session is noticed as discussing reforms and alternatives. 22 23 Chair Michael: Yeah. 24 25 Ms. Gitelman: And I don’t know whether your suggestion to talk about the Council’s time out is 26
appropriately in that context or not. 27
28
Chair Michael: Well it leads to the alternatives. I mean I think it… and it’s nonbinding so it’s not, I mean 29
it’s a big whoop. I mean really. Who cares what we think? We care. Ok. 30
31
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: So I’m sorry Chair Michael, for those listening at home it might 32
be helpful just to explain that the Commission’s history behind straw polls and study sessions. Of course 33
in study sessions you can’t take any action. This was not noticed as a public hearing. It will not result in 34
any formal action, but of course it’s fine as a matter of just codifying some of the comments in a way 35 that helps report recommendations to Council to have a straw poll and that’s what the Commission is 36 doing at this point. 37 38 STRAW POLL #1 39
40
Chair Michael: Ok, thank you. So bearing in mind that what we’re doing is just trying to capture our 41
feelings do we feel that it would be beneficial for the PC zoning process to resume promptly? Should the 42
City start processing PC zoning applications promptly? All in favor? All opposed? So 4-2. Did you 43
abstain? 44
45
Commissioner Gardias: I have a different perspective so that would be a different question. 46
Chair Michael: 3-2, one abstention. 47
48 STRAW POLL #1 RESULT (3-2-1, Commissioner Gardias abstained) 49 50 STRAW POLL #2 51 52
Chair Michael: So the next subpart of this is should the PC zoning, should the resumption of PC zoning 53
happen only after amendment of the ordinance? 54
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn’t hear. 2
3
Chair Michael: Should resumption of the PC zoning applications only precede after revision of the 4
ordinance? And then no? So that’s 3-3 with Commissioner Alcheck particularly enthusiastic. 5
6
STRAW POLL #2 RESULT (3-3) 7 8 Chair Michael: Yes? 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: Would it be ok if you asked the ancillary question, which is would you support 11
both processes happening at the same time? The revision process so that there isn’t, you understand? 12
13
Chair Michael: Ok. Third subpart (interrupted) 14
15
Commissioner Tanaka: Wait, can I ask a quick question? So on the last vote there were seven people 16
voting. How can it be 3-3? 17
18
Ms. Gitelman: Thank you. 19
20
Chair Michael: Oh, I miscounted. 21
22 Commissioner King: And comparably wasn’t the previous vote shouldn’t there have been six total and I 23 think we came up with five total. 24 25 Chair Michael: There was one abstention. 26
27
Commissioner Tanaka: I think last vote was (interrupted) 28
29
Commissioner King: Seven (unintelligible) 30
31
RECOUNT OF STRAW POLLS #1 AND #2 AND STRAW POLL #3 32
33
Chair Michael: Ok, let’s recount. So I’m new to the straw polling, I apologize. So we’re going to have 34
three subparts: resumption of PC zoning promptly, resumption of PC zoning only after revision of the 35 ordinance, or resumption of PC zoning process in parallel with updating the ordinance. And how about 36 you just vote for your favorite? Ok. So how many people just want to resume the PC zoning process 37 irrespective of revision? Ok, two. How many people would wait to resume PC zoning until after the 38 ordinance has been revised? Three. Would anybody want to have PC zoning process resume 39
immediately, but in parallel with updating the ordinance? Two… three. Ok. It was three. Ok. 40
41
STRAW POLL RESULT (#1, 2 Commissioners for, #2, 2 Commissioners for, and #3, 3 Commissioners for) 42
43
Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry, Commissioner Tanaka you changed your vote from which, number one or 44
number two? 45
46
Chair Michael: Ok. 47
48
Commissioner Tanaka: Unintelligible – off microphone 49
50 Ms. Gitelman: Then the second one. 51 52 Chair Michael: Ok, so I’m just going to take the liberty of trying to characterize what I’m hearing and that 53 is that the Commission is sensing that there’s value to the PC zoning process, there’s also value to 54
updating the ordinance, but it’s of sufficient importance that it be done with alacrity. That we get back 55
into the business of processing these applications. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry Chair Michael can I characterize that a little differently? You know this is a split 2
Commission: two, two, and three. Would it be fair to say that the Commission as a whole believes this is 3
a very valuable process that the majority of the Commission believes that PC, use of the PC process 4
should resume either in parallel or subsequent to reforms? 5
6
Chair Michael: Yes. 7 8 Ms. Gitelman: Or is that… 9 10 Chair Michael: Yes. And I would just say that if the reforms were to be particularly protracted then there 11
would be bias towards resuming it. I think if it took as long to reform the PC ordinance as it takes to 12
update the Comprehensive Plan we should get on with it more quickly than that. Commissioner 13
Rosenblum. 14
15
Commissioner Rosenblum: I’m not sure I agree with the interpretation. I think the second vote, I’m in 16
the minority on this, but I think that the majority is saying let’s get on with it. There are only two people, 17
myself and Vice-Chair saying let’s wait and reform. There’s two versions, there’s one that says get on 18
with it no matter what happens and the other get on with it and begin this reform process. So either 19
way the majority is get on with it I think. Is my interpretation it’s not a split some people say get on with 20
it, some people don’t. I think it’s the majority was to so I would say you said two, two, and three or 21
something like that, but it’s two of the options were overlapped on to get on with it. 22 23 Chair Michael: So I think we’re cutting with a dull blade here, but I think that there’s a just in trying to 24 understand what our thinking is I think that we’ve been impressed with the work of the staff to go back 25 and look at the data to the extent that we have public comment there seems to be some recognition of 26
PC zoning has been used beneficially in the past and it would be beneficial to the public if it was resumed 27
and the ordinance needs some work. Vice-Chair Keller. 28
29
Vice-Chair Keller: I think that it depends on how long the PC process revision ordinance takes. The 30
ordinance revision takes. It’s not going to take the six or seven years that we’ve been revising the Comp 31
Plan. It’s an ordinance and an ordinance should take at most a few more months in terms of that 32
process. 33
34
Secondly, I think that there are particular considerations in terms of things like what are public benefits 35 and how to quantify public benefits and in fact exactly what the scope of PC’s are that in my mind arbor 36 for not resuming PC’s before doing the ordinance or you may get to a situation of the PC’s that happen in 37 the process while the ordinance is being revised and whether they have to change. So I think that the 38 expediency of resuming PC’s prior to reforming the ordinance is problematic at best and gets into various 39
issues of grandfathering of the ones in process. So I think that’s fundamentally a bad idea even though 40
I’m in the minority. 41
42
STRAW POLL #4 43
44
Chair Michael: So I think we’re going to get from Commissioner Alcheck a few more questions for straw 45
polling, but let me go to the next area and that is to the extent that effort is going to be made by staff 46
and others to look at revisions to the ordinance this goes to what should go into the revisions. And the 47
first one I expect should there be a definition of public benefit? And let’s just vote on that. Should there 48
be a benefit, a definition of public benefit in the revised ordinance? Any votes no or abstaining? 49
50 Commissioner Rosenblum: I have to abstain. I have a hard time codifying it, but I’m not… 51 52 Chair Michael: Ok, so six in favor of having a definition of public benefit and one abstention. 53 54
STRAW POLL #4 RESULT (6-0-1) 55
56
City of Palo Alto Page 14
STRAW POLL #5 1
2
Chair Michael: Another is should in the revised ordinance there be included a menu of allowable public 3
benefits? Ok. So opposed? Abstaining? So that’s two, two, two. Yeah, so we had 2-2-2 and then one 4
person didn’t vote; 2-2-2 and 1. So we we’re probably expressing some consternation about what the 5
menu would look like, so that probably is an area that needs more work before we could endorse the 6
direction that we don’t understand where it would go. Sure. 7 8 STRAW POLL #5 RESULT (2-2-2) 9 10 Vice-Chair Keller: I think for me the reason I abstained is because the scope of the PC’s to me effects 11
what the public benefit menu is. If the scope of the PC is as I recommended be BMR, senior housing, or 12
PC amendments or public projects then it’s clear that we could define a scope of what the public benefits 13
are and we’d understand them on a standard menu of that. On the other hand if we have a broader 14
scope of the public, of the, what the PC zone applies to then I have more heartburn as to the ability to 15
create a menu of public benefits. 16
17
STRAW POLL #6 18
19
Chair Michael: Ok, so the menu idea may be more problematic. Although definition may be something 20
that we are more excited about. Then question should in the revision of the ordinance there be some 21
requirement for independent economic analysis or pro forma disclosure by the applicant? Unanimous. 22 23 STRAW POLL #6 RESULT (7-0) 24 25 Commissioner King: If I can just make a comment? Again there if it were, if it’s a nonprofit somebody 26
developing BMR housing and it’s a nonprofit I’m not really concerned about the pro forma because 27
there’s no one making a profit so that one’s a little tricky for me. I voted for it, but that’s going to be 28
tricky. 29
30
Chair Michael: Ok. So in the work that was done by Commissioner Alcheck and Chair Martinez and 31
myself, one of the concepts that we discussed in the colleagues memo was the difference between public 32
benefit, which was in the nature of the project itself we referred to it as an intrinsic public benefit. 33
Maybe that would be BMR housing or senior housing or public plaza or something like that, public art. Or 34
something that was extrinsic maybe improvement of the traffic signal four to eight blocks away or 35 payment into a parking fund or something. And I think that the relevance of the economic analysis pro 36 forma disclosure probably bears primarily where you’re unable to find an intrinsic public benefit to the 37 nature of the project itself and you have to look for there’s actually economic value being created in the 38 up zoning and you ought to pay for it and if so, how much? But anyway let’s kind of… Vice-Chair Keller. 39
40
Vice-Chair Keller: So even for the process of affordable housing development there may be a situation in 41
which an economic analysis is worthwhile. And although I don’t, I’m loathe to take this as an example, 42
but if you look at the Maybell project part of the issue there was how many market rate units were 43
needed to pencil out the project. And to the extent that we had more exposure to those numbers I think 44
that that may have affected the outcome of the PC process and may have affected the outcome of the 45
election. So I think that the fact that the numbers were not transparent made it hard for the Palo Alto 46
Housing Corporation (PAHC) to make their case adequately and also hard for us to really understand how 47
many market rate housing units were really needed to pencil that out. 48
49
STRAW POLL #7 50 51 Chair Michael: Ok. Thanks Vice-Chair Keller. The next question I have is process. Now here the 52 ordinance specifically calls for the PC zoning to be initiated by the PTC. The practice in recent years has 53 been for something to happen prior to that, which is referred to as preliminary review by Council or what 54
Vice-Chair Keller is suggesting might be more elegantly done as a study session by Council and then the 55
Planning Commission initiates; however, I’m not sure whether the semantics of this are clear if the 56
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Council is having a preliminary study session are they in fact initiating? Which I’m totally comfortable 1
with the Council initiating the zoning change and then sending it to the ARB and the PTC for work on the 2
details, but if the PTC is currently required to initiate that seems to me not the current practice. So my 3
question is should the ordinance be revised to provide for initiation by Council? Should the ordinance be 4
revised so that a PC zoning is initiated by Council? So two people want to clarify the question. 5
Commissioner Gardias. 6
7 Commissioner Gardias: I mean it’s like in some other in the other case, it depends. Like my perspective 8 was different from this, this side that if we have a clear process then Council might not need this interest 9 of course we would need to discuss this with Council. It’s not going to be our decision. Or there could 10 be also some projects that would be going beyond where the scale to go beyond the ordinance. So the 11
answer would be depends, right? If we have a clear process then maybe there would not be a need for 12
it. If there is some heavy outlier then of course yes. 13
14
Chair Michael: Ok. Vice-Chair Keller. 15
16
Vice-Chair Keller: So firstly with 101 Lytton there was a preliminary review by Council followed by an 17
initiation by the Commission. And I think that the initiation by Commission perhaps went on for several 18
meetings and I think that that was a more reasonable process than what happened on Alma Plaza or 19
Alma Village, where the Commission declined to initiate the project and Council initiated the project as an 20
ordinance that locked things into place. And I think that in this particular situation I don’t know anybody 21
who likes the result of the Alma Village approach. So I think that there is an advantage to having the 22 Planning Commission review it even before initiation and in particular my understanding is on 101 Lytton 23 that was a study session. It was not, preliminary reviews are study sessions they are not agendized as 24 an action item. Maybe staff could clarify that for us? 25 26
Ms. Silver: Yes, Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. Study sessions do not initiate PC’s; however, I 27
think that in the recent history the Council and the applicant has requested a study session with the 28
Council not to technically initiate the PC, but to get a sense of whether it was worth going through the 29
very long lengthy process and whether Council was open to a PC. Get some initial feedback. 30
31
Chair Michael: Yes, so the vote would be to the extent that the ordinance now states explicitly that the 32
PC is initiated by PTC is any change needed to this part of the ordinance? For example, it could be 33
changed so that the PTC is initiated by Council or it could be changed (interrupted) the PC is initiated by 34
Council or is that prior to initiation by the PTC that there would be a preliminary study session review by 35 Council. But another, should the ordinance be revised to clarify exactly what the role of Council is at the 36 beginning of the process? 37 38 Vice-Chair Keller: I’m not sure if I understand your question. Can I offer an alternative? 39
40
Chair Michael: Ok, let me before Vice-Chair Keller sort of clarifies my question, my question is coming 41
from the fact that as I sort of experience this, these few process projects that have been on our agenda 42
in the last couple of years that the role of the PTC has not been as provided in the ordinance in terms of 43
having the formal initiation of the Council because something happens before and what happens before 44
is very weighty. It really determines kind of the viability or the nature or the conditions or the 45
parameters of the project and we have essentially sort of ratified what was done before we initiated. So 46
I think for me that’s tantamount to the Council initiating the PC, which is perfectly ok, but I think that 47
that would to me to be with my legal background appropriate to revise the ordinance to say Council 48
initiates. So Vice-Chair Keller is going to kind of clarify my thinking. 49
50 Vice-Chair Keller: So firstly the formal action of the Planning Commission to initiate a PC is qualitatively 51 different than the Council initiating a PC without the Commission review or analysis. So those are 52 qualitatively different. If the Council initiates the PC then the Planning Commission has no role except to 53 review it on the way back and I think that’s completely inappropriate, but I think it seems to me that 54
there are really three alternatives. One alternative is to have the current process where the Council 55
optionally does a study session where the Planning Commission initiates the PC and if it declines to then 56
City of Palo Alto Page 16
the Council has the option to initiate the PC or send it back and say no and that’s one option. The 1
second option is to have the Council initiate the PC and the Planning Commission role relegated to review 2
it on the way back and not have any comments to it on the initial process. And the third thing, which is a 3
variation of the first one if you will, is to not have the Council do a study session in advance. And I’m 4
actually not going to suggest that because I don’t think we can prohibit the Council from doing a study 5
session in advance. That may happen instead. 6
7 So the issue really is do we have the current process where the Planning Commission does the formal 8 initiation after preliminary review by… potential optional preliminary review by Council or do we remove 9 the Planning Commission’s role entirely from that initiation process and have the Council initiate it with 10 the risk that we may get an Alma Plaza process occur? 11
12
Chair Michael: So I think Vice-Chair Keller’s comments are well taken and certainly well informed. And I 13
think just to simplify this we’re not going to do the revision of the ordinance on the fly. That would not 14
be within our competency. The question is simply whether that particular section of the ordinance that 15
refers to initiation by the PTC be clarified in some respect to reflect the actual process that the City 16
should follow. And so this is a vote on whether that should be clarified. 17
18
Vice-Chair Keller: Clarified how? 19
20
Chair Michael: In some way. We’re not going to… it’s too complicated for us to kind of work though that 21
without more caffeine. 22 23 RESTATED STRAW POLL #7 AND STRAW POLL #8 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: Chair? Maybe I can be… maybe it’s because I have two really young children, but 26
I think I can be of assistance here. This is going to be a little more, just allow me a minute. Show of 27
hands, who would support a process that was initiated so… a PC process that must be initiated by Council 28
first? Ok, no show of hands. Who would support a process that would be initiated by PTC before Council 29
was involved? That’s the current, well it sort of is and it sort of isn’t (interrupted) 30
31
Chair Michael: It’s the current ordinance. 32
33
Commissioner Alcheck: I think that was four hands. Four individuals represented that they would prefer 34
the process be initiated by PTC rather than Council. I could go on with more questions. 35 36 STRAW POLL RESULT (#7, 0 for, #8, 4 for) 37 38 Chair Michael: Commissioner Gardias. 39
40
STRAW POLL #9 41
42
Commissioner Gardias: It’s just an addition to this; I just believe that the role of Council is to be clarified. 43
Not necessarily this particular paragraph that’s currently in the ordinance, but definitely we need to clarify 44
Council’s role in defining or dictating public benefits. Which would be pretty much separation of duties 45
and this is something that Commissioner Alcheck before talk about. So one way or the other there would 46
have to be some change in the ordinance that would redefine the role of Council in the process. 47
48
Chair Michael: I think we can take a vote on that. How many in favor of the proposition from 49
Commissioner Gardias to clarify the role of Council in the process? Ok, that seems to be unanimous. 50 51 STRAW POLL #9 RESULT (7-0) 52 53 STRAW POLL #10 54
55
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Chair Michael: So the next question and I don’t know if we can get into sort of subparts, but I think 1
broadly the ordinance should be revised to provide a reasonable enforcement mechanism with potentially 2
alternative ways of enforcement and monitoring. Vice-Chair Keller. 3
4
Vice-Chair Keller: No, no. I thought you were asking (interrupted) 5
6
Chair Michael: Oh, ok. Vote. All in favor of an enforcement mechanism as I said? Any opposed? No, 7 that’s unanimous. 8 9 STRAW POLL #10 RESULT (7-0) 10 11
Chair Michael: Ok. 12
13
Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry, was that 6-1 or 7? 14
15
Chair Michael: 7-0. 16
17
Ms. Gitelman: 7-0. Thank you. 18
19
Chair Michael: Ok. So that’s enforcement and monitoring and we didn’t get into the specifics of how you 20
would enforce that. Commissioner Gardias. 21
22 Commissioner Gardias: I know that it just adds to the time that we’re spending on this, but in terms of 23 the enforcement, I had a thought about this. So enforcement yes, but of course the question is in what 24 way, right? So from perspective of Palo Alto and also the agreement it may be wise just to structure the 25 agreement so no enforcement will be necessary because of course it would be costly. So if we were 26
going to get to the details my perspective would be just to minimize or some structure the agreement for 27
the public benefit so that pretty much it’s just a one-time benefit that doesn’t need the enforcement 28
down the road. Thank you. 29
30
STRAW POLL #11 31
32
Chair Michael: Ok. I think there’s some complexity to this, but it’s probably a topic of more work and 33
further discussion. The next item as we focused on PC zoning one of the things that we’ve considered is 34
to achieve the same objectives I think this was in the staff report sometimes other communities use 35 development agreements or they may use development agreements and/or PC zoning not necessarily 36 one or the other. And the question is whether Palo Alto should consider increasing the use of 37 development agreements where appropriate? All in favor? Ok, any opposed? Any abstaining? Ok. So 38 four in favor and three abstaining on the basis of we haven’t had sufficient airing of what a development 39
agreement entails and what does that, what are the consequences of that or what are the pros and cons. 40
Commissioner Gardias. 41
42
STRAW POLL #11 RESULT (4-0-3) 43
44
Commissioner Gardias: I’m sorry Chair for just taking another time. I mean this is just for this vote; I 45
just want to be clear just it’s not for the sake of just increasing the number of the development 46
agreements. If we established a process that would allow us just to cut down on the number of the 47
development agreements that would be my preference. 48
49
Chair Michael: Well, as far as I understand in recent years the number of applications for PC zoning is 50 been rare. So in some cases somebody might where they couldn’t proceed under existing zoning to 51 complete their project or that they wouldn’t be able to provide public benefit under the existing zoning, 52 but if the PC zoning itself was an inappropriate mechanism should they or could they propose a 53 development agreement instead? I think that’s, I think the answer is if we understood more clearly what 54
a development agreement would entail we think it would be a useful tool to allow flexibility for Palo Alto 55
City of Palo Alto Page 18
in certain situations where the PC zoning is sort of a catch all that isn’t necessarily perfect. Vice-Chair 1
Keller. 2
3
Vice-Chair Keller: Firstly I think that if we were to use development agreements more frequently the two 4
development agreements we’ve had in the recent past are involving the Stanford Mayfield Playing Fields 5
and Stanford Medical Center Expansion. So if we were to go beyond and have more development 6
agreements then we would need a development agreement ordinance that would have further 7 description of that, but my understanding of State law and I realize I’m not a lawyer is that we have 8 more flexibility in terms of what we can require with respect to a development agreement than we may 9 be able to do it in PC’s. 10 11
Chair Michael: So noted. And then well let’s see… I’m going to give Commissioner Alcheck’s questions 12
back to Commissioner Alcheck. Here. 13
14
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so we’ve had a lot of time to think about this. This is not, don’t feel scared to 15
vote on this alright? Just some quick questions, show of hands. Would you support a process that didn’t 16
treat every exception the same? I’ll rephrase. Would you support a process that treated exceeding 17
height differently than exceeding density? Or would you, if you don’t raise your hand then you’re 18
suggesting in this question that you would support a process that treated each exception to our zoning 19
code the same. Meaning would you support a process where exceeding a certain limitation, certain 20
limitations would be required greater public benefit than other? Alright, I’ll just keep going. Let me go 21
through more questions. Should the City Council be the sole determining party of what a public benefit 22 is? 23 24 Chair Michael: So I think the charge of the Planning Commission is advisory body recommending to the 25 Council the Council. 26
27
Commissioner Alcheck: Right. 28
29
Chair Michael: So I think not sole but ultimate. 30
31
Commissioner Alcheck: Ultimate. 32
33
Chair Michael: Ok. 34
35 STRAW POLL #12 36 37 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, there was no show of hands there. Is there any, are there members of the 38 Commission that would support a PC process that included a payment towards the development of a 39
public benefit? Four? Four hands? Ok. 40
41
STRAW POLL #12 RESULT (4 for) 42
43
STRAW POLL #13 44
45
Commissioner Alcheck: Another question along the lines of how long a public benefit should be enforced, 46
would you support a process that required the enforcement of a public benefit for the lifetime of the 47
development? Would you support a process… that’s five. 48
49
Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry, we didn’t get the vote on… 50 51 Commissioner Alcheck: It’s five. Five hands supported that. 52 53 Ms. Gitelman: Ok, public benefit life of project. 54
55
STRAW POLL #13 RESULT (5 for) 56
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
STRAW POLL #14 2
3
Commissioner Alcheck: Would you support a process where enforcement was 30 years, but not more 4
than 30 years? Ok, that’s two hands. 5
6
STRAW POLL #14 RESULT (2 for) 7 8 STRAW POLL #15 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: Would you support a process where enforcement, the enforcement of the public 11
benefit was only 20 years? Ok, no hands. 12
13
STRAW POLL #15 RESULT (0 for) 14
15
STRAW POLL #16 AND #17 16
17
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m just two, one more. Should the, would you… I’ll ask two questions. Should a 18
PC be allowed everywhere in the City? If you wouldn’t, ok the alternative would be would you support a 19
PC process that was limited to certain physical zones of the City? Ok so there was two that supported 20
anywhere in the City, four that support some physical limitation to the location of the PC process. That’s 21
all I have right now. 22 23 STRAW POLL RESULT (#16, 2 for, #17, 4 for) 24 25 STRAW POLL #18 26
27
Chair Michael: So the final question I had which I held back on but was directly following Commissioner 28
Alcheck’s last question was that PC zone should be considered where, only where relevant to high level 29
policies in the Comp Plan including specific plans or precise plans for particular districts. So I’m saying 30
that where now the ordinance says that the PC zone should be consistent with the Comp Plan I’m saying 31
that the Comp Plan should be more proscriptive and layout the intention of the City where PC zones 32
would be encouraged and particularly through the use of specific plans and precise plans. Yes, Vice-33
Chair Keller. 34
35 Vice-Chair Keller: I think that precise plans and specific plans are an alternative to PC zoning and that 36 precise plans or specific plans are those that specify what more detail analysis of the zoning should be. 37 Think about SOFA 2, it basically had its own set of zoning rules that applied to the different parcels in 38 there and therefore PC’s would become superfluous because it would be unnecessary to do in a zone 39
where you had that, area where you had the precise plan. So it’s an alternative not an and. 40
41
Chair Michael: Well I’m, it’s possible. You may know more about this than I do, but I suspect that let’s 42
say you have a California Avenue Area Concept Plan or a Downtown Precise Plan and you do the zoning 43
update and then something comes along and it doesn’t fit. And somebody says well we’d like to do this 44
land use, but it just doesn’t fit the existing zoning even though you’ve got the concept area plan or even 45
if you got the precise plan so we’d like to propose it because it would be, would confer public benefit 46
even though when the zoning update was done it didn’t allow it exactly. So I don’t totally accept the 47
logic of your practical advice. Go ahead. 48
49
Vice-Chair Keller: There’s a difference between a precise plan and a concept area plan. A concept area 50 plan does not do parcel by parcel analysis in detail and as for example SOFA 1 and SOFA 2 did. So if you 51 subtract out concept area plans, which are a whole other beast if you think about precise plans for 52 example if you look at the precise plan that is being done at San Antonio Shopping Center, ok? That’s 53 looking at that parcel and looking at the detailed analysis of what you want in there. That’s an 54
alternative to a PC. You don’t need a PC there because that’s supplying what you’re going to do there. 55
City of Palo Alto Page 20
It’s a design. If we have a precise plan for Fry’s we don’t need a PC there. The Fry’s site will actually 1
detail design what we want. 2
3
Chair Michael: Ok, let me try to rephrase my question. 4
5
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, Chair Michael maybe I could make a suggestion? I think you’re suggesting 6
something that builds off the last question which is that PC’s should only happen where the Comp Plan 7 says it’s ok whether it’s through a policy in the Comp Plan or a concept area plan that’s within the Comp 8 Plan. Is that where you’re in? 9 10 Chair Michael: Yeah, it’s pretty much, yeah. 11
12
Ms. Gitelman: Ok. 13
14
Chair Michael: So let’s vote again. Director Gitelman’s insight. All in favor? So there was four in favor 15
and three no votes. 16
17
Vice-Chair Keller: You want to see if the no votes were abstain or no? 18
19
Chair Michael: Nah. 20
21
STRAW POLL #18 RESULT (4-3) 22 23 Chair Michael: So let’s have a final round. So we did the straw voting, it was a little chaotic, but hopefully 24 it was useful in terms of seeing where we had a split of views. That’s true, but let’s have everybody have 25 a chance to make any final comments that they want and this is a really important topic and let’s give 26
everybody five minutes. Director Gitelman. 27
28
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, Chair Michael there’s one particular thing that would be helpful. I think when it 29
came to the discussion of should there be a menu of public benefits there were at least a few 30
Commissioners who said it depends. And so if the Commissioners in their final comments could those of 31
them who thought it depended could clarify their views on that it would be very helpful. 32
33
Chair Michael: Ok. So each Commissioner can use their five minutes however they would like and Vice-34
Chair Keller would like to ask some straw polling questions in his time. Who wants to go first? 35 Commissioner Rosenblum. 36 37 Commissioner Rosenblum: I thought this was a pretty useful exercise so thanks for doing it. I am glad 38 you asked the question about the menus so I want to address a couple of votes quickly and my vote I 39
abstained on the first and said no to the menu. The first was should there be a definition at all. I’ve 40
been thinking about in the colleagues memo there was a lot of time spent around the definition of public 41
benefit and so I looked at some other examples of this. I think it’s super hard. When I looked at the list 42
of, when I look at the list of projects especially the ones that I consider “good projects” what I realize is 43
very subjective it would have been very hard for me to write a public benefit menu or even definition that 44
would have encompassed those. So I’m suspicious of like the Napoleonic Code of public benefits and us 45
getting everything down. I think it’s tough and I think it’s going to be putting a, painting us into a 46
corner, but I’ll defer to those who know more about this, but I’m suspicious. 47
48
Then in terms of the vote around some specific policy recommendations so Commissioner Alcheck asked 49
a series of questions, would you support this for 20 years or 30 years. I think there’s a series of 50 questions that won’t in a different forum might, we might come to a better answer when we’re actually 51 drafting policy. I think it’s hard in this forum. Like after I abstained on 20 on 30 years and then I 52 thought well maybe the lifetime of a project projects go on for a long time. Do we really want to force a 53 project that is now in its 50th year are we going to check to see if that parking space that needs to now 54
accommodate hover cars is now working? But no, in all seriousness it’s probably some min length and 55
max length of project enforcement after, but I don’t think that we can really contemplate those things in 56
City of Palo Alto Page 21
this kind of straw poll setting. But I think there are probably a list of those things that would simplify 1
drafting. So I wanted to clarify a couple of answers on so there are some things that some of us might 2
have voted no because we oppose and some things to abstain because we just probably need more 3
information on, but doesn’t indicate lack of enthusiasm. In particular some of the policy strictures very 4
specific questions that Commissioner Alcheck were asking I think are really important ones that could 5
probably be answered, but would need a little bit of staff input to be able to say do we enforce for 20 6
years or 30 years or the length of the project no matter how far it goes. And those are the only clarifying 7 things I wanted to put for this process. 8 9 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 10 11
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, this is, I always think the straw polls are borderline insanity because it’s very 12
difficult to actually accomplish an effective straw poll in this format, but I applaud the effort. I too want 13
to sort of echo Commissioner Rosenblum’s comment about the public benefit. I participated in the memo 14
and I at the time felt very strongly that the failure to define it was a problem. I’m now beginning to 15
believe that the failure to define it is actually an opportunity for the public benefit to evolve. I think 16
public benefits should be evaluated on a case by case basis. I think that the community in the worst 17
case scenario always has a referendum if they feel like we’ve exceeded our authority and ultimately this 18
goes kind of hand in hand with the enforcement. 19
20
I actually think enforcement should be a case by case basis. This notion that for example a child daycare 21
center is for example a public benefit that’s a specific use; 10, 20 years from now maybe that use is not 22 really as beneficial to the public and maybe that enforcement would be in that case limited. We have 23 these uses that are public benefits take for example the idea of what did we call the development, 24 Arrillaga proposal? What was that referred to as? 27 University. Let’s say the public benefit there was 25 supposed to be a theatre. That’s not necessarily a public benefit just for the immediately surrounding 26
local community, that’s a public benefit for the greater Bay Area. And I would argue that on a case by 27
case basis we should be evaluating how those public benefits sort of weigh. Does a public benefit 28
enhance the image and pride of Palo Alto? Or does a public benefit provide a park for the 1,500 feet of 29
residents that surround it? I think there’s opportunity in the lack of a definition. Let me just put it that 30
way. 31
32
I would support a process that was exclusively initiated by the City Council. I’ll repeat that. I would 33
support a process that was exclusively initiated by City Council. I think that if they weighed in it would 34
give the developers of these projects a lot more of a comfortable process because they would know sort 35 of what the expectations of the City Council was prior to their beginning of the process. So say for 36 example the City Council said to them we generally support this type of project and this benefit, but we 37 would really want X, Y, and Z. We’d want the public to support it and so the developer could kind of 38 determine whether or not it’s worth continuing as he’s in the process if he’s going to meet those goals 39
that they’re going to be held accountable to. And frankly I don’t think that would be a problem or 40
inappropriate. 41
42
I want to say that I’m not sure and you quoted it, you stated here that public… can a public benefit be a 43
menu or should be objective, can a public benefit be an infrastructure that the community won’t that 44
doesn’t, isn’t willing to develop on their own, you wrote, “A public benefit should not be an infrastructure 45
project.” I’m not sure I feel that way. I think that if a particular project came forward and the 46
suggestion was that they would either spend a certain amount of capital in helping us provide a really 47
important need for the community infrastructure wise I think I would be supportive of that sort of PC 48
process. Again this sort of goes back to the City Council. 49
50 I think the idea of providing a great deal of flexibility for this one or two projects a year process is good 51 because our notion of what a benefit is evolves over time specifically when it’s use related. Right now 52 senior housing, BMR housing that’s regardless of whether the State or City requires it of certain 53 developments we’re still not producing it enough and so maybe we feel that that is a benefit that, a 54
greater public benefit that we should be accomplishing or childcare facility or a grocery store. And if in 55
City of Palo Alto Page 22
30 years everybody’s ordering groceries online maybe the enforcement of that use isn’t necessary. So 1
I’m kind of going back to that one real quick. 2
3
Finally, I think one of the main problems I have with the PC process is that when you start it you just 4
don’t know where the end zone is, right? I haven’t actually started one myself and I don’t intend to, but 5
it just seems so unclear and I think that’s why I would support a process initiated by City Council that 6
had a little bit more of a rubric laid out upfront of what roles should be so that we as a Planning 7 Commission participated in the process as the role of the body that helped guide the applicant to satisfy 8 those goals that let’s say the City Council identified early on. Ok, that’s it. 9 10 Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 11
12
Commissioner King: Thank you. Let’s see, regarding your question about menus I think menus are 13
probably a good tool and appropriate for when we talked about them for the density bonus and have 14
limited it to that, but I think for the PC, the goal of the PC is flexibility and that I agree that we really 15
need the case by case, the capacity to determine benefits on a case by case basis. And for me it’s 16
important that those benefits are related to the project or its impacts and I think when we were doing 17
the straw polls a lot of these things we sort of vaguely all agree on the things we voted on earlier 18
generally depend, you know, what if’s, but I think if you were trying to find things that will actually divide 19
us I think one of the things we’re on different ends of the spectrum or potentially or along the spectrum 20
are do we want to use PC’s as a tool for… how did I write it down? For the sole purpose of exceeding 21
zoning to increase the project value and profits in exchange for some payment that the City will use for 22 an unrelated public benefit. And so I would propose that that would be a good straw poll because we’ve 23 talked about that and not getting some of these things both ends of the spectrum I think came out in 24 these bullet points in the staff report so that might be a good straw poll. I’ll leave it to Chair if he wants 25 to implement that. 26
27
And then the other thing just the example of the childcare center enforcement and will that childcare 28
center why should we monitor that? Well in that case, that specific case I believe the applicant wanted 29
that childcare center and so it wasn’t, we weren’t requiring it. If at the initial point of a PC project any 30
public benefit was a childcare center then I don’t know why we wouldn’t enforce for whatever we 31
determined the period. In my opinion that’s the length of the project that that public benefit still exists. 32
I think the example last meeting had been a playground that as part of a Homeowner’s Association 33
(HOA) I think had been taken out and that had been an initial public benefit. 34
35 And then lastly and just to show the spectrum across we all exist regarding the image and pride as a 36 public benefit I’m pretty sure Palo Alto has never been accused of having a low self-image so for me 37 personally I would not, I do not consider that a public benefit. In fact that was one of the things with 38 and I don’t know if this is an actual quote, it may be one of those things that Mark Twain never said it, 39
but the building is the benefit. I’m not a believer that in general the buildings are a benefit. If you want 40
to, if somebody brings a proposal for the Space Needle in Palo Alto maybe as a tourist attraction then I 41
will rethink that, but if it’s strictly a building exceeding existing zoning for its beauty and our self-image 42
and pride I personally would not support that. 43
44
Chair Michael: So if the Space Needle were in Palo Alto it would be 35 feet high. But if you wanted to ask 45
a straw poll question, go ahead. 46
47
STRAW POLL #19 48
49
Commissioner King: Ok. Ok, do we want to allow the PC process or a replacement process for the sole 50 purpose or is a use of the PC process or a replacement process the sole purpose, can it be, I didn’t 51 phrase that very well. I’ll come back and rephrase that: the sole purpose of exceeding zoning to increase 52 project value and profits in exchange for a payment from the developer to a public benefit wholly 53 unrelated to the project itself? 54
55
Chair Michael: So yes or no on this one. So? 56
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
Commissioner King: So. 2
3
Chair Michael: So how many think yes and how many think no? So. 4
5
Commissioner King: So yes would be yes, we allow, we want to allow a payment wholly unrelated that 6
goes to a public benefit wholly unrelated to the project in exchange for exceeding zoning. 7 8 Vice-Chair Keller: Can I suggest a rewording? 9 10 Commissioner King: I would entertain that. 11
12
Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, here’s my suggestion. Do we want to allow the PC process to be used for a 13
project that has no intrinsic benefit, but for the payment of a sum of money to the City for some 14
unrelated cause? 15
16
Commissioner King: Yes, that sounds fine. Commissioner Tanaka? 17
18
Commissioner Tanaka: So are you saying that it’s automatic approval or are you saying that we still will 19
review it? We would still consider, we would consider it but it’s not automatic approval? Correct? Ok. 20
21
Chair Michael: So? 22 23 RESTATED STRAW POLL #19 24 25 Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, so the question is: would we consider use of a PC zone for a project with no 26
intrinsic benefit except for the payment of sums of money for other unrelated City purposes? 27
28
Commissioner King: And before we say it should we also add in PC or development agreement because 29
really that’s, we’re talking about an alternate (interrupted) 30
31
Vice-Chair Keller: That’s why I said PC related process. 32
33
Commissioner King: Ok. Ok. I’m voting yes. 34
35 Chair Michael: And then no? Alright. That’s the vote. So two in favor and five opposed. Commissioner 36 Gardias. 37 38 STRAW POLL #19 RESULT (2-5) 39
40
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Chair. So just coming back to the initial question from Director 41
Gitelman about the benefits. That’s how we started. Let me start with definitions, I think that an 42
improved ordinance should have definitions that a lack thereof is the problems that we are facing. But 43
then we have to make a distinction between the definition in the ordinance and then defining specific 44
benefits. I think that definition of the benefits, public benefits should be in the ordinance, but the body 45
that would be defining benefits should be City Council. So that’s if we make these distinctions this would 46
be clear. We’re not going to just put details in the ordinance, we can just put the robust definition about 47
this what this is about, limit ourselves to certain purpose that would be clear for the public but would 48
allow the true elected body to point what really City wants. So that’s from the perspective of the public 49
benefit. 50 51 And then we can just of course just talk about as I talk about that this would be that this would be public 52 benefit that was not going to be related to the project, to the commercial side of the project. I also 53 thought that such a definition would talk about that public benefit is a market, is a benefit that is 54
unattainable under local market conditions and local housing, I’m sorry, public housing or low income 55
City of Palo Alto Page 24
housing rather is one of those benefits that they are not attainable under current local market conditions. 1
So that’s just an example. 2
3
Going back to the definitions I think that when we talk about different aspects, that in the ordinance 4
there should be also the definition of the zoning benefit. We have a beneficial, my apologies I think it’s 5
getting late. I think we have a definition of the public benefit we should also have a benefit of the 6
zoning, which would be for the developer and then this definition would just allow the developer to see 7 what he may get in exchange, which would be probably Floor Area Ratio (FAR), increasing height, maybe 8 zoning setback and some other aspects. They should be listed clearly in the ordinance. Thank you. 9 10 Ms. Gitelman: Excuse me, if I could clarify? I mean this wasn’t a point that I think that came up at our 11
last session and I want to make sure I understand. You’re saying that the ordinance should define the 12
extent of the variance from the underlying zoning standards that should be allowed. So there should be 13
a max like if you’re asking for increased density there should be a maximum you could ask for. Is that 14
what you’re saying? 15
16
Commissioner Gardias: Well, I’m saying that developers should know what benefits he would be allowed 17
to have in exchange for his providing public benefits and I think that from the perspective of developers 18
benefits this is pretty much just going over FAR for the given zoning. Going over height it would be 19
another. So those would be, those exceptions should be listed. If you talk about the limit on those that’s 20
another side of the story, I think that part of this definition or part of the ordinance would be some sort 21
of sliding scale that would show the developer or applicant to calculate that if he goes that much over the 22 limit then he can contribute this much to the public benefit. And the farther he goes away from the 23 mean then of course less he gets. That’s the purpose of the sliding scale. Thank you. 24 25 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 26
27
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so one reason why I didn’t support the idea of having a menu is mainly 28
because of what some of the Commissioners said, which is that I think by definition a PC is an exception. 29
If it fit the Comp Plan and met all the zoning rules it wouldn’t be a PC. It would be just approved without 30
our purview. And so I think by having a menu it’s saying that you could predict what the exceptions are 31
going to be, which if you could then it would be in the Comp Plan already. So I think it’s kind of a tough 32
thing to have a menu just because it is by nature an exception. 33
34
In regards to who should initiate one reason why I think it still should be the PTC that initiates versus the 35 City Council is because I think the City Council by its role has many more responsibilities than we do. We 36 focus very much on planning and transportation issues. And I think I know one of our functions we are a 37 recommending body I think one of our key functions is actually to help screen things for City Council to 38 actually look at the crazy ideas and help shape them into something that’s not so crazy or something 39
more useful. And I think if I look at the City Council members they’re incredibly busy doing a lot of 40
different things beyond just these kinds of issues. So I think it would be derelict for us to say well, we’ll 41
just have them do that because I think the reason why we’re here is actually to do some of that vetting 42
for them. And I think the nature of these PC zones are very much are experiments and we’re going to 43
see things that are kind of on the edge of things and they need to be explored and I think rather than 44
using valuable City Council time us as appointees should do some of the footwork for them so that we 45
could do, so that they could review better vetted projects versus using valuable City Council time on 46
things that are half baked. 47
48
And I think one thing that I heard from just about everyone is I think everyone pretty much agrees about 49
enforcement. I mean I think how you enforce, how much you enforce I think probably has to be a case 50 by case basis, but I think it has to be fair alright? Otherwise it doesn’t make sense that you have public 51 benefits that just disappear after a few years. 52 53 I think the public benefit is a tough one and I think it’s hard to have a menu as I mentioned. I think that 54
it is very much a case by case basis and I think that’s the nature of an exception. And but I do think 55
having some definition would be good although I think it will be a fairly open one because just as our 56
City of Palo Alto Page 25
needs change I think it’s not going to be something that could be carved in stone. So I think there would 1
still be a lot of debate and discussion around it. 2
3
And my last comment is on the straw vote, about should the developer be able to pay money as a public 4
benefit. And I and the Chair served on Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC). We know how 5
much the City is in debt right now, well not in debt, but there’s a backlog, a fairly substantial backlog on 6
the infrastructure side and there’s many other deficient things that we would love to improve. And I 7 think public benefits are going to come in form of exceptional things like perhaps grocery store for a 8 neighborhood that can’t have one, but I think it can also come in the form of extraordinary financial 9 payments where if let’s say oh, a public safety building was taken care of which we’ve been wanting for 10 decades it was taken care of, I think that is a huge public benefit, right? Especially we had a recent 11
earthquake in Napa. What if it was down here? Would we not regret not having a public safety building 12
that wasn’t, we couldn’t finance for various reasons? So I think that’s why I don’t think we could say no 13
to that kind of public benefit either because if… and we’re fortunate to be a city where there are a lot of 14
developers who want to develop here. They could actually afford to make large payments to the City and 15
I think that could be huge public benefit, but I don’t think it should be automatic, I think it should be 16
something that is reviewed carefully and with a lot of consideration. Thank you. 17
18
Chair Michael: So I’m going to let myself go next. So having served on the IBRC with Commissioner 19
Tanaka I think that this question of public benefit for example where you have unfunded infrastructure 20
projects opportunistically where the City, the community lacks the political will to pass a bond measure or 21
otherwise finance something that would meet the community needs, I think the being practical and being 22 opportunistic sometimes is expedient, but it’s at high risk to public trust because you get into this sort of 23 a Faustian negotiation problem. So caution I think I would go first to the public and say if you need a 24 police station if you need a public safety building you need it and you should pay for it and you should 25 build it and don’t ask somebody else to give it to you in exchange for clogging up the traffic forever. 26
27
On the enforcement question given this is something we all seem to think is important in the world of 28
legal remedies there’s often sort of use of injunctions or injunctive relief. And injunctive relief can take 29
two forms, one is against conduct that may cause harm or might violate some requirement and there 30
may be sort of an injunction requiring performance of a duty. And I think that this issue of whether you 31
have enforcement against something that’s undesired versus a requirement, the requirement that you 32
make a grocery store or a… so I think that concept needs to be considered in further study of how you 33
actually implement enforcement along with the possibilities of requiring a posting of a performance bond 34
by the applicant, an indemnity, an enforceable indemnity against a financially responsible party, some 35 sort of penalty provision in knowing who to penalize when and how or even contractual liquidated 36 damages. 37 38 Ms. Gitelman: I’m having trouble hearing you. 39
40
Chair Michael: So my list was performance bond, an indemnity, some penalty provision knowing who the 41
party potentially liable for those penalties might be, or liquidated damages provision negotiated up front 42
maybe in the development agreement or what have you. So the Council and PTC are going to have a 43
study, a joint study session in October. That’s on we have a joint session with Council (Interrupted) 44
45
Ms. Gitelman: That’s right, you do have a joint study session scheduled with Council and our thought was 46
that it would be for among other purposes to discuss your Annual Report to Council. 47
48
Chair Michael: Ok. 49
50 Ms. Gitelman: It’s on October 20th. 51 52 Chair Michael: Ok, so might it be useful we might think about whether Council would be interested in 53 having a conversation with us about the respective roles of Council and the PTC relative to PC zoning if 54
that is ripe for discussion at that time. I want to follow up on that and that’s you know I once had a 55
conversation with one of the senior partners in the biggest international law firm in the world who told 56
City of Palo Alto Page 26
me sort of an international lawyer version of a dirty joke. And it was the difference between heaven and 1
hell and in heaven the Italians are the cooks, the Swiss run the trains, the Brits run the police, the French 2
are the lovers, and the Germans make the cars. And in hell the Brits are the cooks, the Italians run the 3
trains, the Swiss are the lovers, the French make the cars and so on. So I think that, I think in 4
relationship to zoning and PC zoning and whatnot I think the relationship between the public and the 5
Council, staff, and the Commission, I think if we get the roles sorted out properly I think this might be 6
heavenly, but as opposed to having sort of cynicism and mistrust. 7 8 And I think what I see as sort of a worst case situation was something akin to what’s gone wrong 9 recently and that’s where there’s a suspicion that there’s sort of private backroom meetings with 10 individual Council Members then with or without some adequate disclosure of ex parte communications 11
there’s sort of a first time before the public there’s a maybe a study session at which point is the public 12
awareness and input happens only then and then the Council does something to initiate what they would 13
like to see happen, but I think what Commissioner Tanaka suggested is that the role of the Council in 14
setting in making the ultimate decisions is unchallenged. The role of council in setting the policy is 15
unchallenged, but I think that it’s important for Council to delegate to boards and commissions and 16
particularly the PTC some of the preliminary heavy lifting to vet some of these things so that when they 17
come to Council they’re ripe and that the public has a chance to participate and observe and have input 18
before it gets to Council and weight in on and eliminate some of the rough edges. 19
20
I think and then my example there came up yesterday in discussions with Director Gitelman and Vice-21
Chair Keller that the federal court system really achieved a transformational reform when it appointed a 22 court of special jurisdiction over patent litigation, which is the court of appeals for the federal circuit. And 23 that actually changed the value of intellectual property in America. It created validity where district court 24 judges previously had been presiding over litigation of patent cases without specific training and it flipped 25 the enforceability of patents because you had judges who understood patents deciding patent cases as a 26
specialized matter. And I think if the Planning Commission in the future helps develop its competency as 27
a sort of as a center of competency and a center of excellence relative to understanding some of these 28
zoning issues having the Planning Commission truly exercise that preliminary work would add value and 29
enhance public trust and actually support the higher functioning of the Council in setting policy and 30
making the final decisions. Ok. Vice-Chair Keller. 31
32
STRAW POLL #20 33
34
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. I guess my time is up. Ok so the first thing is about ex parte 35 communications. If ex parte communications take place and there’s nothing to be disclosed then there’s 36 no reason to have the meeting. So therefore they shouldn’t have them. If they happen and there’s 37 something to be disclosed then disclose it, but saying that it’s cumulative to the public record is useless. 38 Firstly and I have actually made disclosures of ex parte communications that have been quite extensive 39
and I think that that’s what they should be, not just simply nothing, everything cumulative. 40
41
So firstly I want to clarify one thing that was voted on before so I’m going to ask my own voting. And 42
that is how many Commissioners believe that the PTC should retain some role in the initiation of PC or 43
related zones? All in favor? So that’s six. How many people believe not? So that’s 6-1. Ok. 44
45
STRAW POLL #20 RESULT (6-1) 46
47
Vice-Chair Keller: Secondly with respect to public benefits and their duration, some benefits are of one 48
time duration; for example, a payment towards something is a one time, may be of one-time duration. 49
Allocation of a land dedication for a certain purpose could be thought of as a one-time dedication 50 because then it’s dedicated for that in the future. For example, on the El Camino and Page Mill Road that 51 land dedication was one time had a continuous use was essentially a one-time thing that happens. Some 52 things are of long duration for which there’s statute on that. Low income housing has in some statutes 53 30 years and some other statutes 55 years duration depending on the kind of how they finance it and 54
such and therefore that’s well understood, but other things the project is there for the life of the project. 55
The benefit to the developer is in general there for the life of the project and therefore the benefits to the 56
City of Palo Alto Page 27
public in general when not otherwise specified should be for the life of the project. And developer wishes 1
to cease providing that the developer can amend the PC and provide an alternative benefit to the public 2
instead. So that’s that thing. 3
4
How many people believe that we should have increased use of precise or concept plans as distinguished 5
from concept area plans? Precise plans or specific plans for areas in which we have particular needs for 6
zoning? So I think that that’s four. 7 8 Commissioner Gardias: May I ask about clarification was the relationship to the PC? 9 10 Vice-Chair Keller: Well the issue is that if we have a particular concern about some kind of particular use 11
that we want to have in a location that we try to use precise plans or specific plans as a way of 12
accomplishing that. For example, if you think about say a specific plan for Downtown in order to figure 13
out what we might want in particular places Downtown or the Fry’s site, a specific plan for that that 14
thinks about what kind of, what the arrangement we want there rather than a PC process for that. Yes? 15
16
Commissioner Tanaka: One suggestion about straw polls just in general for everyone is I think there’s 17
three votes. Three possible votes: one is yes, one is no, and one is abstaining, right? 18
19
Vice-Chair Keller: Yes. 20
21
Commissioner Tanaka: And so I think when you when straw poll, straw poll votes are like who says yes 22 and there’s no chance for no or abstaining like on this one I actually abstained because I don’t know 23 enough. The question wasn’t clear enough for me. So I would have abstained, but you took it as a no. 24 so (interrupted) 25 26
Vice-Chair Keller: I didn’t take it as a no, but anyway go ahead. You had another question? 27
28
Commissioner Gardias: No, but just coming back I don’t know what we are discussing now, but coming 29
back to the question that you asked. I mean this one can be achieved independently from the other, 30
right? So you may use the specific plans you may not need the plans. I mean this is pretty much 31
different consideration. I mean you could have a PC zone ordinance without the mentioning of the 32
specific plans. 33
34
Vice-Chair Keller: No, no. I’m suggesting that we have specific plans as a way of having an open process 35 for how we do land use in specific areas. And think of that for example Downtown or the Fry’s site as 36 examples of for which specific plan or precise plan might be useful or South El Camino where we look 37 parcel by parcel and figure out what the development potential for those really are and provide 38 appropriate zoning based on that. That’s the example of a precise plan. So my question is should we 39
have more use of precise or precise plans or specific plans? Should we encourage their use more 40
broadly? More often? 41
42
Commissioner Rosenblum: If I may just? I mean I totally agree with the comment, but I think it’s not 43
related to the PC zone (interrupted) 44
45
STRAW POLL #21 46
47
Vice-Chair Keller: Well people may think it’s not related. I think it’s germane to the topic because it may 48
obviate the need for PC. So I’m just going to ask the question. How many people believe that we should 49
have increased use of precise plans and specific plans? Yes? There are six votes yes. No? Abstain? So 50 there were six votes in yes, no votes in the nay, and one abstention. And I think that Commissioner 51 Alcheck maybe if… want to go for another round (interrupted) 52 53 STRAW POLL RESULT #21 (6-0-1) 54
55
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Commissioner Alcheck: I just want to suggest that while I would support specific plans once a specific 1
plan is adopted four or five years later or immediately after, that wouldn’t necessarily my vote doesn’t 2
suggest that I wouldn’t also support a PC process for a site within a specific plan area. 3
4
Vice-Chair Keller: I’m going to continue on so thank you. 5
6
Commissioner Gardias: [Off microphone - unintelligible] 7 8 Vice-Chair Keller: Ok and so that’s the first thing there. The second thing, so that’s the first question 9 should we have more specific land use through that. The second thing is should we consider greater use 10 of development agreements as opposed to PC’s in areas where we want to have a more detailed 11
discussion of public benefits in particular when there may be some risk in terms of the nature of 12
payments made? In development agreements it’s easier to make payments of certain kinds. In PC’s it’s 13
hard to have payments of certain kinds because of legal aspects. So the question is should we 14
encourage the use of development agreements rather than PC zones in situations, in more situations for 15
example those involving payments? Ok, is that clear what people ask what question is? Yeah? 16
17
Commissioner King: So I just some of these are striking me as like “Is democracy good?” sort of 18
questions where well, yes. If you phrase them should we ask staff, give staff direction to study the use 19
of these things as part of our analysis then I would probably vote yes, but when you’re saying should we 20
use them more I don’t have the information to know that so I’m just (interrupted) 21
22 Vice-Chair Keller: Ok, fine. Should we encourage staff to look into whether it makes sense to have 23 projects be done under development agreements as opposed to PC’s where there are general things like 24 payments and things like that. Ok? Is that feasible? Ok. How many think that do you understand that? 25 Is that a reasonable question? Ok. 26
27
Chair Michael: Can I just interpose a hypothetical? 28
29
Vice-Chair Keller: Yes. 30
31
Chair Michael: So in the last couple of years one of the great land use questions that’s unresolved is 27 32
University. 33
34
Vice-Chair Keller: Yes. 35 36 Chair Michael: And so 27 University provoked a lot of discussion, lot of study, lot of resistance, and the 37 question of what land use is appropriate for that site is still unresolved. It was tending to go forward as 38 it might have been a PC application, but it might have worked better if it had been considered as a 39
development agreement or it might have worked better if the City created a precise plan for the 40
Downtown area including 27 University and then what was done there could be effected as a result of the 41
precise plan. 42
43
Vice-Chair Keller: Yes. 44
45
Chair Michael: And so I think the kind of sophistication, flexibility suggested by the staff report is that 46
cities may use one or the other of these tools with respect to their land use processes where appropriate 47
in order to achieve the best result. And I think that we’re kind of suggesting that we should use different 48
tools that are available to the City and not just the same one which is kind of a square peg in a round 49
hole and creates a lot of public acrimony. 50 51 Vice-Chair Keller: Well let me put it this way, we have here 20 some odd projects that are PC’s since 52 2000. We have I’m not sure exactly the timing of them, but two precise plans that have been done in 53 that years or more in terms of SOFA 1 and SOFA 2. We have had two development agreements that 54
occurred, both involving land with Stanford. So the issue is it’s pretty clear that we’re using the PC 55
process and not using the other two processes. So the first question is whether we should make more 56
City of Palo Alto Page 29
use of precise plans and there was a sentiment in favor of that. So let me ask whether we should 1
explore using better, using more often development agreements as opposed… where there currently 2
might, where in the past PC’s were used for that. So in favor of that? Do people understand the 3
question? So the question is should we consider (interrupted) 4
5
Commissioner Alcheck: I understand the question, I don’t understand enough to vote on it. 6
7 STRAW POLL #22 8 9 Vice-Chair Keller: Should we consider greater use of development agreements in situations that 10 previously used PC’s? 11
12
Chair Michael: So you have to list abstentions, but (interrupted) 13
14
Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, I’ll ask that. So how many in favor? Three. How many no? Two. And how many 15
abstentions? Two. So we have three in favor, two opposed, two abstentions. Ok, great. The next, let’s 16
see… let me see anything else? I think that that’s, I think that that’s it for me. I think that based on that 17
I don’t have to ask any more questions. Thank you. 18
19
STRAW POLL #22 RESULT (3-2-2) 20
21
Chair Michael: Ok, well this is sort of a marathon. I’m going to suggest that we bring it to conclusion. 22 Can I just ask we’ve given you a lot of input; hopefully some of it makes sense? 23 24 Ms. Gitelman: Yes, thank you. Thank you for all of your suggestions and the votes this evening. We 25 tentatively put this on the Council’s agenda for a study session on October 6th. That is subject to change, 26
but we obviously will bring forward the Commission’s thoughts in the form of the transcript and try and 27
convey as best we can the sentiments of the Commission. 28
29
Chair Michael: You know this might actually be something that would be worthy of an executive summary 30
because I think the transcript is going to be somewhat lengthy. And I, if that’s not obvious what that 31
should look like maybe we could collaborate to make it useful. 32
33
Ms. Gitelman: Thank you. 34
35
Commission Action: No action taken, Commissioners did a series of straw polls and provided 36 comments only. 37 38
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5101)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 10/6/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Planned Community Zoning Reform
Title: Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This is a study session regarding Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform and no formal action
is requested.
Executive Summary
The Planned Community (PC) zoning district defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38
dates from 1951 and has been used to approve around 100 different projects since then. As
amended in 1978, the process allows the City Council to re-zone property to PC if the Council
agrees that:
More traditional zoning districts do not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the
proposed development;
Development of the site will result in specific public benefits not otherwise attainable;
and
The proposal is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which is the City’s
guiding document when it comes to land use and development issues.
While the PC zoning process has resulted in many successful projects like the Opportunity
Center and the Tree House, it has come to be viewed as too transactional, allowing
neighborhood impacts to be “traded” for benefits that may accrue to people outside of the
immediate vicinity. Other concerns have been expressed about the ad hoc nature of each
separate negotiation, recent overuse of the PC process, the inadequacy of public benefits
obtained, and the inadequacy of monitoring and enforcement.
In response to these concerns, the City Council enacted a “time out” on all PC zoning requests
on February 3, 2014, and directed staff to return with an analysis of potential reforms and
alternatives. Staff began this effort by preparing an outline of the issues associated with PC
zoning and a summary of planning tools used by other jurisdictions to address the need for
ATTACHMENT H
City of Palo Alto Page 2
flexibility in zoning (Attachment C – PC Zoning Reform Summary Report). Staff then enlisted
the help of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to further identify issues and
potential reforms and alternatives, providing an opportunity for public input as well. A
summary of the PTC’s discussions are provided as Attachment A and supported by draft
verbatim minutes appended as Attachments H and J.
This study session provides the City Council with an opportunity to provide their thoughts about
needed reforms or alternatives to the PC zoning process, and also provides an additional
opportunity for public input prior to preparation of a draft ordinance. To support the
discussion, staff has prepared a table, “Working Draft: Planned Community Zoning Districts
1990-2014”, summarizing the projects that have used the PC zone over the past 20 years
(Attachment B) and a brief synopsis of public benefits achieved from 1952-2014 (Attachment
D).
Background
Since the early 1950’s, the City of Palo has zoned sites as Planned Community (PC) to enable
them to be used or developed in a manner that would not be allowed under their original
zoning district. The process has allowed the City to be responsive to opportunities that have
presented themselves, and to proactively address community objectives related to such land
uses as affordable housing, small grocery stores, etc. Since the late 1970s, the process has
granted flexibility to applicants in exchange for “public benefits,” although the City’s Municipal
Code (Section 18.38) does not define what is meant by this term.
On February 3, 2014 the City Council received a staff presentation regarding the Planned
Community (PC) zoning district (Attachment E –City Council Staff Report - CMR #4414) and
voted to:
1.Defer requests for rezoning to the Planned Community (PC) zoning district until the
process and requirements regulating the PC zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal
Code are revised, and
2.Direct Staff to return to the Council with an analysis of potential revisions and
alternatives to the PC zone for public input and discussion.
A copy of the excerpt from the minutes of the City Council meeting are contained in
Attachment F, February 3, 2014 City Council Minutes (excerpt of item 9).
Planning staff prepared a working paper summarizing issues around PC zoning and collected
information on how other communities provide for flexibility in meeting zoning requirements
when it is appropriate (Attachment C). Then at a study session on August 13th and August 27th,
the PTC provided their input on potential reform alternatives. Copies of the PTC staff reports
are appended to this report as Attachments G and I. An Executive Summary of the PTC’s
City of Palo Alto Page 3
comments is provided in Attachment A, and identifies the following eight key issues (also see
the verbatim minutes in Attachments H and J):
The need for a better definition of public benefits.
The need for an independent economic analysis of the proposed public benefit and the
value of the requested entitlement.
The need for a clearer process, including clarity about the role of the PTC and the City
Council.
The desire to ensure adequate disclosure of ex parte communications.
The need for enhanced monitoring and enforcement of public benefits, and some
discussion regarding the desired duration for those benefits.
The idea that some types of projects should be handled via development agreements or
precise plans rather than PC zoning.
The possibility that the Comprehensive Plan should identify areas of the City where use
of PC zoning is allowed.
The possibility that the PC regulations should cap the degree of variation from the
underlying zoning district standards that could be allowed (e.g. the maximum additional
density, height, or etc. that could be requested).
Overall, the members of the PTC acknowledged that PC zoning has provided a unique
opportunity for flexibility in developing specific sites within a zoning code that is otherwise
determinative. The Commission also agreed that defining ‘public benefit’ is the greatest
challenge in PC zoned projects, along with the enforcement of related agreements. The
Commissioners’ comments also touched on the proper sequence of the review process, and the
PTC observed that PC Zoning has been used inrefrequently. Since 2007, an average of one PC
district action has been approved each year. The PTC also noted another need for flexibility in
zoning. The Comprehensive Plan and the zoning adopted to implement it are not always as
facile as the community’s need for change. Therefore, the city needs some more flexible tool
to use judiciously and thoughfully on occasion.
At the PTC’s request, staff prepared a log of PC projects from 2000 to 2014 with project
descriptions, a list of public benefits required for each PC, the type of PC, and the trigger that
caused the project to require a PC designation rather than compliance with its currently
assigned zoning. Because of the value offered to the PTC, this table has been expanded from
1990 to 2014 for the Council’s use (Attachment B).
This table includes 47 PC district actions including new and amendments to earlier PC
approvals. A synopsis of the type of public benefits that have been required over the 62 years
that the zone has been in place was also provided (Attachment D). This historic data
demonstrates that project developers have provided a variety of public benefits. Among the
most frequently gained public benefits are below market rate housing units, senior housing
units, pedestrian oriented landscaping, and various kinds of public parking, public art, and (early
on) pre-zoning for annexation to the City. In the case of affordable housing, it is estimated that
City of Palo Alto Page 4
a total of 1,097 of affordable housing units have been developed using this zoning tool.
Public comments at the PTC’s study session included a suggestion that the City eliminate the
use of the PC zone except where it already exists, a suggestion that the City retain the PC zone
to address situations where the zoning regulations have not kept pace with community
objectives, and a recognition that PC zoning has been used successfully to support the
production of affordable housing in Palo Alto. Representatives of the applicant hoping to use
the PC zone at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino also submitted comments and
suggestions (Attachment K).
Timeline
Based on the City Council’s discussion at tonight’s study session, planning staff will prepare a
draft ordinance for public hearings by the PTC and the City Council as soon as possible.
Environmental Review
The City Council’s study session does not constitute a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
Attachment A: PTC Executive Summary (PDF)
Attachment B: Working Draft - PC Zoning Log 1990-2014 (PDF)
Attachment C: PC Zoning Reform Summary Report (PDF)
Attachment D: Synopsis of Public Benefits (PDF)
Attachment E: February 3, 2014 City Council Staff Report (CMR #4414 without
attachments) (PDF)
Attachment F: February 3, 2014 City Council Excerpt Minutes (PDF)
Attachment G: August 13, 2014 PTC Staff Report ID#4978 without attachments (PDF)
Attachment H: August 13, 2014 PTC Excerpt Draft Verbatim Minutes (PDF)
Attachment I: August 27, 2014 PTC Staff Report ID#5058 without attachments (PDF)
Attachment J: August 27, 2014 PTC Excerpt Draft Verbatim Minutes (PDF)
Attachment K: Public Comments (PDF)
MINUTES
improvements and reforms to the housing mandate system. The County of
San Mateo created a San Mateo County Subregion as an alternative model.
He inquired whether Senator Hill had been involved in creating the subregion
or if he had any thoughts on the pros and cons of a subregion.
Senator Hill was involved with the creation of the subregion; however, he
was not aware of its successes or failures. A subregion model could work in
Santa Clara County. He would provide information to the Council regarding
the San Mateo County Subregion.
Mayor Shepherd expressed concern that the Density Bonus Law allowed low-
income housing to convert to market-rate housing after 30 years. She
asked if the law could be changed to require a local jurisdiction's approval of
conversion.
Senator Hill indicated all legislation was a matter of compromise. That
provision of the Density Bonus Law allowed developers to recoup losses
incurred during the 30-year period. It was possible for that to be a local
government issue. Local jurisdictions did not want to lose affordable
housing stock.
Mayor Shepherd felt local jurisdictions should have more control. She
encouraged a change in governance for and dedicated funding to Caltrain.
Senator Hill recalled two years ago he authored legislation that would allow
the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to place a tax measure to fund Caltrain on
the ballot. However, the time was not right for that legislation. Caltrain
funding and governance needed to be addressed.
2.Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform.
Mayor Shepherd reviewed the history of Planned Community (PC) Zoning.
Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director, wished to
obtain comments from the Council, the public, and the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) prior to drafting an Ordinance.
Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner, reported the Council had approved
approximately 100 different PC Ordinances. The process allowed the City to
be responsive to opportunities and to address proactively community
objectives related to land use. The public expressed concerns regarding the
ad hoc nature of each PC and the inadequacy of public benefits and monitoring of public benefits. Staff compiled prior analyses; formulated
alternatives to the PC process; and provided a table outlining PCs approved
or amended in the prior 20 years and a summary of P&TC discussions. The
Page 6 of 35
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/06/14
MINUTES
P&TC identified eight ideas or issues related to PC Zoning. The PC Zoning
Ordinance did not include a definition of public benefits, which was needed.
The P&TC discussed regulations providing explicit monitoring and
enforcement in addition to current Planning Department actions and the
types of projects that should be handled via a development agreement or a
precise plan. Other communities identified geographic areas where PC
Zoning was adequate. Perhaps the City could outline specific areas through
the Comprehensive Plan. Regulations could be updated to reflect some type
of cap on the variation from the underlying Zoning District, such as a
maximum height exemption of 5 feet or a maximum density or a minimum
setback. Staff offered two choices for PC reform. The Council could revise
the existing Ordinance to address concerns raised by the public and the
P&TC or eliminate the use of PC Zoning for new projects and adopt another
approach effective for affordable housing. Approximately 1,000 affordable
housing units had been developed as a result of PC Zoning. Staff would
return with a draft Ordinance for review by the P&TC and the Council.
Aram James was concerned by the secrecy and tradeoffs that occurred in the
PC process. He wanted to know what happened during the secret planning
negotiations regarding the 27 University Project and the number of Council
Members who participated in those secret negotiations. He hoped voters
would be fully informed regarding the participation level of Mayor Shepherd
and Council Members Scharff and Holman.
Fred Balin referred to the third bullet regarding PCs being consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The word consistent was not used in the definition of a
PC. As a Charter City, Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan was not legally
required to be consistent with zoning. Including "consistent" would
eliminate many development agreements and PCs. Council Members should
clearly state their intentions for PC Zoning so that Staff could draft an
appropriate Ordinance.
Robert Moss reported no penalty had ever been assessed when the
developer or the owner of a project failed to comply with a public benefit.
Staff needed to enforce public benefits and fine the property owner or
developer if they failed to comply. PCs should be prohibited in all residential zones. No developer had quantified the private benefit of a PC. A PC
Ordinance should include specific limits on a PC's deviation from standard
zoning.
Herb Borock believed the Council should eliminate PC Zone Districts. The
Zoning Code would need to retain language that enabled minor changes to an existing PC's development plan or changes in its development schedule
Page 7 of 35
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/06/14
MINUTES
and provisions for inspections. The record demonstrated that PCs were
simply a way for Councils to make deals.
Stephanie Munoz believed in the pure concept of a PC Zone. PC Zones
should apply to property that was once considered common but was now
considered precious.
Sea Reddy agreed with Ms. Munoz's comments. The PC Zone process was
appropriate. The Council should question the intent of developers who
proposed PC Zones.
Council Member Schmid recalled that the 101 Lytton Project resulted in
considerable interest in major PCs or projects proposing tradeoffs. One of
the benefits of a PC was affordable housing; yet, PCs had provided only
1,000 affordable units since 1952. Between 2003 and 2007, PCs provided
238 affordable units, and between 2008 and 2014 83 affordable units. PCs
were not providing the City with affordable housing. PCs should be
connected to the Comprehensive Plan. A hard, quantitative limit on the
amount of future growth would increase the value of PCs. If the Council
wished to wisely reform PC Zoning, it needed to know the amount of future
growth. With respect to valuing benefits, the value of housing could be
based on sales price and the value of commercial space could be based on
rental rates. Public benefits should be innovative and help the community.
The City, rather than the developer, should initiate the public benefit. The
Council as the responsible body should be in charge of PCs. The Code for
development agreements required an annual report. PCs should also
provide reports annually.
Council Member Holman asked if development agreements usually contained
a life of 20 or 30 years.
Ms. Gitelman responded they usually set a term.
Council Member Holman felt it was important for the public to understand
that development agreements contained a set term. In her opinion, the
most successful PC projects began with the public benefit. Any future PC
should begin with the public benefit. She supported retaining PC Zoning
because it could be used to great effect. However, PC Zoning should be
used rarely and should commence with the public benefit. She concurred with enforcement issues. Language in PC Ordinances should not be self-
conflicting. As a public speaker commented, public benefits were not fees
typically associated with development and not uses ordinarily allowed by
zoning. In determining the economic value of a public benefit, independent
contractors should perform the economic and environmental analyses. She referred to Packet Page 34, (c) under "Required determinations." Any
Page 8 of 35
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/06/14
MINUTES
Ordinance change should clearly state that the Comprehensive Plan could
not be changed so that the project was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The Council should clarify that preliminary review of PC projects was
conceptual. Without PCs, the City could not accomplish affordable housing
projects. An affordable housing overlay was possible in the future; however,
that was a lengthy process. Public benefits should be based on good
planning practices rather than a tenant. Future PC Ordinances should state
annual inspections would be conducted at the expense of the owner. The
Planning Director and City Attorney should determine penalties for
nonconformance. It was important to provide examples of public benefits.
Perhaps the list could be based on a needs assessment and updated every
five years. Council protocols strongly discouraged private discussions. A
preliminary review of projects would be more consistent with existing ex
parte communications procedures and protocols. She was disturbed to see
variances and Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) included in techniques
to achieve the objectives of PC Zoning. Placing variances and DEEs in the
same context as PCs was troubling as variances and DEEs were minor
adjustments to zoning. She did not support identifying potential locations
for PCs. If the Council wanted affordable housing to be compatible with the
surrounding community, then the Council could not limit the locations of
those projects. When a project was under review, anything that would
impede a public benefit had to be identified and addressed.
Council Member Burt concurred with needing a better definition of public
benefits and a clearer process, and with disclosure of ex parte
communications. He was interested in having an economic analysis of the
proposed benefit and the value of the requested entitlement; however, a
complex discussion of the issue was needed. He was not convinced that the
cost of a benefit correlated to the value of the benefit. It was important for
a preliminary review to be conceptual. With respect to the responsible body,
the Council should provide guidance after being informed by the P&TC's
preliminary conceptual discussion of a project. He requested additional
detail for that. Enhanced monitoring and enforcement were crucial
components and had to build in consequences of noncompliance. Development agreements and precise plans had value. More precise plans
or specific plans likely would reduce the number of PCs. He was interested
in reviewing proposed specific locations for PC Zones. He agreed with
Council Member Schmid's comments regarding boundaries of future growth
informing areas for PCs. He wished to review and understand proposals for caps in the degree of variation before making a decision. A PC should not
initiate a change in the Comprehensive Plan in order to be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. Given the high percentage of PC projects that
provided 100 percent affordable housing, PCs had been crucial to providing
affordable housing in the community. He requested Staff provide the
Page 9 of 35
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/06/14
MINUTES
portion of affordable housing projects located in residential areas. He
requested Staff determine the impacts of Density Bonus Law concessions on
existing 100 percent affordable housing projects had those projects been
proposed under the Density Bonus Law. He was not sure it was wise to
eliminate PC Zones. Proposed changes were the most substantive in the
past 50 years and would likely improve the process drastically. The
proposals were moderately complex solutions that made sense.
Vice Mayor Kniss felt the Council wanted to reform PC Zoning rather than
eliminate it. The most compelling argument for PC Zoning was affordable
housing. The Opportunity Center was a dramatic example of a PC providing
housing and services. A better definition of public benefits was needed. As
circumstances changed over time, the types of public benefits would also
change. An independent economic analysis was needed to determine
whether a benefit was provided and whether the City received the stated
value. Previous Council Members addressed the need for enhanced
monitoring and the use of development agreements or precise plans. The
Council should not identify areas for PC Zoning as future needs were
unknown. She wished to review proposals for capping the degree of
variation before making a decision. The PC process needed some
amendments. She inquired whether the Council was providing adequate
input for Staff.
Ms. Gitelman heard a growing consensus among Council Members. The
Council's input was helpful, and Staff could capture most comments in an
Ordinance.
Council Member Berman agreed with virtually all previous Council Member
comments. The need for enhanced monitoring and enforcement should
proceed ahead of other items, because it applied to existing PCs. A
developer would have to offer an extremely valuable public benefit for him
to support a project that increased office space. A great deal of office space
could be constructed under existing zoning. He was interested in Council
Member Burt's request for information regarding the impact of the Density
Bonus Law on existing affordable housing projects. Affordable and below-
market-rate housing were reasons for not eliminating PC Zoning. Buena Vista Mobile Home Park contained 4.5 acres and 117 housing units and was
zoned RM-15. Under the Density Bonus Law, the site could provide 92 units
of housing, 25 units less than existing units. Without the PC process, the
site could not maintain the existing number of housing units under a
different owner.
Council Member Price favored revision of the PC process. The City needed to
engage in more successful negotiations and be more assertive regarding the
Page 10 of 35
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/06/14
MINUTES
goals of any PC. She concurred with many Council Member comments. She
supported having an economic analysis. A template for necessary
information would be helpful for the developer. With respect to enforcement
and monitoring, additional funding would be needed to support increased
monitoring. A menu of possible public benefits would be helpful, but it
should be flexible. She favored precise plans and specific plans. She did not
favor designating them in the Comprehensive Plan at the current time.
Infrastructure needs, human needs assessments, and community needs
assessments could inform a definition of public benefits. She did favor
including a monetary payment as a public benefit but only in specific
situations. She questioned whether a nexus relating to benefits occurring on
the parcel or off the parcel could be defined and detailed in the PC
Ordinance.
Ms. Gitelman reported the P&TC discussed the issue. Monetizing public
benefits raised the issue of nexus. In drafting the Ordinance, Staff could
include the concept in the list of potential public benefits or the definition of
public benefits.
Council Member Price advised that monitoring reports could replicate
mitigation monitoring reports. As a tool, PC Zones were critical for economic
development.
Council Member Scharff defined a PC as the City providing specific zoning in
exchange for a particular group of public benefits. The question was the
definition of public benefits. Existing PCs provided few public benefits that
the community wanted, aside from affordable housing. The community liked
the soccer fields on Page Mill Road; however, they were provided through a
development agreement. The concept of a standalone affordable housing
project without PC Zoning seemed to be nonexistent. The new Density
Bonus Law seemed to indicate PC Zoning was not needed to provide
affordable housing. He questioned the need for a PC process when specific
plans worked well and were community based. He did not see the benefits
of or the need for the PC process. A specific plan process would be better
than a PC process. The PC process gave the impression of selling zoning,
which the community did not support. The current PC process should be eliminated, and a new process developed that accomplished goals set with
community input.
Mayor Shepherd did not feel the proposals were sufficiently simple. The list
of PC projects did not reflect community desires for those projects or the
efforts involved in negotiating benefits. The application left in the pipeline when the PC moratorium was adopted offered a right-turn lane onto El
Page 11 of 35
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/06/14
MINUTES
Camino Real at Page Mill Road as a public benefit. She asked if the project
could be accomplished without a PC Zone.
Ms. Gitelman advised that the proposal would have to conform with existing
zoning. The City could only achieve the benefit if there was a nexus to
require it as mitigation or if the applicant volunteered it.
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the Council could pre-identify public
benefits.
Ms. Gitelman could provide an analysis of other means to accomplish the
proposal at a later time.
Mayor Shepherd understood, at the time she joined the Council, that the
community wanted pre-identified public benefits She wanted the community
to welcome the outcome as it developed. She wanted to see better
accountability for and articulation of public benefits. She supported
obtaining an economic analysis and a clear role for the Council. Examples of
public benefits in Attachment J to the Comprehensive Plan seemed to
support the idea of pre-identifying public benefits. She wished to go through
the Comprehensive Plan process and identify areas for specific plans. She
also wanted to examine the possibility of utilizing Context Sensitive
Solutions.
Ms. Gitelman indicated Staff would draft an Ordinance, submit it for P&TC
review and public comment as quickly as possible, and then present it to the
Council.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
3. Selection of Applicants to Interview on October 15, 2014 for the
Architectural Review Board and the Historic Resources Board, and
Selection of Applicants to Interview on October 22, 2014 for the
Planning and Transportation Commission.
MOTION: Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Price to
move Agenda Item Number 3 to the end of the meeting before the Closed
Sessions.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Klein absent
4. Community Partnership Presentation by Gamble Garden.
Susan Woodman, Gamble Gardens, introduced Gamble Garden: Landscape of Optimism. The book told the story of Gamble Gardens and described the
spectacular outcomes achieved at Gamble Gardens. Gamble Gardens Page 12 of 35
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/06/14
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5292)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Agenda Items Meeting Date: 12/9/2014
Summary Title: PreScreening of Projects on Zone Changes
Title: Discussion of Process for City Council "Prescreening" of Projects
Requiring Zone Changes
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee discuss and provide direction as
appropriate.
Executive Summary
This report transmits excerpts from the municipal code related to the prescreening application
purpose and process, and identifies discussion topics for the Committee to consider for possible
changes to the program.
Background
Prescreening is a process set forth in the municipal code that allows for preliminary review of
certain projects. Prescreening may be initiated as follows:
Prior to Formal Applications Being Filed
xApplicant makes request, which must be accepted by a majority of the City Council
After Formal Applications Are Filed, but Before Public Hearings
xCity Council initiates with the applicant’s concurrence
xApplicant and City Manager initiate with City Council’s concurrence
Applicant initiated requests are subject to fees set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
Prescreening applies only to certain projects, specifically:
(1) Substantial zoning regulation or district map change proposals;
(2) Comprehensive plan amendments, including specific plans;
City of Palo Alto Page 1
ATTACHMENT I
(3) Any other development project, or permit or entitlement application, including a major
alteration or expansion of existing use, which implicates major land use or other policy
or planning concerns.
Prescreening is typically initiated for Planned Community (PC) projects. These are projects that
request land use or design flexibility that cannot be achieved with the underlying zoning
district. PC projects are intended to provide substantial public benefit and conform with and
enhance the city’s comprehensive plan.
Earlier this year, the City Council directed staff to study possible reforms to the PC program. On
October 6th, the City Council reaffirmed its desire to reform the program. This item will return
to the Planning and Transportation Commission in early 2015.
A controversial project at 27 University Avenue and a related Santa Clara County Grand Jury
Report precipitated the Policy and Services Committee’s consideration of possible changes to
the prescreening process.
Prescreening is intended to:
xmaximize opportunities for early, meaningful public discussion of development projects
xfocus public and environmental review of development projects on the issues of
greatest significance to the community
xprovide members of the public with the opportunity to obtain early information about
development projects
xprovide project proponents with the opportunity to obtain early, non-binding
preliminary comments on development projects
xencourage early communication between elected and appointed public officials and
staff with respect to policy guidance
xfacilitate orderly and consistent implementation of the city's Comprehensive Plan and
development regulations.
Discussion
Attached to this report is an excerpt from the Municipal Code that regulates prescreening. The
purpose of this Committee discussion is to begin exploring options to modify this process to
better achieve its intended purpose. As discussion points for the Committee’s consideration,
staff recommends the following:
Identify Certain Projects that Require Mandatory Prescreening
The existing code is clear that the existing program is voluntary. It is also somewhat vague on
the types of projects that qualify for review. Some qualifying projects are those with
‘substantial zoning regulation’ and ‘other development project[s]…which implicates major land
use or policy or planning concerns.’ This lack of specificity is unclear and unnecessary. The code
more directly identifies projects with ‘district map changes’ and ‘comprehensive plan
amendments’ as qualifying projects for which there is no ambiguity.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The Committee may wish to consider a mandatory requirement for some or all qualifying
projects and whether a voluntary program is worth retaining and, if so, under which
circumstances. Additionally, the Commission may consider identifying a specific list of projects
that warrant prescreening and modify the code to eliminate vague or unclear project types.
Streamline Prescreening Process
Once an applicant-initiated prescreening application has been filed and the request forwarded
to the Council, the matter may be deferred to the Planning and Transportation Commission,
heard by the City Council, or scheduled for a future City Council discussion. This process lacks a
predictable timeline, generates additional staff work and may frustrate applicants interested in
receiving guidance from the Council. If the Committee endorses a mandatory review for certain
projects, the process to get the matter scheduled can be improved.
Timeline
Based on the committee’s input, staff will develop an ordinance for consideration by the
Committee, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the City Council.
The Committee may wish to consider whether changes to the prescreening process should
proceed on its own separate path, or if the changes can be incorporated into the ordinance
reforming the PC zoning process.
Resources
Other than staff time, no additional resources are anticipated for this effort.
Environmental Review
The Committee’s discussion is not a project requiring review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and it’s expected that the resulting ordinance will be
procedural in nature and exempt from review.
Attachments:
xAttachment A: Chapter 18.79 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
EXCERPT MINUTES
6 Policy & Services Committee
Final Minutes
December 9, 2014
2.Discussion of Process for City Council "Prescreening" of Projects
Requiring Zone Changes.
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment,
expressed his desire for direction on the pre-screening process. The pre-
screening process assisted the applicant and the developer because it began
the framing route for development. There were not many pre-screening
requests; over the past 5-years there were two confirmed projects and two
withdrawn. He understood there had been criticisms of the process and his
efforts were to eliminate the confusion to make a smoother process. The
current program was voluntary so the question was whether Council
preferred the voluntary method or desired the process to become
mandatory. If the program was changed to mandatory what would the scope
of projects that the Council was interested in capturing under a mandatory
program. Once a mandatory program was implemented were there projects
that would continue to be addressed under a voluntary basis. Depending on
how those two questions were answered, there was a third option to
discuss; how would those projects get before the hearing authority sooner
and whether the authority would be with the Planning & Transportation
Commission (P&TC) or the City Council.
Council Member Scharff felt strong support for making the process
mandatory. He believed Staff captured most of the reasons for a mandatory
process; 1) substantial zoning regulation or district map change proposals,
2) comprehensive plan amendments including specific plans, and 3) any
other development project or permit or entitlement application including a
major alteration or expansion of existing use.
Mr. Lait stated the projects that had the broadest impacts were the ones
that challenged the zoning standard or the general plan the way it was
drafted.
Council Member Scharff asked if the process became mandatory would all
Planned Communities (PC’s) Projects be covered under the process.
Mr. Lait stated yes but he felt the process should be clear.
Council Member Scharff asked where proposed development agreements fit
into the process, would they be covered by the agreed upon universe.
Mr. Lait felt the proposed development agreements should be included to be
specific.
MINUTES
7 Policy & Services Committee
Final Minutes
December 9, 2014
Council Member Scharff stated item 3 appeared to capture both PC’s and
development agreements.
Mr. Lait noted item 3 was so broad is captured everything.
Council Member Scharff was concerned item 3 was too broad and should be
clarified.
Mr. Lait stated yes, it created ambiguity. The process should be clear on
what projects qualified; PC’s, Development Agreements, and any Zoning
Code or Comprehensive Plan amendments that would affect key policy
issues that would affect the community.
Council Member Scharff asked about the inclusion of Comprehensive Plan
changes.
Mr. Lait said it was possible; although, there were some projects that may
require a Comprehensive Plan amendment that did not have a large
implication to the broader policy issues; a density change or a map change.
James Keene, City Manager, stated any project that required a
Comprehensive Plan amendment would have to be approved by the Council.
He asked the typical number of Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Mr. Lait stated not many and legally the City was only authorized to amend
a certain number annually.
Council Member Scharff asked what a district map change entailed.
Mr. Lait clarified that was in reference to making a change to a basic zoning
map such as your district boundary.
Council Member Scharff asked if any zoning change was a district map
change.
Mr. Lait stated no, a district map contained the zoning boundary; for
example if a facility wished to change from a PC to a Zone 2, that would be
a district map change. There could be language changes to the code which
would be a zoning change but not a district map change.
Council Member Scharff said substantial zoning regulations sounded different
than an Applicant requesting a zone change. It sounded as if Staff was
seeking approval for a change in the language.
MINUTES
8 Policy & Services Committee
Final Minutes
December 9, 2014
Mr. Lait agreed the current language was ambiguous.
Council Member Scharff asked what Staff was looking for from the Policy &
Services Committee (Committee).
Mr. Lait noted Staff was requesting: 1) the Committee accept a change was
warranted, 2) mandatory or voluntary; if mandatory what were the types of
applications that qualified (PC, Development Agreement from a land use
planning entitlement perspective, General Plan amendments, Zoning District
Map changes). He said there could be further discussion as to whether
Zoning Map changes qualified. He suggested the possibility of leaving open
the request for a voluntary pre-screening; for example: There may be a
confirming project on Maybell Avenue that met the zoning standards and the
Comprehensive Plan but because of the history of controversy with the
property, a Developer may be interested in a pre-screening.
Council Member Scharff stated his view was when there was a policy
decision involved; Council should be the first step in the pre-screening to
avoid unnecessary Staff time. He was torn because the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) was the advisory board to the Council so
essentially they needed to see it first to advice the Council. He believed if a
Developer applied for a PC it should be under the mandatory category. If
there was a host of possible benefits and because the P&TC reviewed them
first; they select 3 but when the Council reviews the benefits they select a
different 3 the P&TC thus had wasted their time on matters the Council did
not desire. He clarified if it was a defined zoning change item with a specific
request he felt the P&TC should be involved first. Although when it involved
benefits to the City the Council should be the first line of approval.
Council Member Schmid felt Staff was before the Committee because of a
few major property projects and the Grand Jury Report. There was an issue
with the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if there was a decision possible prior
to the completion of the updated Comprehensive Plan. He believed a change
would be useful. He suggested an identification process be written into the
mandatory pre-screening program of which projects were worth pre-
screening; based on size and impact, in an effort to avoid Staff over work.
The role of pre-screening was to have a general sense of what the project
was and how it might affect the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed the pre-
screening process should identify what was occurring and notify the public.
The program should clearly state the positive and negative impacts a project
would have on the community. He agreed items 1 and 2 of 18.79.030
Applicability and Initiation should be made mandatory: 1) Substantial zoning
regulations or district map change proposals, and 2) Comprehensive Plan
MINUTES
9 Policy & Services Committee
Final Minutes
December 9, 2014
amendments, including specific plans. He wanted a structure put in place
inside the mandatory system to recognize cumulative impacts.
Mr. Lait believed the discussion was a procedural effort that set forth a path
for more community dialog that could have positive or negative impacts.
While proceeding with the Comprehensive Plan update he did not feel the
procedural aspects or what qualified would be largely impacted by decisions
made by the Council about development caps or where the City wanted to
focus the development. The thought process leading up to those decisions
would inform the Council’s feedback to a developer through the pre-
screening process which he believed, particularly in an era of transition,
would be valuable to a developer. There were existing Comprehensive Plans
and zoning regulations that people were working under. If there was a
thought that may change, with confirmation of codification or adoption, that
knowledge provided the value of the pre-screening effort.
Council Member Schmid added a procedural issue might be to identify 4 or 5
major projects.
Mr. Lait stated the Architectural Review Board (ARB) did pre-screening.
There was a provision in the Code which provided three opportunities before
the ARB. He did not believe the volume was high enough for the City Council
to be bogged down with pre-screening processes. He agreed the role of the
pre-screening process needed to clearly state what was expected of the
Applicant and the Council. He and Director Gitelman had discussions on how
to tackle cumulative impacts.
Chair Price agreed the pre-screening issue was a process and procedural
matter. She saw the pre-screening process as a similar but different track
from the update to the Comprehensive Plan. If the pre-screening process
was more understandable with procedures in place that made sense and was
defensible she believed that helped all involved. She supported the
mandatory options for PC’s and the other projects mentioned earlier. She
appreciated the voluntary option. The initial screening work involving
environmental impacts would not have been completed during the pre-
screening process; that language should be clearly stated. With respect to
section 18.79.030.3 she believed having a well-articulated criterion was
important. She was concerned with the impact on Staff and Council. The
issue of the ongoing reform of the PC process which had no relationship with
the pre-screening process. She asked if Staff had sufficient information and
guidance from the Committee to move forward.
Mr. Lait stated yes. He explained the next meeting might entail fine tuning.
MINUTES
10 Policy & Services Committee
Final Minutes
December 9, 2014
Chair Price believed best practices from other cities could be modified to suit
Palo Alto’s needs. She asked Staff to see what other cities have
recommended with this type of project.
Mr. Lait stated he would research what others have done.
Council Member Schmid stated in the current code there was discretion on
who initiated the pre-screening process. In the change to a mandatory
system there was no initiator.
Mr. Lait stated that was correct, the Applicant would have to file a pre-
screening prior to filing an application.
James Keene, City Manager, explained the pre-screening process was to
provide early feedback that could change the direction of a project. The idea
of the pre-screening process was to save the Developers time and that of
Council.
Council Member Schmid noted section 18.79 talked about a development
project only begin with an application. He asked if a development project
always started with an application. If the pre-screening process was
approved would the process occur before the application or only after.
Mr. Keene stated it could be both, either before a formal application or after.
Mr. Lait stated the code had the option to submit before a filing or if there
was a filing before a public hearing. If there was a mandatory component
the pre-screening would occur prior to any filing.
Council Member Scharff believed the pre-screening process should only
apply to projects not developments. Code 18.79.03 was the existing law for
any other development projects which over time there had been no pre-
screening.
Chair Price acknowledged the minimal usage of the current language in the
law and noted it was vague.
Council Member Scharff said for a voluntary component submission requests
did not overwhelm the system, but for a mandatory component the code
was too broad. He believed 18.79.030 (a) (1) and (2) as applied to
development projects better described the mandatory component. He asked
for clarification on the substantial zoning regulation or district map change
proposals as applied to projects with a zoning change which meant it was
within the Comprehensive Plan but requesting a zoning change.
MINUTES
11 Policy & Services Committee
Final Minutes
December 9, 2014
Mr. Lait stated that was correct the change could be to the text or the map.
Council Member Scharff asked for clarification on a map change.
Mr. Lait clarified it was meant as a shift to a zoning boundary.
Council Member Scharff said basically it was changing the zoning on a
property.
Mr. Lait stated that was correct.
Chair Price asked if that included a lot merge or separation.
Council Member Scharff asked why a lot boundary would go before Council.
Mr. Lait stated it would not.
Council Member Scharff asked for an example if there was a property that
wanted to change from Residential Multifamily (RM)1 to RM15; that seemed
as though it should go before Council.
Council Member Schmid recalled on the El Camino Corridor there were
incentive programs to consolidate lots. In some cases those consolidations
would be creating a zoning change. Would each one need a mandatory pre-
screening.
Mr. Lait said it was possible to consolidate property and expand zoning
boundaries but did not necessarily result in a map or code change. The
consolidation of properties themselves, depending on their location, could
have policy implications on the character of the neighborhood.
Council Member Scharff felt the mandatory pre-screening should be put into
place with a voluntary option applied to projects and eliminate 18.79.030 (a)
(3).
Chair Price believed there should be specific criteria added to the voluntary
language not simply other projects.
Council Member Schmid thought Staff had requested Committee comments
and they would return with a more specific report.
Council Member Scharff was concerned whether Staff needed to return to
Committee or continue directly to the full Council. The current discussion
MINUTES
12 Policy & Services Committee
Final Minutes
December 9, 2014
was the mandatory component covered 18.79.030 (a) (1) and (2) plus PC
projects and development agreements.
Chair Price noted there had been no discussion on 18.79.030 (b), (c) and
(d). She asked if Staff desired comments on those sections. She agreed with
the mandatory settings. She did not approve of the voluntary component
being stated as any other development; it was too vague.
Council Member Scharff suggested leaving the language for the voluntary
component of 18.79.030 as it allows the option for people to request a pre-
screening if they felt it would be beneficial. The mandatory component
needed to be narrowed to specifics; 1) zoning changes, 2) Comprehensive
Plan amendments including specific plans, and 3) PC projects and
development agreements which would go before Council.
Chair Price agreed.
Mr. Lait noted the language suggested was a change to the Zoning Code and
thus needed the P&TC review and recommendation to the City Council for
approval.
Council Member Scharff suggested the Committee move to send the
language to the P&TC for review and approval.
Mr. Lait stated he had a clear understanding as to what the Committee was
requesting. There was to be a mandatory component for the identified
projects: Planned Communities, Development Agreements, General Plan
Amendments, Zoning text amendments, and Zoning District Map
amendments. The Code would retain a voluntary mechanism for projects
that did not meet the mandatory criteria. Council would retain the authority
to decline discussion of a voluntary pre-screening in an effort to eliminate
unnecessary screenings.
Council Member Schmid asked if a cumulative impact such as parking issues
in a specific neighborhood could be considered a voluntary pre-screening
request.
Mr. Lait mentioned under the current Zoning Code Council could make a
request of a perspective developer or Applicant to submit a pre-screening
request. Cumulative impacts were evaluated by scale and character of
neighborhoods, parking availabilities, transportation networks and air
quality. Staff would inform a developer of their project being evaluated with
other pending projects in the general vicinity thus informing them of the
possibility of cumulative impacts.
MINUTES
13 Policy & Services Committee
Final Minutes
December 9, 2014
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Price that the Policy & Services Committee direct Staff to draft an Ordinance
1) mandating prescreening review for projects that require Comprehensive
Plan amendments, Planned Community, Development Agreement, General
Plan Amendments, Zoning Text or Zoning Map Amendment applications and,
2) establish a voluntary prescreening process similar to the existing code
provisions for all other projects.
Council Member Schmid requested language be added to the voluntary
component notifying the developers or applicants of how they would be
alerted to the possible cumulative impacts of their proposed project.
Mr. Lait felt alerting the developer or applicant of possible impacts was a
worthy criterion for either the voluntary or mandatory components.
Council Member Scharff asked for clarification on the language.
Chair Price stated the Staff Report mentioned the typical noticing process
would continue.
Mr. Lait stated yes, the current code stated the underlying notification
process was mailers.
Chair Price confirmed the standard notification process would continue to be
applied to pre-screening whether voluntary or mandatory.
Mr. Lait stated that was correct.
Chair Price asked if the community would be notified generically of the
change in the process.
Mr. Lait stated yes, because the change effected the entire community there
would be a newspaper notification and a posting on the website. The
Planning and Community Environment Department was presently using the
notification system Next Door so there would be a notice placed there as
well.
Council Member Schmid believed Staff mentioned a different approach of
awareness.
Mr. Lait apologized; he thought there was an interest in advising perspective
applicants upfront regarding the pre-screening analysis. He believed when
the Council and the P&TC reviewed an application they would be mindful of
MINUTES
14 Policy & Services Committee
Final Minutes
December 9, 2014
the fact there may be neighborhood specific issues that may be relevant to a
particular project. That knowledge would inform the type of comments
delivered to the applicant.
Council Member Scharff believed the concern was if there was a voluntary
pre-screening the Council would not review the application.
Council Member Schmid provided an example of his concern. The City spent
9-months working on a downtown parking issue which had a surplus of
1,600 vehicles on the streets. That was a potential issue between the FAR
and vehicle. If an individual single developer came in and wanted to use the
exceptions and bonuses but did not reach the mandatory point for breaching
the zoning change but if three or four developers came in over a period of
time, the parking program would be blown apart. His desire was for the
Planning Department to have the ability to put up an alert of the deficit in
parking.
Council Member Scharff clarified if a developer had the as-of-right to build in
downtown; as-of-right meant it was within the zoning rights and they were
not seeking anything from the City, the procedure was they would not
require a pre-screening but they would go to the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) for design review. He did not feel it made sense to have an alert.
Council Member Schmid said the reason for pre-screening was to identify
possible issues.
Council Member Scharff stated in an as-of-right development there was no
choice, the City cannot say no. That was why the City was looking at down
zoning.
Council Member Schmid wanted a cumulative assessment and currently
there was not one in place.
Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment, clarified
Section 18.79.050 of the Ordinance as it was currently written and was not
proposed to change spoke to City Staff preparing for the pre-screening and
hearing by doing base analysis and providing the information at hand on
environmental issues. In that context Staff had the ability to highlight the
issue of concern.
Council Member Schmid asked if that applied to the voluntary pre-screening
as well.
Ms. Gitelman stated the process would be for voluntary or mandatory.
MINUTES
15 Policy & Services Committee
Final Minutes
December 9, 2014
Council Member Schmid had concern with the voluntary component. If it was
a mandatory issue all of the Ordinance pieces applied but if the developer
requested a pre-screening there was no incentive to initiate a request.
Council Member Scharff clarified Council Member Schmid was concerned
about the as-of-right developments not doing a pre-screening.
Council Member Schmid said that was correct. The as-of-right included
bonuses and incentives but it also included something on the cumulative
side of issues.
Ms. Gitelman stated there was an obligation under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to consider cumulative impacts. The
downtown area square footage was capped and there was an analysis
completed before the cap was created. The Comprehensive Plan update had
a cumulative impacts refresher. The alterations to the Ordinance being
discussed would allow both the City and the applicant a path to receive an
early read on projects; it was intended for projects that had potential for
controversy or rose above the ordinary or routine matters heard in the
course of other Board and Commission reviews.
Council Member Schmid was skeptical of pushing ahead because of the
annual monitoring report of the parking deficit which was continually
worsening.
Mr. Keene stated there was a series of existing laws and regulations that
covered the downtown area zoning, set-backs, height limits and
development caps themselves.
MOTION PASSED: 2-1 Schmid no, Klein absent
3. Discussion of Updating the Seismic Safety Chapter of the Municipal
Code for Hazardous Buildings.
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment,
stated the report came to the Policy & Services Committee (Committee)
from an Office of Emergency Services (OES) threats and hazards report to
Council in September. The seismic inefficiencies were brought to Staff’s
attention. Council had directed Staff to create a listing and prioritization of
buildings which were potential hazards, to review best practices from other
communities and to review legislation for any impact on how to regulate the
process. The current Ordinance was adopted in 1986 but was a voluntary
program. There was a mandatory reporting requirement but the seismic
ATTACHMENT J
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
FROM:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
AGENDA DATE: August 24, 2015 ID#: 5664
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTERS 18.38, PC PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND 18.79, DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PRELIMINARY REVIEW PROCEDURES; EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER CEQA
GUIDELINES 15061.
Attachment B was not in your August 13, 2015 packet. Please find the Ordinance amending
1838, PC Planned Community District Regulations, and 18.79, Development Project Preliminary
Review Procedures to this memo for your review.
�e_�A
· ector City Manager
Planning and Community Environment
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 1 August 10, 2015 Council Version
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.38 and
Chapter 18.79 of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding
Planned Community (“PC”) District Regulations and Development Project
Preliminary Review Procedures
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 18.38 (PC Planned Community District Regulations) of
Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
Chapter 18.38
PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.38.010 Specific purposesIntent and Purpose.
18.38.015 Definitions.
18.38.020 Applicability of regulations.
18.38.030 Permitted uses.
18.38.040 Conditional uses.
18.38.050 Establishment of districts.
18.38.060 Required findingsdeterminations.
18.38.065 Application process.
18.38.070 Application requirements.
18.38.080 Development program statement.
18.38.090 Development plan.
18.38.100 Development schedule.
18.38.110 Action by P&TCcommission.
18.38.120 Action by council.
18.38.130 Change in development scheduleExpiration of approvals.
18.38.140 Failure to meet development schedule.
18.38.150 Special requirements.
18.38.160 InspectionsEnforcement and Monitoring.
18.38.170 Recycling storage.
18.38.010 Intent and PurposeSpecific purposes.
The planned community (“PC”) district is intended to accommodate developments for
residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities,
including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions
not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly
intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments which will result in substantial
public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or
ATTACHMENT B
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 2 August 10, 2015 Council Version
combining districtsare of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the
policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
18.38.015 Definitions
Whenever the following terms are used in this Chapter, they shall have the meaning
established by this section:
(a) “Development Agreement” means a contract between Palo Alto and a property
owner/developer regarding development of real property as provided for in
California Government Code Section 65864 et seq.
(b) “Public Benefit” means specific improvements or amenities for Palo Alto the local
community or neighborhood provided by the developer in exchange for uses,
densities, and/or a development configuration specific to the PC district that would
be unattainable in general zoning districts or combining districts. Examples of Public
Bbenefits shall include but are not limited to affordable housing,
reasonablesignificant monetary or “in kind” contributions towards meetings goals of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan adopted infrastructure plan or human services needs
assessment with a nexus to the proposed project, orand other similar amenities or
improvements identified by the City Council. From time to time, the City Council
may adopt by resolution a menu of public benefits that representcurrent priorities.
(c) “Public Benefits Agreement” means a project-specific agreement between a
property owner/developer and the City of Palo Alto that details the project’s
contribution to the community and outlines a monitoring and enforcement schedule
and/or program.
18.38.020 Applicability of regulations.
(a) Overlay District. The Planned Community (“PC”) Zonedistrict is an overlay zoning
district that supersedes any conflicting regulations required by the underlying base zone or
combining district applicable to the property. To the extent the underlying base or combining
zonedistrict regulations are consistent with this Chapter and the specific PC district, those
regulations shall also apply to such property. The specific regulations of this chapter, and the
additional regulations and procedures established by Chapters 18.54 to 18.99, inclusive, shall
apply to all planned community districts. Notwithstanding the regulations of Chapters 18.54 to
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 3 August 10, 2015 Council Version
18.99, inclusive, where specific regulations are adopted pursuant to Sections 18.38.110 and
16.68.120, the specific regulations so adopted shall apply to that planned community district.
(b) Special Requirements Applicable to all PC districts. Notwithstanding Section
18.38.020(a), all PC districts shall conform to the Special Requirements set forth in Section
18.38.150.
(c) Development Agreement. A Development Agreement may be used in lieu of or
in addition to a PC district when the applicant anticipates phased development over multiple
lots or when the applicant or City anticipates extended negotiations regarding public benefits
beyond those contemplated by this Chapter.
(d) Density Bonus. A project seeking a residential density bonus or zoning
concession or incentive under Section 18.15 shall not be eligible for a Planned Community
ZonePC district.
(e) Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. A use proposed for a PC district must be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation in effect at the time of
application.
18.38.030 Permitted uses.
Any use may be permitted in any specific PC district provided such use shall be
specifically listed as a permitted use and shall be located and conducted in accord with the
approved development plan and other applicable regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter
to govern each specific PC district.
18.38.040 Conditional uses.
Any use may be established as a conditional use in any specific PC district provided such
use shall be specifically listed as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.76
(Permits and Approvals), and shall be located and conducted in accord with the approved
development plan and other applicable regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter to govern
each specific PC district.
18.38.050 Establishment of districts.
Planned communityPC districts may be established, modified, or removed from the
zoning map, and the regulations applicable to any specific PC district may be established,
modified, or deleted in accord with Chapter 18.80.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 4 August 10, 2015 Council Version
All PC districts shall be identified on the zoning map with the letter coding "PC" followed
by a specific reference number identifying each separate district. All use regulations,
development plans, development schedules, and other regulatory provisions adopted pursuant
to this chapter, or pursuant to Chapter 18.80, which apply to any specific PC district, shall be
considered to be a part of this title as if fully set forth in this title, and shall be identified by
reference to the corresponding designation of each specific PC district on the zoning map.
18.38.060 Required findingdeterminations.
The Pplanning and Ttransportation Ccommission (“P&TC”), prior to recommending
approval of any PC district application, and the city City councilCouncil, prior to approving an
ordinance designating and regulating any PC district, shall make all of the following required
findings with respect to the application, in addition to findings required by Chapter 18.80:
(a) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such
characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide
sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development.
(b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community
district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of
general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the
planning commission and city City councilCouncil, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the
public benefits expected to result from use of the planned communityPC district.
(c) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable
within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as it existed at the
time of application, and is shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining
sites or within the general vicinity.
18.38.065 Application process.
(a) The applicant for a PC district shall initially submit to the planning commission
City Council a development program statement, development plan, and a development
schedule which are described in Sections 18.38.080, 18.38.090, and 18.38.100. request for
preliminary screening as set forth in Chapter 18.79. Once the City Council has conducted a
preliminary screening, the applicant may submit an application for a PC district which shall be
calendared for a public hearing by the P&TC. The plot plans, landscape development plan, and
design plan in the development plan should only be preliminary during this phase of review by
the planning commission.
(b) Following preliminary screening review by the City Council, an application for a
PC district may be submitted. The P&TC shall conduct an initial public hearing(s) subject to the
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 5 August 10, 2015 Council Version
requirements of this Chapter and Chapter 18.80. The P&TC shall conduct a separate public
hearing(s) and final review of the proposed project after the Architectural Review Board
(“ARB”) has conducted a noticed public hearing(s) on the findings for architectural review in
Section 18.76.020 (d) and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council. If the planning
commission acts favorably in its initial review of the PC application, the development plan shall
be submitted to the architectural review board for review, except in the case of single-family
and accessory uses. In this phase, a detailed plot plan, landscape development plan, and design
plan of the development plan are required. The architectural review board shall make a
recommendation on the development plan based on the findings for architectural review in
Section 18.76.020 (d).
Notwithstanding the above, projects consisting of a single family home or accessory
structure that would otherwise be exempt from ARB review shall not go to the ARB for
recommendation and shall only require one public hearing by the P&TC.
(c) The City Council shall conduct a noticed public hearing pursuant to this Chapter
and Chapter 18.80 after the ARB and P&TC have completed their review and forwarded
recommendations to the City Council. development plan as approved by the architectural
review board is then returned to the planning commission for final planning commission review
and recommendation before being submitted to the city council for final action.
18.38.070 Application requirements.
The City may from time to time establish application forms, submittal requirements,
fees, and such other requirements, guidelines and informal regulations as will aid in the
efficient implementation of this Chapter. These submittals shall include an independent
economic analysis quantifying the amount of proposed public benefit and a financial
comparison between the likely projects under base zoning and the proposed PC district and any
other economic analysis as prescribed by the Director.
In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.80, each application for a PC district shall be
accompanied by a development program statement, a development plan, and a development
schedule.
The development plan shall, as approved by the city council, become a part of the
zoning regulations applicable within the respective PC district. Subsequent changes in the
development plan shall be made in accord with Chapter 18.80, or, for minor changes, through
the architectural review process, as set forth in Section 18.76.020 (b)(3)(D).
The development schedule shall, as approved by the city council, become a part of the
zoning regulations applicable within the respective PC district. Subsequent changes in the
development schedule, if included as part of the regulations, shall be made in accord with
Chapter 18.80 or, for minor changes, through the architectural review process, as set forth in
Section 18.76.020 (b)(3)(D); provided, that specifically authorized changes may be made by the
director pursuant to Section 18.38.130.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 6 August 10, 2015 Council Version
18.38.080 Development program statement.
The purpose of the development program statement shall be to describe the proposed
use or uses to be conducted in the district in a manner sufficient to enable preparation and
consideration of regulations governing permitted uses, conditional uses, site use and
development regulations, off-street parking and loading requirements, and other special
regulations which may be appropriate to govern development, use, and maintenance of the site
or sites included within the PC district.
The development program statement shall include the following:
(a) A statement by the applicant demonstrating the necessity of the application for
the PC district, including information demonstrating the compliance of the proposed
development with the required determinations set forth in Section 18.38.060;
(b) A complete listing of all uses proposed, or potentially to be included, within the
PC district, incorporating insofar as possible the terminology used in other parts of this title to
define, describe, and regulate permitted uses and conditional uses, and the definitions
pertinent thereto;
(c) A complete description of the nature of uses proposed, and the conditions or
characteristics of occupancy, use, or operation, with particular reference to those conditions or
characteristics which may warrant regulation differing from those regulations which might
apply to such uses if located in one or more general districts within the city;
(d) A schedule or statement indicating number, type, floor area, number of
bedrooms, and projected sale or rental price of all housing units proposed in the district;
(e) Such additional information as the director may prescribe as necessary, in his
judgment, to facilitate review and action on the application by the planning commission, the
architectural review board, and the city council.
18.38.090 Development plan.
The development plan submitted with the application for a PC district shall include the
following, unless waived by the director for cause:
(a) An aerial photograph of the site and adjacent land within two hundred fifty feet
of the site, at a scale to be prescribed by the director. The director may specify that information
required by subsections (b) through (i) be superimposed on the aerial photograph, or a
duplicate copy thereof;
(b) A map showing any public or private streets, proposed building sites, and any
areas proposed to be dedicated or reserved for parks, parkways, paths, playgrounds, school
sites, public buildings and other such uses. Compliance with this requirement shall not be
construed to relieve the applicant from compliance with the subdivision code in Title 21, or any
other applicable ordinances of the city;
(c) A map showing the existing and proposed topography of the proposed district at
contour intervals as determined appropriate by director;
(d) A land use plan for the proposed district indicating the areas proposed for each
use or combination of uses identified by the development program statement;
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 7 August 10, 2015 Council Version
(e) A plot plan or plans for each building site in the proposed district, or any portion
thereof, in such form as required by the director. The required plans shall show the location of
all proposed buildings and principal site improvements, shall indicate dimensions of buildings,
site lines, and improvements, and shall indicate the location of physical or natural site features,
including trees, and any changes proposed thereto.
(f) A landscape development plan, showing the boundaries and location of
proposed landscaped areas and exterior site improvements, including but not limited to lights,
swimming pools, and service and refuse areas.
(g) A circulation plan, indicating the proposed movement of vehicles, goods, and
pedestrians within the district, and to and from adjacent public thoroughfares. Any special
engineering features and traffic regulation devices needed to insure safety or to facilitate ease
of access and circulation, whether on or off the site, shall be shown.
(h) A parking and loading plan, showing the number of spaces and the location,
internal circulation and dimensions of all parking and loading areas. The parking and loading
plan shall be based upon the requirements of Chapter 18.54, unless requested modifications to
meet the needs of the individual project are supported by traffic engineering studies or
relevant data, as may be required by the director, demonstrating the feasibility and adequacy
of the plan.
(i) Preliminary design plans, including such schematic floor
plans, schematic exterior elevations and sections, and/or perspective drawings, as may be
necessary to indicate the height of proposed buildings and the general appearance of the
proposed structures to the end that the entire development will have architectural unity and
will be compatible with existing and proposed neighborhood development. Such drawings need
not show final architectural detail. Construction drawings and contract plans, subsequently
submitted with applications for required permits or other construction approvals pursuant to
approved PC district regulations, shall conform substantially to the preliminary design plans,
and shall be subject to all applicable review and permit requirements in effect at the time of
approval and permit issuance.
18.38.100 Development schedule.
The development schedule submitted with the application for a PC district shall include
the following:
(a) A schedule, indicating to the best of the applicant's knowledge, the approximate
date on which construction or development is expected to begin, the duration of time required
for completion of the development, and the approximate date or dates of occupancy;
(b) A phasing program, indicating, in the event the proposed development within
the district is expected to require more than two years for completion and occupancy, a logical
or programmed sequence of phases and incorporating a schedule as described in subsection (a)
for each phase of development.
18.38.110 Action by P&TCcommission.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 8 August 10, 2015 Council Version
In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.80, the planning commissionP&TC shall
review and consider all materials submitted by the applicant pursuant to this chapter, and shall
prepare and recommend to the city City councilCouncil, as appropriate, the specific regulations
to be applied within the proposed planned communityPC district. The specific regulations may
modify those regulations contained in Chapters 18.54 to 18.99, inclusive the underlying base
zoning, as is appropriate to meet the individual district and shall include the following:
(a) Permitted Uses. A listing of all uses to be permitted generally within the PC
district, or the uses to be permitted in specific locations within the PC district as shown on the
development plan;
(b) Conditional Uses. A listing of all uses to be conditionally allowed within the PC
district, or the uses to be permitted in specific locations within the PC district as shown on the
development plan;
(c) Site Development Regulations. Maximum or minimum regulations, as
appropriate, governing site dimensions, required yards and distances between buildings, site
coverage, building height, residential density, and floor area ratio, open space requirements,
accessory facilities and uses, and other aspects of the proposed development within the PC
district. The regulations may be in text, or by reference to the development plan, or both. In no
event shall the maximum height exceed fifty feet except as provided in Chapter 18.76 (Permits
and Approvals);
(d) Parking and Loading Requirements. Regulations establishing off-street parking
and loading requirements for the PC district, and governing design, location, screening,
landscaping and operation of parking and loading activities. The regulations may be by
reference to Chapters 18.52 and 18.54, or in text if the regulations of Chapters 18.52 and 18.54
are modified for the individual PC district, or both;
(e) Special Requirements. Additional regulations, as may be appropriate to assure a
harmonious relationship between uses within the PC district, and a compatible relationship
with existing or potential uses within adjoining PC districts, may be recommended by the
commission. Such regulations may include additional height limitations, yard requirements,
landscaping and screening, provisions governing outdoor activities, and other requirements;
(f) (f) Development Plan and Development Phasing Schedule. The
development plan submitted pursuant to Section 18.38.090 and the development scheduleIf
the PC district contains a phasing schedule, such schedule shall require the public benefit to be
constructed or provided before the development of the other components of the project where
feasible. If not feasible the schedule shall contain a date for delivery of the public benefit
submitted pursuant to Section 18.38.100, as amended or approved by the planning
commission, shall be recommended for inclusion in the regulations applicable to the PC
planned community district;
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 9 August 10, 2015 Council Version
(g) Definitions. Definitions applicable specifically to the regulations recommended
for the PC district may be included.
18.38.120 Action by council.
In the event the city City council Council adopts an ordinance pursuant to Chapter 18.80
establishing a specific PC planned community district, the council Council shall include the
regulations described in Section 18.38.110, either as recommended by the planning
commissionP&TC or as modified by the councilCouncil.
18.38.130 Expiration of approvals.Change in development schedule.
The approval granted under this Chapter shall be governed by the time limits and
extension procedures set forth in Section 18.77.090. If the applicant fails to exercise its permit
in accordance with the time periods set forth in Section 18.77.090, the PC district shall expire
and the base zoning regulations shall control.
If an extension granted under this section shall affect the delivery date of the public
benefit, the extension shall provide a new public benefit delivery date.
For good cause shown by the property owner in writing and unless otherwise specified by the
specific applicable regulations for the district, prior to the expiration of the original time
schedule for the development, the director may, without a public hearing, modify the time
limits imposed by any adopted development schedule; provided, that such modification shall
not extend the schedule by more than one year; and provided, that only one such modification
may be made.
18.38.140 Failure to meet development schedule.
Sixty days prior to the expiration of the development schedule, the director shall notify
the property owner in writing of the date of expiration and advise the property owner of
Section 18.38.130. Failure to meet the approved development schedule, including an extension,
if granted, shall result in:
(a) The expiration of the property owner's right to develop under the PC district. The
director shall notify the property owner, the city council, the planning commission and the
building official of such expiration; and
(b) The director's initiating a zone change for the property subject to the PC district
in accordance with Chapter 18.80. The property owner may submit a new application for a PC
district concurrently with the director's recommendation for a zone change.
18.38.150 Special requirements.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 10 August 10, 2015 Council Version
Sites abutting or having any portion located within one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1,
R-2, RM, or any PC district permitting single-family development or multiple-family
development shall be subject to the following additional height and yard requirements:
(a) Parking Facilities. The maximum height shall be equal to the height established in
the most restrictive adjacent zone district.
(b) All Other Uses. The maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1,
R-2, RM, or applicable residential PC district shall be thirty-five feet; provided, however, that for
a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at
least sixty percent residential, the maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of an RM-4 or
RM-5 district shall be fifty feet.
(c) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or
applicable residential PC district, a minimum interior yard of 10 feet shall be required, and a
solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed and maintained along
the common site line. Where a use in a PC district where the gross floor area, excluding any
area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the interior yard
shall be at least as restrictive as the interior yard requirements of the most restrictive
residential district abutting each such side or rear site line. The minimum interior yard shall be
planted and maintained as a landscaped screen.
(d) On any portion of a site in the PC district which is opposite from a site in any RE,
R-1, R-2, RM or applicable residential PC district, and separated therefrom by a street, alley,
creek, drainage facility or other open area, a minimum yard of 10 feet shall be required. Where
a use in a PC district where the gross floor area, excluding any area used exclusively for parking
purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the minimum yard requirement shall be at least as
restrictive as the yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district opposite such site
line. The minimum yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding
areas required for access to the site.
(e) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or any
residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane
beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope
of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the
height limit otherwise established for the PC district; provided, however, that for a use where
the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty
percent residential, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of
the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting
the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as
allowed in this section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential
district shall be imposed.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 11 August 10, 2015 Council Version
(f) Recycling Storage. All new development, including approved modifications that
add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible
interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate
containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be
subject to ARB approval pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals).
18.38.160 Enforcement and MonitoringInspections.
Each PC district shall be inspected by the building division at least once every three
years for remain in compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the
ordinance under which the PC district was created for the life of the project or until modified by
ordinance.
(a) A Public Benefits Agreement is required as part of the PC Overlay District
approval.
(b) A Public Benefits Agreement containing all requirements of the ordinance shall
be executed between the City and the applicant following approval of a new PC district and
shall be recorded as a covenant on the affected property.
(c) The Public Benefits Agreement shall contain a monitoring and enforcement plan,
appropriate to the development project that may include the following components: frequency
of inspections, establishment of a funding mechanism for inspections; penalties for violations,
procedures for replacement of lost or diminished community benefits and other similar
provisions. Council may elect to waive enforcement costs for non-profit developers.
18.38.170 Recycling storage.
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more
floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior
enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design,
construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to architectural
review approval pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals).
SECTION 2. Chapter 18.79 (Development Project Preliminary Review Procedures) of
Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
Chapter 18.79
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY REVIEW PROCEDURES
Sections:
18.79.010 Purposes.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 12 August 10, 2015 Council Version
18.79.020 Supplemental procedures.
18.79.030 Applicability and initiation.
18.79.040 ReservedPreliminary review.
18.79.050 Preliminary review public study session procedure.
18.79.060 Voluntary compliance.
18.79.010 Purposes.
This chapter establishes procedures for preliminary screening of development projects
("prescreening"). This chapter is intended to achieve, and shall be implemented to accomplish,
the following purposes:
(a) To maximize opportunities for meaningful public discussion of development projects, at the
earliest feasible time, for the guidance of the public, project proponents and city decision
makers.
(b) To focus public and environmental review of development projects on the issues of
greatest significance to the community, including, but not limited to, planning concerns,
neighborhood compatibility, Comprehensive Plan consistency, economics, social costs and
benefits, fiscal costs and benefits, technological factors, and legal issues. These procedures
are not intended to permit or foreclose debate on the merits of approval or disapproval of
any given development project.
(c) To provide members of the public with the opportunity to obtain early information about
development projects in which they may have an interest.
(d) To provide project proponents with the opportunity to obtain early, non-binding
preliminary comments on development projects to encourage sound and efficient private
decisions about how to proceed.
(e) To encourage early communication between elected and appointed public officials and
staff with respect to the implementation of city policies, standards, and regulations on
particular development projects.
(f) To facilitate orderly and consistent implementation of the city's City's Comprehensive Plan
and development regulations.
18.79.020 Supplemental procedures.
These procedures are supplemental to any other authority under state or local law which
permits preliminary screening of development projects, including, but not limited to, the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and the
State Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code Section 65000, et seq.
18.79.030 Applicability and initiation.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 13 August 10, 2015 Council Version
(a) These procedures may be applied to the following types of development projects:
Preliminary screening is required for development projects that include any of the following
applications:
(1) Planned Community (PC);
(2) Development Agreement
(3) General Plan Amendment and Specific Plans, including Specific Plan Amendments
(4) District Map Amendment
(5) Zoning Text Amendment, except as provided for in section (c) below.
(1) Substantial zoning regulation or district map change proposals;
(2) Comprehensive plan amendments, including specific plans;
(3) Any other development project, or permit or entitlement application, including a
major alteration or expansion of existing use, which implicates major land use or other
policy or planning concerns.
(b) Development project preliminary review may be initiated by motion of the city council,
with the concurrence of the project proponent, or upon request of the city manager and
project proponent with the concurrence of the city council, at any time after the city has
received a development project application and before the development project is noticed for
public hearing on the merits of the application, if any is required. Preliminary screening is
initiated by filing an application and payment of applicable fees. Preliminary screening
applications shall be scheduled for a study session before the City Council. Notice of the study
session and the opportunity for public participation shall be provided in the same manner as
may be required by law for action on the underlying development project application. The City
Council may include in the study session, or refer a preliminary screening application to, any
board, commission or committee.
(c) Development project preliminary review may also be initiated prior to the filing of an
application, upon the request of the project proponent with the concurrence of the city council.
The project proponent shall pay a preliminary review fee as set forth in the municipal fee
schedule. If the project proponent wishes to proceed with the project after preliminary review,
he or she must then file an application and pay a regular application fee. Preliminary screening
is not required for zoning text amendments under the following circumstances:
(1) The project does not include a request for an application in section (a) (1)
through (a)(4 ) above, and
(2) The Director of Planning and Community Environment determines the requested
amendment would not have significant policy implications. Such zoning amendments include,
but are not limited to, projects requiring a hotel or automobile combining district.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 14 August 10, 2015 Council Version
(d) Preliminary screening may be initiated for any application not included in section (a) (1)
through (a)(4 ) above that results in The city may from time to time establish application forms,
submittal requirements, fees, and such other requirements, guidelines and informal regulations
as will aid in the efficient implementation of these procedures. Any other development project,
or permit or entitlement application, including a major alteration or expansion of an existing
use, which implicates major land use or other policy or planning concerns, subject to the
following requirements:
(1) Development project preliminary review may be initiated by motion of the City
Council, with the concurrence of the project proponent, or upon request of the city manager
and project proponent with the concurrence of the City Council, at any time after the City has
received a development project application and before the development project is noticed for
public hearing on the merits of the application, if any is required.
(2) Development project preliminary review may also be initiated prior to the filing
of an application, upon the request of the project proponent with the concurrence of the City
Council. The project proponent shall pay a preliminary review fee as set forth in the municipal
fee schedule. If the project proponent wishes to proceed with the project after preliminary
review, he or she must then file an application and pay a regular application fee.
(3) The noticed public study session will be conducted solely by the planning and
transportation commission (“P&TC”); or by the P&TC initially and then by the City Council; or
solely by the City Council; or as a joint meeting of the City Council and P&TC, or as a joint
meeting of the City Council and any other city boards, commissions or committees whose
participation is deemed desirable by the City Council. Unless directed otherwise by the City
Council, the P&TC shall conduct a study session on all preliminary review matters and forward
its comments to the City Council. Minutes of P&TC study sessions conducted pursuant to this
section shall be produced in the same manner as minutes of regular meetings.
(4) Notice of the study session and the opportunity for public participation shall be
provided in the same manner as may be required by law for action on the underlying
development project application.
(d) (e) The City may from time to time establish application forms, submittal requirements,
fees, and such other requirements, guidelines and informal regulations as will aid in the
efficient implementation of this section these procedures.
(f) No formal action may be taken during preliminary review.
18.79.040 ReservedPreliminary review.
Upon initiation as provided in Section 18.79.030, one or more noticed public study sessions will
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 15 August 10, 2015 Council Version
be held to solicit comments which will aid in accomplishing the purposes of these procedures.
The noticed public study session will be conducted solely by the planning commission; or by the
planning commission initially and then by the city council; or solely by the city council; or as a
joint meeting of the city council and planning commission, or as a joint meeting of the city
council and any other city boards, commissions or committees whose participation is deemed
desirable by the city council. Unless directed otherwise by the city council, the planning
commission shall conduct a study session on all preliminary review matters and forward its
comments to the city council. Minutes of planning commission study sessions conducted
pursuant to this section shall be produced in the same manner as minutes of regular meetings.
Notice of the study session and the opportunity for public participation shall be provided in the
same manner as may be required by law for action on the underlying development project
application.
No formal action may be taken during preliminary review.
18.79.050 Preliminary review public study session procedure.
(a) Preliminary review study sessions may be conducted in any manner deemed appropriate by
the Ccity Ccouncil.
(b) City staff will prepare a summary outline of the proposed project which highlights any
information relevant to the purposes identified in Section 18.79.010, including but not
limited to any initial study prepared for the project. In addition, the project proponent or
any interested person may provide oral or written comments consistent with the purposes
of these procedures during a preliminary review study session. Subsequent city staff reports
on development projects which have been subject to preliminary review should summarize
any comments made during the process.
(c) Preliminary review study sessions shall not be for the purpose of taking evidence with
respect to a development project. Neither the city City councilCouncil, nor any Ccity board,
commission, committee, or staff person may rely upon information obtained or comments
made during the preliminary review process for any final decision, unless such information
or comments are reintroduced during a subsequent noticed public hearing on the merits of
the development project.
18.79.060 Voluntary compliance.
(a) Compliance with any development project revisions, alterations, or conditions suggested
during the preliminary review process shall be voluntary. Failure to comply with any such
revisions, alterations, or conditions shall not affect consideration of the project by the
cityCity.
(b) Nothing in these procedures is intended, nor shall any provision be construed, to constitute,
permit or result in any binding determination of the rights, interests, or entitlements of the
cityCity, project proponent, or any interested person with respect to a development project
upon which preliminary review is conducted.
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 16 August 10, 2015 Council Version
(c) Development project preliminary review shall be without prejudice to the ability of the
cityCity, project proponent, or any interested person to proceed with a development
project in any manner, notwithstanding any suggested revisions, alterations, or conditions.
(d) When preliminary review has been initiated, a project proponent shall have the right to
withdraw a development project application at any time before commencement of a public
hearing on the first discretionary permit, license, or entitlement for the project. Such
withdrawal shall be without prejudice to the project proponents ability to reapply for the
same or a substantially similar development project at a future date, subject to the
regulations, standards, and policies in effect upon reapplication. Upon such withdrawal, the
city City shall refund any application processing deposits to the project proponent which
have not yet been expended.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code inconsistent with the
provisions of this chapter, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby
repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this chapter.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this chapter and each and every
section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without
regard to whether any portion of the chapter would be subsequently declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the adoption of this chapter is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline section
15061 because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project will have
a significant effect on the environment in that the proposals make procedural modifications to
an already existing zoning district.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT YET APPROVED
150123 jb 0131477 17 August 10, 2015 Council Version
ATTEST:
__________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager