The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0116.0921 I . • - ~c: .. . • 0 . . . ~'., /' .. January 23, 1992 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo ~lto, (a1if~rnia COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Members of the Council: Report in Brief The purpose of this memo is to advise the Planning COlTJT)issl0n and City Council .of the status of the City's ComprehcMive Plan update. Scope of the Update In J~Ty of 1~91 the Chief Planning OfficiaT was assigned to perfurm two tasks: 11 coordinate the p~e?aritiQn of an econorntc rescurces planning program for the City, and 2) develop the approach and process for updating the Cityrs Comprehensive Plan. The status of the economic resources planning program was SUlT'lTlarized i'l a memo to the City Council (November 14, 199:, OtR:S06:91). where it was envisioned that a draft outline of a plan would be available for public consideration in the spring of 1992. In the informal discussions of the proposed Comprehensive Plan update before th! joint Plannir,g Commission and City Gouncil study session, August 28, 1991, the seop! of the update was anticipated to be minor and predominant'y technical in nature. However, little information had been gathered or lna1y~e~ to support a ~re 1imited technical update; rather. the proposal fOeU5!d on a scope of work that (auld be performed by existing staff re~ources. and a recognition of the City's current fiscal situation. lne latter was not antic~PQted to support heavy consultant expenditur2s to assist in a major Comprehensive P1in ~pdate. Subsequent to those discussions~ staff h~s had the opportunity to further invEstigate the current status of the City's Phn, c.omnunHy e.xpectatiofis of what an update might or should entail, and ot~er cities' recent experiences in ~arKing upon their Comprehensive Plan updates. This investigatior. has led to a s'-Jbstanti al rethinki ng of the nature and scope of the update as originally envisioned. The current Plan, whlch was adopted ~n early 1981, was prepared with technical data generated in the mid to late 19705, prior to the availability of ~980 federal census ddta. wnile a s~bstant,a' n~mber of amen~ments have occurred since 1980, primarily focusing on iand use and transportation issues, and the Housing Element (is mandated by stite la~) has been com~letely r~~ritten, many atfloer aspects of the ~1an are dependent upon supp'Orting documentation o\ler i CMR:IJ6;92 - dec&de old. Integration of updated information within the p1an, irrespective of an'y cPange3 lri policy, will lH.e1y result in rc ... ·1sions to nearly every section of the document. fundamental decisions, such as whether to update and include in th2 Plan the Open Space Element and the Ba,Ylands Master Plan, coulci substantially a1t~r the scope of work of tne Comprehensive PTan update. The 1;80 Plan also refiects tne dominar.i approach of public agencies at tnat tilTlf!, which WaS toward a basic land use document. Such phns often did not 1neorp~rate or allude to other community g~a1s, is social and human services, or the economic or ftseal aspects of th2 plan's various elements~ Indeed, comprehenslve plans are not required to do SOt and the decisions regarding what a plan does cr does not contain. beyond the hasic land use-related eTements required by State law t largely rests with the community. Since the 1980s t and particularTy in the latti:'r part of the decade ~,ld the early 1990s, cities have increaSingly elected to 1ncl~de a number of optj~nal elements wit~1n their comprehensive plans_ Reasons for this are varied, but they all point tDWard the view of 3. comprehensive plan iiS not just a land use document but a truly ·comprehens1ve" set of integrated policies intended to guide communit1 actions on a wide range of issues in the future. A sUlmIary of other cOlTIDunities t experience:) in u~:jating their comprehensive plans is instructive, particularly in relation to our original conception of a limited ~technical" rewrite of tne plan. A sampling of those experiences is listed Delow. . City of San Hateo San Kateo rec~ntly completed an updi1te of their Comprehensive Pl ar,. wh!dl was substantially accomplished 1n-h!luse. eQt~ U1e Phn and the [JR were wrjtten by staff, fn conjunction with a 20 plus member citizens! committee. The process took 2_5 years to complete l and necessitated the allocation of 4.5 fun-time professional p1a.nning staff to complete the docume~ts. Planning Commission and City Co~ncil hearings on the draft plan took only fOl'r mOfltns to complete. Consultants were utllized for h"insportation studies (.5120,OOO), a citizens' committee facilitator (.525,000), and air qUJlity supporting data ($10,000). Cjty of Moyntain View A Mountain View General Plan update has been in process for 3.S years, with final ~Ta~ adoption and distribution targeted for June 1992. CQns~ltant usage was high in their update: Housing Element pr€paraticn. SlOO,OOO to date; transportation stUdies, 560,000; £IR preparation, SlOO,OOO; editing, S25.00~; graphics and reproduction, 535,000. Tot~l co~sultant costs to date are in excess of 5320,000, and the Plan has not ~e-t been before the Planning Commission. More ir.terestingly, when ~untain Vi~w originally embarked upon their update process, it was to be i -minor-update to ~clean ~p. tne plan with an estimated 18-mo"t~ completion date. 0.;'16:92 P:\DO:\CPW 01/23/92 ·2· , I , \ 4 , . I ~ , I t • I • • 1\ -.' c--_____ ... ____ . City of Santa Clar. Santa Clara is i~ the final stages ~f a 19Ba initiated cQmprehens~ve plan update. Prior to drafting any changes ir. the p1an or embarking upon i pubiic participation process, Santa Clara conducted a consultant prepared economic forecast of the City's original comprehensive p1an, at a cost Df $3v,COO. Other consultants included traffic, $75,000 and a lega1!cons1stency anaTysis ~f the plan, SI0,000. In-house resources were estimated to require one or two full-time prof~ssionals over the three-year time period, No citizen participation process was utiliz!d to assist in the update outside of the normal Planning Commission/ City Council hearing process. City of Menlo_~~ The City of Menlo Park is in its second rewrite of i major comprehensive plan update initiated over three years ago. Use of consultants has been very heavy. wit~ an estimated total cost to the (ity to date in excess of $45~,OOO. Appro~imately thr~e full-ti~ ~rofessiona1s in planning, traff1c~ and the attorney's efflce hawe been allocated to this exerclse ave. the three-year time period. ilh of Frem~ Fremont's General P1an update was c~leted in May of 1991~ and too~ the City 2.S years to complete. Consultant e~pertise was used in the ErR preparation ($200,000); and for leg.l assistanc. (150,000). Extensive staff resources were allocated to this effort including four full-time planners~ one f~ll-time graphics person, one and one-half transportation speCialists, and two full-time equivalent persons from housing, leisure services, and hazardous materials. Fre~nt ts on a ccst enterprise fund acco~nting system whereby al' staff time is compiled at standard billabTe rates. Tne total cost for the update, including consultant expenses and printing. is estimated to be in excess of $J,OOO,OOO. /J. citizens' adv,sory committee of 25 persons assisted in drafting tne document. Opti onal eielilents on energy and local economic corlditicns w~re included in the update. Admittedly, the abo ... e cO:rm1unities differ from Pa~c Alto in many respects. There are, nowever, some common themes worth noting in those cities' res.pectiVe ~xper-iences. Some, Mountain View and Santa Clara. embarked upcn the update with th~ expectation that a -m,nor" or ·technical-update was feasib1e~ yet they were unable to limit Vie exercise in that manner. While the utilization of consultants ranged substantially, no city was able to iccomplish its com~rehensiye plan update with less than S)OO,OOO in consultant expenditures, ~nd most ranged between $200,000 to S300,000 in consultant fees. Finally, substantial time, genera1ly over two to three years, was necessary to complete the process; and staff resources alloc~ted to the ~pdates were much greater than originally envisioned. (In th~ 1970s, four fu1l·time profeSSionals, in the Plinn1ng Di .. ·ision aloM, were assigned to complete PaTo 0.:'1.6:92 P:\CJIt\CPW t z1" AHo's 1976 Comprehensive Plan. and no citizen partic1pation process, outside of the stand~rd Planning Commission and City Council he!rings. was u~il1zed.) Finally, there are a ~umber of ·wildcarJs· which may be thrown intu cities ' cornprf!hensiVe planning processes. Proposed state legislation and Governor Wilson's stated <:omitment to b"t~ growth management and business retenti(1n issues could substantia11y change the complexion of Palo Alto's planning document. While we do not yet know, and will likely nat know for some months to come, there is widespread ~lief that some form of regional gro~th management, regional air Ql.!illity emissions regulations and perhaps even subregional land use planning legislation are likely to ~ccur in the ne&r to mid-term futur:=-. How aggreSS1Ye or modest ir, form such legislation may take remains to be seen, but the experienc! of other states and past history in taiifornia suggests that any imposition cf regional planning at the state level is likel~ to he complex, underfunded. understaffed, and with short-time lines for compliance. Our comprehensive p1an update should incorporate a greater level of k~owledge than wnat presently e)ists at the local level on these issues, and th's may taKe one to two years to resolve. Another "wildcard~ is Stanford U~fyersity. and especially activities in the Satu! Hill Corridor. Stanford asked fer iI de1ay in starting the Sand Hill Extensio~ Env1ronrn@nt.l Impact Report until fpbruary 1992 because of the need to resolve internal issues related to Medical Center planning and Stanford West. rf the City ;s confr~'ted with review of a major Stanford West project and/or I request for a City/Co~nty/Stanford process to resolve near-, mid-and longer-term Medic~l Center expansion issu~s. the~e ~ou1d be a substantia1 impact on City staff resources ava~lable in 1992/1993 for the Comprehensive Phn update. tP.nclusjoDs It is staff's opini~n that' minor -technical· update of the City's Comprehensive Plan is not likely to be feasible_ More importantly. if there is ccmmunily sentiment to expand the scnpe of the Plan ,nd/er r~visit po1icy issues addressed in the 1970s ilnd 19805, we do not consider it desirable to start with a limfted technical update. T~e City of Pl10 Alto's next Comprehens~ve Plan document .ill lead YS in decision maKing for the 19905 and into the next century. Such a rewrit~ is very likely to be tirr.e consumptive, expensive and will reQuin ill high leyel ~f commitment of staff resources. Given the (ity l 5 current fiscal situation and to~etition for staff res~urces, intlijding the area ~f economic reSOYfCeS planning. we do not believe it timely to proceed with an a9gressiv~ comprenens;ve plan update p~sthaste. We do, hcwever, believe steps should be taken to further identify tne scope of work necessary to re·write the d~tument and to i~torporate potentia1 optional elements, where desirable, that .auld render tne pTan mQst effectiv~ in city policy making. Fina'ly, a citizen partiCipation process needs to be agreed up~n prior to embarking upon the Comprehensive P1an update. CM:116:92 ':\a.:\CF~ .. ~~~~( , ~';~~\ --....t" .• - ( -- To that end, it is staff's intent'~n to work with a cons~ltant to prepare a -road map· for tt'le Cit)"s Comprer.ensi\le Plan update. The map st10uld identify optic1nal areas for inclus~on in th~ plan, such as human ser¥ices, telecommunicitions, or fiscal ispect~ of the pl;n. Estimatec time lines and alternath"e public particfpation procp.:sses will be presented for further City Council and Piannin9 Commission consideration. Completion of a draft wroad map· with options for discuS!10n is antiCipated in late February/early March. At that time, staff suggests rev~e~ of the findings at i joint Planning Corrrnission/C1t,)' Council study session in April. After the Study Se.'isron, the Council should be in i position to establish the ground rules and expectations for the Comprehensive Plan updat~ and incorporate, as appropriate, those decisions in the 1992·1994 City budget. Respectfully submitted, tMA/~r-> ~ p' / ./ IU"iM'L<"'t 7'-.4dd.d~)i CAROL L. JANSEN;;''" ~ Chief Planning Official anager ~c; Palo A1to Planning Commission Pa10 Ano Architectural R.eview Board Palo Alto Historic Resources Board Palo Alto Human Re1ations Commission Palo Alto Public Art CommissiGn Palo Alto Utilities Advisory Commission Don de h Pena, City of Menlo Park Debra Nelson, City of los Altos Bruce Balshone, City of fast Palo Alto linda Niles. Town of los Altes Hills Walter Cohen, City of Mountain View KENNETH R. SCHR£I8ER Director of Pl'anrring and Community Environment Terry Burnes, San Mateo County Planning Department leod€ Franklin, Santa C1ara County Planning Departm~nt California Avenue Area Development Association Conrnittee for Green Foothl1ls Ktdpen1nsula Regi~nal Pa~Ks and O~en Space Palo Alto Board of Realtors Jay Thorwaldson, Palo Alto Medical foundation Palo Alto Chamber of ComrnerCf Palo Alto Civic le.gu. Palo Alto Housing Corporation James R. Brown, Palo Alto Unified 5choo1 District Palo Alto league of Wc~n Voters Peninsula Conservation Center Barron Park AssQciation t:M:116:IiIZ JI:\OIR\O'LU IlI/Zl/9Z ·s· Barron SqIJare Condomi nium Associ at, ion Cnarleston Meadows Neighborhood Association Chestnut-Wilton H~owners Association College Terrac~ N!ighborhood Association College Terrace Residents Association Downt~wn North He19hborh~od Associatior. Evergreen Park Neighbornood Association Greater Miranda Community Association Greenacres rllProvement .~ssociation Greenmeadow Community Association Hoover Park Ne1ghborhood Associat!on lnterdale W~ Homeowners Association Park Central Commercial Cond~inium Association Jordan/Garland Nelghborhood Association leland Manor Association LyttDn Garden.s Midtown West Association Manta Lorna Neighborhood ".ssociation Old Trace Neighbor~ood AssG(iatian Pil0 Alto Hills Homeownets Association Southgate Neighborhood Association Unlversity & Crescent Park Asso~il~ion University & Crescent Park Homeo.ners Association Ventura Neighborhood ,,\ssoc; ation West Bayshore Residents Association University Park Association o.~'16;92 P;\O«\O'LAM • \ , , I -, . •