Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0296.092- ~. " . • < "< .: , . " 10 June 11, 1992 HONORABLE ClTl COUNCIL Palo .II.Ho, California ComprehenEivt Plan Reilis;on: Recommended Work Progrdm and c.osts M~mbers of the Counc~1: Report ;0 Brief Th~ pur~o~e of this report is: 1) to summar,ze the prin~ipi1 re~sons for updating the Comprehensive Plan, work items and costs identified in the work program; 2) to demonstrate the effe~ts of modifying or deleting items from the rec~mmended work program; and 3) to recomrn~~d that t~e City (ou~cil~ after d~stussion it the June 15th Counc11 meeting, defer action on the work program .nd funding for updating the Plin until after State budgetar~ probl~ms ~a¥e been resolved and their local impacts are known . .6.ickaround Tne .ork program fer updating the tomprehens\~e P\~n rec~mrnend~d by st~ff [see 4/10/92 report to the Planning Commission, "Work Program for Updating the tomprehe~sive Plan~· attached) evolv~d after staff researched other comrnun~ties' exper~ences in updating their general pTans [see attached OtR:116:92 of January 23, 1992]. It a150 reflects cOiMIents from many ~ommunity leaders ~ho ex?r~ssed a des1re to est!blisn a high ?rior~t~ o~ u~dating the Comprehensive Plan. Initially, staff had envisioned a Comprehensi~e Plan update incorporating State reQu;re~~nts in areas such as air quality, transportation and ~cise and ~ncluding data from the 1990 t~n~~s and recent inforrnat10n and forecasts from regional, county and cit~ studies. (The a1ternative M] work program generally reflects this eariier exp€ctation.) After staff reviewed and evaluated the difficulties that several cities Experienced when they proceeded to update their general plans ~ithout a clearly defined work prog~am and a prescribed public participation process, it oeveloped, ~ith consultant assistante 1 the recommended work program that is before the City Council. CMR:296:92 - Stiff's i~itial expectations evo1¥ed into the more expansive public proc~ss aniJ scoDe of wori<. new rec:omended. becaus~ of the information received from varioLis' seqments of the c-orrrnunitj· -gardjng their e)(pectat~ons for the Plan update. Tnese e>=.,ectations irlch a 5ubstantia.1iy broader public participation process than used in the 1970's and for the 1980 Plan update (ney,lsletter, cOf11Tlunity survey, workshops, c.itizens ldvisory -:orrr,l1ttee)_ Ir. addition t~ an e~panded public process. staff als~ rece;~ed indications that the scope of 'Wo,...~ in trle: Plan update shcu1d be expanded tc-i!"lc11.!d'e economic/fistal resources, governance issues, incorporation of social services and facility to?ic~, and a maj~r la~d use dnd des~9n studj of £1 Cam1nc Real. This work program for updating the Comprenen5ive Plan was discussed pre~iously by the City Cou"ci1 at a jOint study session with the Flanning Commission on May 4, 1992 {the work. program and a cover re-po rt to the Phnn i ng CC1iJfIi ss i {H1 was distributed to City COllncil Members on April 10, 1992}_ Subsequently. the Finance-Committee, in rtviewing the proposed budget for th~ Department of Ph.nn1i"l9 and COlTlllunity EnvironmEnt or< May 21, 199?, cont'inu€d discussion of estimated costs f~r updating the Comprehensive Plan until after June 15, 1992, 'Iifh@n the stope of the p'!"cj~'Ct is deternir.ed by CC'Jnei'. tS~e CMR:1SS:9l of 5/14/92 on Comprehensive Plan expet1ses,. Initially, the Planning Corrmissiori reviewed the \IIor"k program on Ap:r-P 22, 1992. prior to t~e joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session of May 4, 1992 (se. CKR: 239:91 of 4/30/92, SUIm1JrY of Planning co"",15>;0" Recommendations and Discussion). In addition) other advisory boards and c~issiGns including the Architectural Review Board, the Pub1ic Art Corrrniss1on, the Utilities Ad\l;sory COl'lll1i5:siN'!, the Human Relations Commission lnd the ~istoric Resources Board, have revie~ed the wor~ program, Th~i~ comnents t contained in either minutes or transmittals, are being forwarded separate1y to the City Council for th~ June 15, 199Z me~ting. The (ollowiny sect'ions of this. report discuss l} constraints on the updati!~ i.e. costs and unctrtainties arising from tne State's fiscal crisisj 2) reasons for the Plan revision; 3) items and costs in the work plan; and 4) ~xpected staff rol~~ in tMe process. In addit;o~, s~parate sections discuss in further detail the lo~ cost Alternative #1 a~d suggest options for £1 (ami1o Real. Tile purpose of these 1atter s~ctior,s is to allow CDunctl and the corrmunity to focus on tne content and effects of the 10\11 cost ,alternative, as .ell as the effects of poss~b1y reducing or deferri~g a~ (1 Cam~n~ Real special area study from the work program for updating the Comprehensive Plan. Sta.te 8uc'aetin Problems and Fiscal. Conc __ ~ Tn~ State of Caiifornia currently is facing budgetary problems of signifi:ant lI'Iagnitude. How these fi5'Cal shortfalls will be resolved and what ttle effrcts of subsequent State actions wil1 be on Palo .~lto!s finance'S ire not known at this time_ NOr1etheless, potf!ntial effer.:ts !jf the State's fiscal problems ccuH res.ult in deleUon of exist.in9 fundir'9 to cHies and/or reQuirem~nts for cities to assume additional but unfunded res.ponsibilities_ Tnis may force a CMR;295:92 ,",Icnr-.anrOt!11 6/11/92 P'go 2 - review ~f unfunded prjoriti~s and a review of these p~ojects to dete~ine if r!w~sion is required. As iI result of these fiscal unc.ertainties, staff bel ieves that Ue City CouRcll should review and discuss components of the work. prograrl". for updating tne Comprehen$iv~ Plan on June 15, 1992, but that Council shou1d de~er making any dedsior, on the .. ark. ~rogra1Tl and fund1ng until after trle State resoi ves its current deficit. Pr'esumably, state a.ction on its fjscal issues :;hou1d QoCCUr" in time for the City CourtCll to act en the Comprehe~sive Plan in earl} autumn after it retonvenes from its vacatlon. Reasons for a Compn:hensive PTan Rewisi.9ll The primary relsons for updating thE: Comprehensive Phn are sUlm<aril.ed in the following 1 ist: First Clind fo"'emost, to maintain the Plan's tonsistencj' llI1th State plannifl9 guidf!lines. Ir:cor,poration of updated data, including air qualHy, transportation~ nOise and 1990 Census information is necessary in the next years. GoaTs, PQlicies and pr~9rams in ~arious areas that have been i~pact~d by regulatory changes during the 1980s need to be reviewed and adjuste-d. The City Attor-ney's Office advises th.at as the information on which the Comprehensive Plan is based becomes older and less accurate, the risk of suc.cessful le9al challenge to the Plan or a specific deveTopment application increases. T~e Plan will establlsh a vislon for tne City and a guide into the next century. The proposed process is an opportunity for the community and Council to iirticu1ate comman 9.oa.1s leading t.a focused itnd effec.U",p public policy in addressing contemporary and anticipating future issues. The c~rrtnt document is more ~eflective of issues of the 70's and SO's thin of tne 90's. The Cit, ;s approachin9 its centennial and should s!ize t~e opportuniti to focus mora on strategies f~r the f~ture, inc1uding the cha)1enges of continued private redevelop~nt of re3icielitial. cafMlllrci-3.1 ind industrial properties. The Comprehensive Plan should address natiana'~ arId espec;ai1y state and re;ional issu!'s and requirements (e.g., air quality re·~ulatii)n5, congestiDn management reQuirements~ possible region;l go .... ernance prospects, storm water regulations) that are 3ffecti~g PAlo Alto. A considerabTe number of these issues will be substantially different than in the 1960 PI.n. The ~emographics of the Clty'S population are changing, and are like1y to continue to cia so at a more dramat it rate i n t~e next 10 to 20 'years. As a resuit. community needs ard values are changing and should be reflected in a rev; sad pl an~ CltR:296:92 6/11/92 Poge 1 , , ! c· The Htlusing flement is required by the state to be uiJdated in 1995, and it should not be done again (as ~as tne case in 1990) in isolation of the other elements and priorities contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan document, to ~ effect,ve? should reflect part'cipaticn from a broad and representative spec~rum of tne community and tne community's decision ma~e~s in the process. Work Ittms: pjsc~ss;Qn of Work Plan ~~ The attached table Su~ariles the reco~ended work ~royram and consultant roles in terms of T-9sponsibility. (OS.ts and effects of work. items. It also states whether itti •. ;> aN discntionny or stite !flandat€j. In developing t,",is recol1'lT\ended work progr;un, staff cC!:me to some everridir_g conclusior,s. In order for the precess to engage a broader spectrum of pirticipation tnan would otherwise occur through sole relhnce on pub-lie. hearings, it would be necessar'y to~ 1. Communicate ~ith the community about the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the1'!" role i:l deve10ping the dDCllment and keep them infcraed and interested throughout the process (newsl!tte'!"s, ~Drkshops and outrEa~h)j 2. limit the process to 'ess tha~ three years in order to hold the pub' ic and pol icy makers I attent ion and to make the process re'tllardin'.! (lea.d consultar,t for fast-trac.king, sub-stal1tive staff commitment, meeting facilitation); 3. Eng:age segments of Us. culTlTlunlty who would othenwise not participate (slJr'lley and Comprehensive Plan Ad,isory Conmittee); 4. Emphasize topics which are of interest to the community {e.g., co~nity and human se'!"v~~es, !conomfcs, governance, recreation, El CAmino Real area study), rather than only tho~e which are state mandat~d (e.g., transportation, housing, air q~a1itJ); 5. Produce a document that is r-eadab1E-and user friendly, 5.0 that it .. ill conttn(.;e to be useful, widely distributed and easily updated {editing. mapp;ng, pr\~tin9, mailing). ~t.ff Roles City staff ~i 11 have the pr imary res pons i b i1 it i es for do i ng the work i nvo 1,,.ed irj updating the Plan~ Staff will coordinate the process. prep.ar~ and compile the technical documents, and prepare most of the text for the draft Plan. Additional functlo~s include COllecting datd, coordinating c~mputer and geographic information systems (SlS) mapping, coorainating t~€ Tec~nical Ad~isory Group, and coordinating and assuming responsibility for notjces, mailing and report reproduction. CMR,29&,92 &/ j 1/92 Pag. 4 L Preparation of a Comprfnensive Plan is a major uncertaking, As stated in earlier reports, PTannin9 Divfsion staff resources allocated to the rewisjon amount to approximately 3.0 fu11-time equivalents 'fTE) during the first year of the :"e'llision and appro.ximat!ly 3.5 FTEs during the secon-d year of the revision. T~i5 comre~tment presum~s minlma1 staff vacancies will OCCUrj ~taff ~ill not be assigned other special studies; and Development M~nitoring application and ctesign review actf~ity __ ill not increase o ..... er current leve1s of activity, and should increases occur, it is acceptable to hire contract assistance {~sing the increased fee revenues) tc maintain cu~tomer servic~ goals. In addltion, substantial inv~lvement and participation in the update 1s e.xpected from other City departments. This participation wOIJld include isshtlng in J) drafting technical documer,ts, 2} drafting sections of the Plan, end 3} re~ie~;ng sections of the draft Plan and administrat1v€ draft [JR. Comprehensive Plan Advisorv Committee Role The Comprehensive Phn Advisory Corrrnittee ;s en\'isioned in the staff proposal to be a group of appointed volunteers repfesenting t~e spectr~m of issues ide~tified during Phase) of the planning proc€ss, Several members of the Planning Commission and City Council ~a~ld serve an the committee. This group would meet dUring a year's time to re ... iew and help shape the technical background reports whid~ would eventually 1 ead to policy malting and the draft Plan e1ements. The specific p;rameters fo~ how this committee cond~cts the backgrourid r:!port preparation has !'lot been ':ipecif~cali}' defined, other than to delineate tnat they would be supported by the various departm~nts of the City thro~gh the Technical Advisory Group fvrum, and that they would benefit fr~m professional meeting facilitation in the p~bl;c workshops they conduct. It was envisioned that the Committee would have some latitude to further define the specific precess and tools used to prepare and review the baer.ground reports. Alternative 11 Wark Program The scope and content of the Alternative II work program basically consist of upcat'h19 areas of the Plan to reflec.t recent state requirements and l:pdating demogra~hic and other relenrlt data in the Plan text. Pian elements that have to address State reQuiremerrts include noiS2, air Q\ality, transportatior. and, by 1995, housing. Outsidp. profeSSional experUse would be necessary for work on transportation t nQise, seismic safety, and air qua1ity, ~ork on other Plan elements essentially would consist of technical and statistical updates over the current 1981 docunlent. Pl an po1 icies .and programs would be assumed to be acceptable and changed only if issues and concerns are raised during the Planning Commission and City Council review of a re~ised PTan document. The EIR would be prepared by an outSide consultant. 1his work program alternativ~ also assumes p~ofessi()nal outside work on map reproduction and on Plan text reproduction. The principal differences betwee~ the AlternatiVe t1 ~O~K prog~Qm and the recommended work program fall into tw~ separate areas. I~ one area, CHR:296:92 6/11/92 " \."..,..\gnrOtl1 1 Page 5 , ..... '-~: : I " - dIscretionary elements, e.g., economic/fiscal rescurces and s~cial se,vices, which ha¥e 9~nerated ;~tet~st 1n th~ community. would ~ot be included in the Plan revisio~< The other area, that could ~~ broadly defined as public outreach, iII1.so 'IIlo\.lld not be included in ~.\ternati'¥2 #1. ful'!:;:tio"ls in th-is area of the recorMlended aHernative would inciude I) conducting Cl Sl..lr-vey to determinE': cOl'l1flu1'Iity-wide issue-s, 2} pre-paring three Hcfessi;:mal news1etters durifllj prine; pal pJ'Jases of the project to educate the cOII'lmul'lity en the Pl an rtv;s,Qn, and !) facilitating comm~n~ty w~r~$hops a~d advisory committee meetings to assure that issues and potential policies were adequate1y assessed tse@ attached di~gram describ'~9 th~ 9roposed process for the recomMended work program) .. ~s a r~slJlt, the goa' to have a Plan ro!visiol"l process that sought to enga-ge a broader spe-ctrum of COITIni.!ilit), participation cou1d flot be achie-ved under th~ Alternative II ~ork program. Rather, i tr3dltionaT public reV1€W process, thit included provfsfon of pubiic heari,gs, would be incorporated into the Alternative 11 wark pro9ra~. !n addition! the updated doc~ment under the Alternative II work program would not be professionally edited. As a result, the final plan would not contain the clea~~ concise language that was a principal feature of the widely acclaimed 19i6 a~d 1981 ?lan do(uments. El Camino Real The reclJlmlended work pro"gram for updating the Comprehensive Plan includes i special area st~dy of £1 Camino Real. Inclusion of this area study reflected responses to a limited survey of cOl'Ti'ilun"ity leaders conducted by MnGre Consulting prior to pr~paration of the work program. as wel) as reaction to pyblic and decision maker comme~t5 directed to staff o~er the past several years. Th~ thrust of then comnents was that n ta.miflO Real is a. major design, appearance and land use issue tnat should be addressed either in the tomprehen5i~E Pll~ or as a special ~rea study. Tke specia1 lrea study is enviSioned as a technically complex study involving interconnected land use~ design ~nd eco~ornic analysis with substant,al publ,c involvement. Cost of the study includes $75,000 to $100,000 of consultant wor" one-half of the contract p1anner ($93,500) and app~Qximately 19,000 of supplies a~d other exp:enS&s. Staff suggests c.onsideraticr. of the fol1o",irrg alternative options that ..... CI~ld respond to concerns on the cost of the Comprehensive PTart urdate and ~oLlld substantia.lly reduce the cost of this study and the Comprehel1si .. e Plan revision. These alternative options are: I. Defer action on £1 Camino Rea~ until ~fter tne {omprehenslye PTan revision is completed; 2. Update the El Cami no Real DeSign G'Jidel ines that were prepare-d twelve years ago (copy attached), during the revision; or 3, Delete any c.onsideration of an El Camino Real st'jdy. These options will be discussed in the fol1o~in9 paragraphs. CltR:29£:92 6(1J/91 Page 6 ' . . ' . .-1" ........ - Option 1 The first option 'fIould be to defer 3("tion rtgardifiy an £1 Camino R::a1 study until 3fter completion of the Comprehensive Plan uod~te. A deferral of this study wou~d permit the City to focus entirely on u~atfn9 the Comprehensive Plan, without a110cating significant staff and consultant resources to a ,"ajar spe,:iil area study. The phasing of an f1 Camino Real study in tt11s sequence would OCClJr after other Comprehensi¥t Plan issues have beer. iitldressed e:r;d resolved. In 3idditioPl, of!ferring an E1 Carnino Re.i special area study, in effect, would establish a precedent for precluding other &~ea studies until after crnmpletion of t~e Plan update. As i re~uit. !h~ work program would focus on a~propriat€ citywide (ornpjehensi~e Plan issues and costs for the update would not only be r~duced but more effectively (o"trolled. The followi ng costs 'tIere estimated for an El Cami no Real study ~ithin the work program for the Comprehensive Plan updat~. Consult.nt work $75,000-100,000 One-half contract planner S93 1 500 (over three years) Supplies, materials, mailing and !.9,{lOO and printing {apprOXimately 10 percent of the interna.l Phnning Divi sian budget) Deleting an El Camino Real study from the work: program ind deferring it until after completion of the Comprehensiv~ Plan would reduce costs for Pl an revision over a three-year period by approJelmatelj1 S200 .OCO~ A deferral on El Camino Real also would allow the City to determine in the issue-s survey of the Plan re'Jision how important n Camino Real issues are to the entire communlty. S~ch information subseQuentl$ could guide Ippropriite resource allocations fer a later study. On the other hand, deferring an E1 Caminll Real study also WGulj result in 1976 Comprehensive Plan land use decisions and 197B loning resulat;~ns for £1 Camino Rei' remain;~g in effect. As a res~it, staff would reco;mend that those I,Jses scheduled for amortization in 1993 be terminated in ac~ordance with the schedule. Opt i ~);l 2. A.nother option would limit tf1e study to simply updating the (1 Camino Real Design Guidelines that were prepared in 1979 (see attached guidelines). Updating the design guidelines would expand their appllcabliity to current development patterns along this arterial. it WGuld assume that land use poliCies, originally approv~d in the 1976 Comprehens)y~ Plan and sl1ght1y modified in the 1989 Citywid~ land Use C~R,296,92 p,\~" 5/11/92 Page 7 - and Transportatic" Study would r~main in eff!ct. The ~stimated costs for u~~iting th~ des\gn gu,de1ines ~ould be a?9~o~imatEly $25,000. Option 3 This 1ast option wDuld delete any reference to wcrk on Ei tamir.~ Real Tn the Comprehensive Plan update. A3 a res~lti costs for the update would be redu(ed by the same amount as in Option J~ i.e" approximately $200,000 over a three--year perfod. Howeller, L:.'llike Option ), thel"e would be no policy reference fOr a future study of £1 Camino ~€al. Staff supports its original recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan work program i~c1udin9 an £1 Cami~o Area Rea1 Study. ~onethe1ess. if tn~ City Council belleves that limited reSDvr:es preclude preparing the Comprehensive Plan r!wision witn an [1 Camino Re~1 StudYj then staff wou1d support deferr;n~ ar. £1 Carnine Real Study ~ntil completion of the Compreh!nslve Plan update. Summary and (onclysi~n The recommended work prog~am for re~ising the Comprehensi~e Plan reflects in~ut frnm the community, City departments, and recent experiences of other cities in the ~egion in revising their general plans. As stated in earlier sections of tnis r~port. and in the attached table on function and costs, stiff believes this recommended work program provides for: 1) broad comm~nity participdtian &nd understanding thr~u9hout the process; 2) outside expertise in areas where the City staff dces n{lt ~,a .. 'e the appropriate s~ills and that are either state mand~ted or areas where such expertise will expand a~d enhance the Qual tty of the Plan; 3) l realistic commitmer.t of resources for c~leting the Plani and 4) a~ equally realistic time frame for such a major undertaking. A major Comprenensive Plin reviSion that fo11ows the process outlined in the draft Work program further assures that curr~nt and long~range community i~sues are addressed i~ a comprehensive rather than an isolated context. A Comprehe!1si:ve .Plan that is visionary and reflective of cOfl1'l1unity vilues ~o'Jld be an investment for the future and the next generation of Pa 1 0 Altans, The casts for the recommended revision) _hile substantial~ do extend ever a three-year period. The benefits of a revision cou1d easily extend over a far sreater period As an example, the 1976 Plan served this cQmmJnity very effectively from 1976 throughout much of the recent decade. The content, costs and t1~ frame of a Comprehensive Plan revision. as noted earlier, requir-2 a Significant ccmitment of City and corrrnunity resources. Staff believes it would be appropriate fOi the City Council, on June 15, 1992, to re'ile .. the components of the-rec.omended 'IIIIork program, discuss altern3tive options~ parti~ularly tne deferral of an E1 Camino Real study. but defer action on the worK prcgr~ and funoing for the update after the State r&soives its currEnt budgetary deficit. Oeferring ictio~ on the {omprehen5i~e Plan update until after State fiscal issues are reso1~cd will provide t~e (ouneil CMR:29~:92 p\",~ll 6/11/92 Page 8 - o with the oppo,tunity t~ assess possible effe~ts Qf State actions on the Clty!s fisca1 resources, In ad~itiQnl i deferral of approximately three months will afford the Council and the community suffic;€nt time to carEfully assess 1) the appropriate content of t~€ Plan update, 2) the process for <ompleting the Plan and J) the necessary reSDIJrces that it. Plan T"' .... i sion will requir.e. 1f the Cjty Council agrees to defer act;on on the work program and funding, then staff wil1 schedule 5uch actions far Council consfderation in late September or early OctQbe~. If the Council wishes. to reduce the work program and reiated resources further, then discrete optional e1ements (e.g., economic/fiscal resources, urban desigr.~ incorporation of social services, opportunities fo~ publfc participation) need to be ~<:lentified by the COIJncil. A deciSion to reduce resources witnout reducin9 work expectations .... ill likely result in 'Some combina.tion of a longer process, frustration by the partlcipants because .. orlc. output does not match e~pectation$, and later decisions to add resources that ~ay well result In ~igh~r costs tha~ having the woyk tasks identified i~ the init;'al assem!>ly of the Comprehensive Plan update work team. RecQmendation Staff recommends that the City Cauncil, after discussion on June 15th. defer action on the work program and funding for updatin9 the Comprehensive Plan until late September or early October of 19~2. Respectfully submitted, ;t.;41~ ~-'v.,14- GECRGE'ZIMHERMAH ,~ Assista~t Planning Officiil WI llIAIt ZAN ER City Milnager KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Directo~ of PTan~ing and Community Environment Attac.hments:-1. Staff Report to the Planning COrm1ission of 4/10/92 2. CHR:116:92 of January 23, 19S2 3. 1979 £1 Camino Real Guidelin.s 4. Table: CQmprenensive P~an Revisicn. Recommended Budget and AlterJ1atlves 5. Comprehensive Plan Update Recommended Pro,ess and Schedule Chart cc: Architectural Re'w'if:!w Board Child Care Task forte Historic Resources Boatd Human Relations Commission CHR:296:92 *~~J ",,, :-:,~,~> 6/1I/~2 Page ~ Plannf~s Co~i!siQn Pubiic Aft Commj$sio~ Utlliti~5 Advlsory Casmission Compr.hens;v. Pla. Upd.te Moiling list CI1R:Z96:9Z .,\cftw~11 6/ 1l/92 Pag" 10 - April lO, 1992 PLANNiNG COMMISSION Palo A1tc, Cilifor~1a WORK PRot!8M fOR UPDAilSG THE CQIWREHENSIVE PLAN Members of the Commission: Bac+;grmlnd: TMs cover rep.ort and iittached Work Progra~ for Updating the CCTTlprehen5ive P1an is being forwarded to the Planning Corml:ission. other aC\iisor-j' boards and commissions, and to the City Council (for informational purposes prior to t~e May 4 jo1nt Planning Comm1ssionjCity Council meeting on th:s subje~t) in order to obtain cOl1ll1ent and spec1fic rectllTlTlendations .an now Pa10 AHo should proceed with revising its Comprehensive Plan. An Executive Summary of the Work Program appears at the beginning of the document. The itta,hed Work Program ~as prepared by a consulting te~ of Moore Consulting, ~effrey Baird and Associates, and Moore Iacofano Goltsman. This consulting team was hired by the City of Pilo Alto in early february 1992 to prepare i -road map· for revising the City's Comprehensive Plan. The consult~~g team was selected following an informational report to the City C'Ouncil ,see CMR:1l6:92 on (omprel'lensi.ye Pl ar.~ of January n. l!i92} where staff discllssed opt ions for an update, recent expel"jences of other cities in updating their plans. and the intention to ~ork with a consultant in preparing a -road map· for the City's (omprehensive P1an. Shff determined tnat professionai expertise should be obtained in developing l Work Plan based upon the rather ~iff;cult experiences that several other cities encountered in updating their general plans. The ben~fits of iuch expertise at the beginning of a Comprehensive Plan revision were exp~cted to include: 1) a clear definition of tne process irlcluding pro ... ·js~on for s1gni ficant conrnunity input; 2) an agreement ·on principal sect ions of the Planj 3) an agreement on resources and budget; ind 4) an agreement on a schedule for prepari n9 and compl et i ng the Pl an. Work Prooram As noted earlier, the attached Work Program contains an Executive Summar~ at tnt! beginning of the document. Following the Executive Summary~ the Woric: Program includes these sections: Section I -IntrQoyction and Purpose; Section II -Final Product an~ Content; Section III -Process and Schejule; ."::'_ ............ _._'_ ... t ...... _ ....... -. , -,"L · .. ; Project Management. Section IV -Staffing and Budget; Sectior. V -Description of Work TiS~S. and Sectior. VI -a pre1iminary list of Co~~~e~er,s1v~ Pla~ Upaate iSSUt!s. Staff suggests that the Plaf1f)~r'9 C!jmm~ssion focus its rev;e..., or. t.he: 1) ~enera' content of the plan re~jsion; 2) the process and schedule; and 3) the !otaffi:"\.9 (i.e.t resource tOfT1mitme.t"',t) and budget for the Plan revision. These three are-as :.Ire d~5cusseo' in both the Executive SUlMlary and, 1n more det.il, in the main body of tha Work Program and represent the appro;,n that 15 recommended by the consu1t'ng team. A discussion and evaluation of alternative appr~aches as we11 as the recommended approach for updating the Plan appaars in the Executive Sunrnary .. 4 (hart illustrating the proposed process and sc~eduTe for revising the Comprehensive Plan is inserted at the end of the Work Program. Section VI of the ~ork Program is a pre1iminary list of tomprehensi~e Plan U,pdat~ 1s50ues. This list of issues is very prelindnar,Y and will be refined and ~dif~ed thro~~hQut thE early ?has~s of the re~lsion ~rocess. Ho~ever~ the Planning Co,mlissl0r: should diSCUSS the list and add and delete items as appropriate. Comments on the list of ,ss~es wtll he1p ref,ne further the estimate ~f resources that will be needed in the Plan update. lastly, the Work Program contains a detailed description of work t.sKs. Section V. The work tasks are intended more for staff guidance provfded that .etion Is taken by the Council on hew to proce.d with the Update. Bydget and Staffing Bud~ets fer the reco~ndeJ as well as two optional approaches are presented in the E~ecut1ve Summary ind in Section IV of the Work Program. The budget in the Work Program describes the cost of professional s~rvices and re1ated materials for specific functions of the re~jsion process. Staff currently is preparing i. budget for $pecla.l Planr\in.9 Oivis.;cn costs tha.t would inc.lude. the services of I contract planner for two years and special Comprehensive P1ar\ revision costs for such Hems as .a·j .... ertis.ing and publishing end ffi3teria1s and supplies. Information on the entire Comprehensive Phn re",,~sion budget~ Le., for professional services afld for spec1ai Planning Division pxpenses, w~ll be sent to the City Cot..ncil prior to June IS, 1S92. Ht! Ccuncil is expected to take action on the Comprehensive Plan revision at that time. In addition to consultants and the re(.olmlended contract planner, aDpro.ximateiy 3.0 profession.l Pla,ning st.ff positions .ill be alloc.ted to t~e Pl.n re,ision during Fis.cal Year 1992-93 and approximately 3.5 profes.sional Planning staff positions will be allocated .ithin fiscal jear 1993-94. Substantfal assistance also is exp€cted frnm other City departments both in terms of part~'CipQHon on a proposed tec.hnica.l adliisory cOimlittee and in preparation of the PTin's text for sections relating to a Department's ex.pertise and responsibil ity. The allocation of Planning staff and' other Department staff will be assumed within the regular FY 1992-93 and FY 1993-94 budgets for the Planning D;~lsion and other Departments. j:" \PCSIi:\lhPr\1ll 4/10/92 Page, ------_._--' ----.... ~" ..• ,. ~-. L - I 1 I ~ ,. , - •. ; To d-etennine ho" to-revise Palo Altols Comprenensi .... e Plan is a major cna11engl! to the Planning COlTlilission, other advisory boards and comrr,isSions and t~,e C.it,Y Ccuncil. A Comprehensive Plan revision ~osts money. takes time and requires an extp.:'IsivE: corrrnitmer'lt of nsources. If the P1ann1ng Comission concurs that appropria te goa 15 for a rev j s ed Pl an are to; 1) reta; n ... 'nat is 'Wortny; 2) address issues needing resolution; and 3) project a vlsion loGKing into the next centurj, then staff believes that the Planning Commission should support th~ consuaing team's recomeno'ed approac~, for revising Pa10 Altols Comprehensive Pl.ln. The requi re-d comitments of thi s recolMlended approach are, as stated before, a recQgnition of SUbstantial r~source commitment, both human and fiscal and an acknowledgement that suen Plans do not evo1ve overnight. I:'l additHln, if the Planning Comndssion and other decision makers agree to proceed on a P1an revision, tnere has ta be an agreement that I in order to product! a document within t!.xpected time frames, sr.nedules r.i\'e to be met and committed resources, particularly within the City organizition. cannot be diverted to oth~r projects. If there is not a ~illingness to agree to such commitments~ staff be1ieves trat the City then should consider whether it is apprcpri ate to proceed on a Ccmprehens i ve PTan revi s i on at tni s time. ReC:OIm:endaUon Staff recommends that the Planning Commission support and !ndorse the co~sulting team's recomn~nded approach toward revising Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan. R.spectfully submitt.d, ~~ GEORG£ ZIMMERMAN ~ Assistar.t Planning Official KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community [n~ironrn€nt Attachment: Work Plan for Updating the City of Palo Alto Compretlenslve Pla~ --Administrative Dra.ft cc: City Council Architectural Review Board Copies w11l be forwarded to thc: folTowing Boards and Cornmissions when this. item is p1aced on their agendas: Historic Resources Board -packet of 5/1/92 HUman Relations Commission -patket of 5/5/92 Public Art Commission -pack.t of 4/21/92 Utilitfes Advisary Commission -packet of 4/30/92 p: \PC~ W'd'f'glI 4/10/92 Page 3 "0" • - . ~staif ~ =tel '01 t~ ________ ----, ~n'JarY 23, 1992 HONORABLE CITV COUNCIL Palo Alto, Callforn;a COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Members of the Council: Report in Br...1.tl The purp~se of this memo is to advise the Planning Commission and City Council of the status of t~e City's [omprehensiwe Plan update. Scope of thE Update fn July of 1991 the Chief Planning Official was assigned to perfo~ two tasks: ]) coordtnate the preparatlon of an economic reS<:lurces phnning program for the City. and 2} develop the approach and process for up.aating the City's Comprehensive Plan. The status of the economlC resources planning program was summarized in a memo to the City Council (November 14, 1991, CMR:506:91). where it was envisioned that a draft outline of a plan would be available for public consideration i~ the spring of 1992. fn the informa1 discussions of the P"('oposed Comprehensi .... e Plan update before the joint Plannin9 Corrmission and City (ouncil study session, August 28, 1991, the scope of the update was anticipated to b~ minor and predominantly technical in nature. However, little infDrmation had been gathered or analyzed to support a m~re limited technical update; r~tn~r, the proposal fo(used on a scope of work that could be pErfor~ed by existing staff resources, dnd a reco9nition of the Clty's current fiscal situation. The latter was not antiCipated to support heavy consultant expenditures ta assist in i major Comprehensive Plan update. Subsequent to those discussions, staff has had the opportunity tj further frlves.ttgate the current status of the City's Plan, corrmunity expectations of what an update ~ight or should entail, and other C1ties' recent experiences in embarking upon their Comprehensive Plan updates. This investigation has T~d to a substantial rethinking of the nature and scope of the update as origlnally envisioned. The current Plan, which was adopted in early ]981, was pr~pared with technical data generated in the ~~~ to lAte 19705, prior to the availability of 1980 federal census dat;. While a substantial number of amendments have occurred sinc~ 1980, primarily focusing on land use and transportation issues~ and the Housing Element (as mandated by state law) has been complete1y rewritten, many other aspects of the pTan are depe.'1jent !..Ipon supportir)l~ documentatio'1 over a CI~R:1l6:92 J I - decac!e ~1r;L f;'!tegrat1{)n of upda1;ed information wit~in the plan, frres,pective Of any changes 1n policy, wil1 likelj result i~ revisions to nearly every sett10n of tne document. Fundamental decisions, such as whether to update ind 1ncllJde in the Phn the Oper. Space Element and the Bayland's Master Plan, could substantially a1tH the scope of work OT the Comprehensive Plan updat-e. The 1980 Plan also ieflects the dom~nant approach Df publ,c agencies at that time, .hicn was toward a basic land use docu~nt. Such plans eften did not incorporite or allude to .ather c.o1mlurdt)' goah, as socia' and t'luman serY'ic-es, Dr tne economic or fiscal aspects of the phn's .. "arjous. elements. Indeed, comprehensive plans are not reQ.IJired to do so, and thf dedsio:1s regarding what i plan does or does not conta1r., beyor.d tne basic land use-related elements recJired by State law, largely rests with the oCol'lr.'lunity. Since t~e 1980s, and partiCUlarly i~ the latter part of the decade and the early 199~s, ~;lies have increasinglj erected to include i number of optional elements within their comprehensive plans. Reasons fer t~i$ are varied, but tney all point tDWard Hie view of a compre-her.sive pl an is not just a land use dotument but i trulY ~comprehensive· set of integrated policies intended to guide cOUIWJnity actions on a wide Tiil1ge of ; ssues in the future. ~ su~ary of ot~er tommunities r experience-s in updating their cornpreh~n$jve plans is 1n3tr~ctive, particular1y in relation to our original conceptlon of a limited ·techn;cal" rewrite of the plan. A sampling cf those experiences i5 li .ted bel 0 •• Citv of San Mateo San i-':ateo recently completed an update-of thefr Comprehensive Plan, which was substantially ac(ompl~shed in-house. 90t~ the Plan and the ElK were written by staff, in conjunction wit" I 20 plus member citfze-ns' committee. The process took 2.5 years to complete, and ~ecessltated the al1ocat1on of 4.5 full-time professional planning staff to comp1ete the documents. Planning C.olMiss.ian and City C.olJncil hearings !In the draft plan took only four months to comp1ete. Consultants were utilized for transportation stud'ies (SJ2t1,ODO), a citizens' c~mmltte~ facilitator (325,000), and air quality supporting data (510,000). City of Mountain Vie\1 A Mountain View G~neraT Plan update has been i~ process for 3.5 years, with fin~l p1an adoption and distribution tirg~ted for June 1992. Consultant usage was hign in their update: Housing Element pre-paration, $lOO,OO~ to date; transportation studies, S60,OOOi ElR preparation, $100,000; editing, $25,000; graphics and reproduction, $35,000. Total consultant costs to date are in excess of 5320,000, and the Plan has not yet been before the Plannin9 Commission. More interestingly, when Mountain Vielif origina1ly embarked upon their update process, it was to be a ·minor" update to ·clean up· the p1an wit~ an estimated 18-~.onth completion date. 0.:116:92 P:\DWI\OLNI " " - o ~ of Santa (1 ara Santa Clara is in the final stages of a 1988 in1t1ated (~preher.sive plan update. Prior to drafting any changes in the plan Qr embarking upon a public participation precess, Santa Clara conducted a cons~ltant pr~pared economic forecast of th~ City's original comprenens;ve plan, at a cost of $30,000. OtMer consultants included traffic, $75.000 and i legal/consistency analysts 'Of the phn, SlC,OOO. Jr.-house reso!.Jrc!s were estimated to require one or t~a fUll-time prcfesslonals ever the three-year time period. No citiz~n participation p~ocess was utilized to assist in the update cut->;~d.e of the normal Planning Commission/ Cit,)' Caunct1 hearing process. City of MenlQ Park The City of Men10 Park is in its seco~d rewrite of a major comprehensive plan update ~nitiated over three years ago. Use of consultants has been very hp,avy, with an estimated total cost to the CHy to date in excess of $450.000. Approximitely three fu11-time professionals in plan~ing! traffic, and the attorn-ey's offiCE ha'll! been allocated to this e.xercise over the three-year time period. City of Fremont Fremont's General Plan update was com~leted in May of 1991, an~ took the City 2.5 years to complete. Consultant e~pertise _as used in the EIR preparation (S200,OOOh .and for legal assistance (S50,000). [)(tE!'fls;ve staff fesources were allocated to this effort including four full-ti~e planners, one full-time graphic) person, one and one-half transportation specialists~ and two full-time equivalent persons from housing. lejsu~e services, and hazardous materials. Fremont is on a cost er,terprise fund accountl~g system whereby a1l staff ti~ is compiled at standard bill&ble rates. The total cost for the update, includi~g consultant expenses and printing, is estimated to be in excess of Sl,OOO,OOG. A citizens' advisory cOlTlTlittee of 25 persons assisted in dl"afting the document. Optional el~ments or. energy and local i!conomic conditions wer! included in tn~ ~pdate. Admittedly, t~e above cOlTlT1urdties differ from Palo Alto in TlICIny resp!!!cts. T~ere are, however~ scme (ommon themes worth noting in those c!t;es' respective experiences. Srnme, Mountai~ View and Santa Clara, embarked upon the update with the expectation that a "minor" or "technical· update was feasible~ yet they were I)~able to limit the ex€rcise in that manner~ While the utilization of consultants ranged substantially, no city was. able to accomplish its comprehe~sive plan update with less than 5100,000 in consultant expenditlJres, and most ranged between 5200,000 to S300,O{JO irl consultant fees. Finally, substantial time, generally over two to three y~ars, w.s necessary to complete the process; and staff resources allocated to the updates were ~uch greatei than original1y en~isioned. (In the 19705, four fu1l·time profeSSionals, in the Planning Division alone, were assigned to complete Pale 0II~"6:9Z Pr\CM\CPl.tN 01/2]/92 + ..... -"" .... ~- ~.-•. -.. ~il~_ - Alt~rs ]97~ Compre~ens;~e Plan, and no cit~zen part;cipati~n proce~s, outside of the standard Plannir.g Corrm'ission and tity Council hearings, was utilized'.) Finally, there are a number of -wildcards· ~hich may be threwn into cities' comprehensive planning processes. Proposed state lfgf51atior. and Governor Wiison's stated commitment to both 9rowt~ management !nd bus~ness retentior. iS5U~S could substantially change the complexion of Pa10 Alto's pl~nning document. While we do not yet know, and will likely not know f~r some months to come, there is w'despread belief that some form of ~egi9nal growth management, regional air Quality emissions regulations and perhaps eve" subregional land use p1anning legislation are likely to QCCur in the near to mid~te'l"'Vt future. How aggressive 01" modest in form Such legisla.tion may take remains to be seen, but the experience of other statEs and past history in Californ:a ~uggests that any imposition of regional planning at the state level is likely to be comp1ex. underfundEd, understaffed. and with short-time lines for compliance. Our compre~ensiye p7an update shou1d incorporate I greater level of knowledge tnan what presently exists at t~e local level on tnese issues, and this may take one to two years to resolve. Another ·wlldcard-is Stanford University, and ~specially activities in the Sand Hill Corridor. Stanford asked for a delay in starting the Sand Hill Extension E"vironmental Impact Report until february 1992 b2cause of the nee~ ta resolve interna1 issues related ta Medical Center planning and Stanford Westo If the City is confronted with reviaw of I major Stanford West project and/or I request for a CitflC~untY/stanfoTd process to resolve near-, ~id-and lon9~r~term Medical Center expansion issues, tnere wou1d be a s~bstantfal illpact on Ctty staff reSOl..jrces aWiilable in 1992/1993 for the Comprehensive Plan update. Conclusions It is staff/s opinion that a minor "technical-update of the City's Comprenensive Plan is nat likely to be feas;ble. More l~ortantly, if there ;s cOIITIunity sentiment ta expand the scope of the Plan and/or revisit pol icy issues addressed in the 19705 and 1980s, we do not consider it desirable to start with I limited technical update. The City of Palo Alto's next Comprehensive ~lan document will lead us in decision ~aking for the 1990s and into the ne~t century. Such a rewrite is very likely to be time consumptive. expensive and will require a high level of CORmitment of staff resources. Given the City's current fiscal situation and competition for staff resources, incluJing the area of economic resources planning, _e ao not be1ieve it timely to proceed witk an aggressive camprehensive plan update posthaste. We do, however, believe steps shouid be taken to further identify the scope of wcr~ necessary to re-~rite the document and to incorporite potential optional elements, where desirab1e, that would render the plan most effecti~e in ,tty po1icy making. Finally, a citizen participation process needs to be agre~d upon prior to embarking upon tne Comprehens;ye Plin update. ott: 116.:92 P:\OIt\CPlAII L Ol/Z3/92 -4- - o To that end, it is st~ffJs intention to work ~;th i consultant to prepare a "road map'" for the City's Comprehensive Phn update. The map should identit',:;' optional are~s fo, inclusion in the plan, suc~ as human ~er~ices, teTecommunications, or fiscal aspects of the pian. Estimated time lines and alternative public participation processe$ will be presented for furth~r Cny Councfl and Planni~g Commission cnnsideration. Completion of a draft "7oad mapr llliitP, options fo,:" discussion is ant~cipated in hte February/early March. At that time, staff suggests review of the findings at i joint PTann;n~ Co~issjon/CHy (ouf1cil study ses.s~an il"; Aprll. After the Study Session, the Council should be in i position to establ~sh the grounJ rules and expectations for the Comprehensive Plan update and incorporate, as appropriate, those deCisions in the 1992-1994 City budget. Respectf~liy submitted, tMA ,/ CI£,w>-, ':iUNtU/t ;K 4cj:.~ ,,9 CAROL l. JANS EN / <- Chief Planning Off;ci.l G~on2 WILLI ZANER City anager cc: Pale Alta Planning Commission Palo Alto P.rchHectural Rel(ielf Board Palo Alto Historic Resources Beard Palo A1to Human Relations Commission Palo Alto Publlc Art Commission Palo Alto Utilities Ad .. isory Corrmiss i or, Don de la Pena, City of Menlo Park Debra Nelson, City of los Altos Bruce Balsh~r.e, City of last Palo Alto linda Niles, Town of los Altos Hills W~lter Cohen, City of Mountain ~iew KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of P1an~ing and Community Environment Terry Burnes. S.n Mateo County Planning DEpartrneht teode Frankl in, Santa Cldra County Planning Oepartment California Avenue Area Development Ass.ociation Committee for Green ~oothills M1dpeninsula Regional Parks and Open Space Palo Alto Board of Realtor. Jay Thorwaldson, Pala Alto Medical Foundation Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Palo Alto Civic league Pilo Alto Housing Corporation James R. Brown~ Palo Alto Unified School District Palo Alto league of Women Voters Peninsula Conser~ation Center Barron Park Association 0.:116:92 p; \CMIR\O'~ 01 (Z"92 ·5- , ~ ! - ,. Barron Square Condomin:iljm As:.cdatic;n Charleston Meadows Nei;hbarhGod Association C~e$tnut-W;lton Homeowners Association C~llege Terra(e Neighhorhood Association College Terrace Residents Association Downtown NCtrth Ne';ghbcrhDod Association Evergreen Pirk Ne;ghborh~od Assoc,ation Greater Miranda Communit~ Associat~o" Greenacres Improvement Ass~c1ation Greenmeadow CommunitJ AssociatIon Hoover Par"'. Neighborhcod Assocht ion Interdale Wa~ Homeowners Association Park Central C~rc111 Condominium Association Jordan/Garland Neighborhood Association leland Manor AssGtiation lytton Gardens Midtown West Association Monta loma Neighborhood Association Old Trace NeighbQrh~od Associltic" Palo Alto ~il1s Homeowners AssociatiDn Southgat! Neighborhood Association University & Crescent Park Association Untversity & Cr~scent Park Homeowners Association Ventura Neighborhood Assoc;at1on West Bayshore ReSidents Association University Park Association 011:116:92 p:\o.\C>l.UI -. C1/'B192 ... o EI Camino Real Design Guidelines Architectural Review Board City of Palo A.lto, California. Nov. 79 -. PREFACE ll. IN.TSC.APING & PAV!N;; CN SITE III. SIGNS IV. ARQIITECI1iRE & SITE PLAN V. BUFFERS, AlITCH1BlLE SCREENS & PARKING WTS VI. I.IQiTING VII. IIROIITECrL'RAL REVrl;11 BOARD lJ'PROVAl PROCEDURES Archl t ectur a1 Revi e'N Board City of Palo Alto c..~liforni-l Phi lip Vogt. O1a.irraa.'1 John r-brth .... ay. Vice Chai rr:un Willian Blythe Linili ~1a.thews Derk 'tfl1 rage 1 page 2 page :; page 5 pagt; 7 page 9 page 10 page 11 , , a '"Ltilla :":r'" I. Preface These guidelines have bee..: fOIT!lttlated after-public meE'tip.gs so th3~ d.esigne:-s z.nd businessmen may kr.o,,",' in advance of Te' ... ·ie ... ' "'71at 6e A rchitectural RevIew B0arc tends to npprove or disapprove. They are, however, only guidelines ~not regulations -and the Board exourag.es l111lov3.tion l creativity and individuality .. hen it is ccmpatible 'Ioo'ith tile gener~l appearanCE of the ~treet ~ld .. nen it does not det~act from the overall cohe~ive~ss of a landscaped c~rcial automobile oriented street. Well designed streets have a consistent design vocabulary. In the past J private d.::velOJ.l'T~nts -were designed accon!i:J.g to criteria: " .. :hid·, respected the predc:r.ir.ant .lTc.hitectuTal fOlin J materials and \risual rules of the periO<1. They we;-e compatible with their sun-oui-dings. l'-lore recently, !he autanobile and advertising have generated more 2nd more eye catching i.~rovements that do not always make for pleasant. """'211 c!esi.es'71ed streets. The following cuidelir,es attempt to subdue inte~,e visual ccmpetitionJ but t!lCY ,are not intended to restrict imagL"'lation, iimc\"ation or variety. Rather, the)" are to assist ir. focusing on des.igr:. J:rrir.cir·les "ll-'hich can Tesult in creative solutio~s, "'+-lich "kill develop a .statl5.f;,-ing: ""isual eJtl-"'Cricnce ,,"'1 thin the ci ty, preserve taxable yalucS and pIor.rote the ruhl1c he.:!) th, safety and .... 'elfare. 1 ----............... ,~, -~.~,-"".~.,..---.,.-- /lf~1·.· '.-. :}¥'~~~~ I I -. I Landscaped Street Theme CKlc of the predminant characteristi,:s of Palo A1 to is the land~capir.g or it!) streets. The northern le:ngth of El \:~llif1a Real fran Univer5>it}' Avenue to Stanford Avenue conforms with the tree-lined characteristic of Pale Altols streets; the southern length froo. Page Mill Road to t.1.e .southern city l.i.J1rits does not. The main th:ru.st of these guidelines is to encourage landsc.apir.g along the southern length of El C1lilino Real to .iJTlpro ... ·e its apr-earance am! make it more caTlFztibl-e '.-ith Palo Alto's other streets. The use of street trees in th~ medians arId the side;..alks will provjd~ a strong visual thane. tn order to implement this lands.caping theme l,,"i thin a reasonable period of time~ one street tree .,.ill be TeqDired for every 2S t (or part) of stTc-ct. frontage. Tnis laTlcl.scapirl.g requin:ment will be implementE-d through ARB approval!:' of building perwits. !he la.~dscaping ... il! be requjred by t~c Ala! on all building pennit applications for improvements Tn e:xxC$$ of $5.000 to prorert)' facing El Camino Real. 11 'l1lC$(." ~trc·'(..'t tn,'(':i mal' b·: lex:atcd either 310ng the side ... alk or " .. ithin the me<.llan. Only street treeS in the folloo.o.'ir..g street tree list sr~ll be u...o;cd: !. 2. 3. Palo Alto \'ariety of IhlUi d il.'1bcr s.idC'\\ialks and r.lectians To imFlement the landscaping of t}~ street, a 15 gal1o~ tree ~ll be required for every )0 feet of frontage on El Camino Real or 5t~eerS intersecting E1 Camino Real. These trees 'Will be made conditions of approval during the architectural revie ... proc.::ss. These trees are to:: be installed during property improvements and. will be placed a.t locatior.s app~oved by the Parks and Recreatiol" .. Departm.~nt. 2 --~.-- - '-'. - o n La ndsca pi n g, Paving 1. A landscape and irrigation plm may be requir-ed. .. 1th revie.,.,' of a new building or an additior. or ..... it..t:. a freestanding sign. Preville landscaping adj:lce'lt to and ",,-i t.hin parking areas in order-to screen vehicles from view and mi!i'.imi2e the expansive apPf;3.yanCe of parking areas. This landscaping should include fast gro .. ing deciduous or evergreen trees in pa:rking lots !CJ create rnaxi.rrnJrr. Slmrner S!'l3d€. 2. fn:'c anc shr..:b pJat"iting should be ,grouped tog~the-r in oI-d<er to crea.te strong <!ccent points. 3. lnsure that landscaplng permits adequate sight dist~~ce for ~ctorists and pedestrians cIlUrL"1g or exiting the 5i te. A! 10-.. for the groll-'th of t~ees and shrubs whc:1 locating landscapint::. 4. Size all la.'1dscaping so that a matt..;re a.ppearance will be attained 'Within thlee to fhe years of plailting. 5. Palo Alto's trees are a. valuable resource and should be protected. Make every effort to integrate existing tree-s into the site plan. 6. Protect eXisting t~ees dur~~ cunstruction. Tree protection details may be required by the EO<i.rd. 7. Use native drought-toler-ant vegetaticn as far as pos~ible (£OT e~~le~, 5e~ tree list ~4er section 1). s. Landscaping shall be installed in buffers be~~en residential and commercial lots (see section 4), 9. Chain li1'.k fences are dis::ct.:.raged. If the! Il1'~~t be used for SEOJritj it is suggested that thrq be plastic-coated fL..,,: dark iT". color ar.d 5.crcencd ... i tJ-. lCU1J~cari . ."g. CURe. '-:"1 ~. ',.-~~. ;.t; .. Ii 11,1. '111(, 2 feN [roo' the Io'l\.:.'{'l stop or c:urb to the cJge of the T",-:ulreJ ri,J.rkin~ ~p.1C{, ~i-l..i' be lanJ::.capcd but C3.!' ... '1'jt be COU.tlted toward the rC'l.l'J.i red 5 foot perimeter landscaping. 1 L t.arulscaping in planter 'tx.:.J,:es ~d or. trellises is encouraged where larger landscape ar~a~ are not available. 12. 'Inc approved strE!et trees listed under section I -"Landscaped $trel:t Thr:me" are also recomnencled for use on thE: site. In addition~ the Board r-ec01Inends the use of floweri."1g fruit trees. 4 • ,. - III Si~ns Reg'Jlatjons can limjt size, placement, nt • .;nibeT and lighting of sigr...s, but otvlous1r cannot regulate the !roTe elusive elements of taste and design. The following basic guide15nes ~re to be considered in evalu.ati:.& .a sign's fuitability; hD'".wever, the designer is encouraged to be innovativ€. 1. In Palo Alto~ signs must C".eet the requirements of t ..... o ordir:.ances, the ~ign ordinance .... 'hich e.stabUshes a m,a.Xl...-ru..1U area aJ'Id height, and OnIina.i.cc No. 10.48 ",-hieb requires ]u-chitcctural Rc"')c",-Board appro';,'al of tile sil'n UC[OTC a sign pennit is ,gr'-41teJ. 2. Sue Although the :maxi.muITl aUm.'able size has been appro·.'eC in c.ertain locatior~, most businesses request signs ~hat are substantially smaller than the 1!'l8..Ximum penlitted by the ordina."lce. The Boa:rd suggests that the SiZE of sign needed be reque~ted ~ith the understanding that the maxim.Jm may not b~ approved. Only h71e:l it is difficult to read the proposed Sign is the max.i.rr.u'n area approved. An approxirr.ate average size of freestanding ane wall signs ap~)roved t-y the Ja.RB i!1 the last two years is about aIle half 'to twc thirds of the maximum permitted by the sign oTdina.'rlce. 3. Height a) Freestanding signs generally should not extend above the height of the sDTrounding builclings. b) Tall Signs should be set back from the street p,'r")pe'rty line. Short siPls may be loci:i.tec! close to the prvpert)' line. r ~. t a i I I I I I I I i ! I , j I i i I , I I I I ! I ~ I I I I IA' , I I I I -'-. I I rlif"'" I I I I ..... i i I , ! j i I 'L I I , I I I I I q • • • .. .. .. I. ' . .. ':"L~'" , " 5 · - 4. Si&ns mou,'1ted on' the roof I ~pinT'.ing devices I flashing lights &1'.d permants are not permitted by the sign ordina.nce. S. Signs paL'lted en the wall are pennitted by the sign ordinance. 6. Attention getters and giromicks or overdesigned or tortured shapes wi: cal! 8ttention to their r;ec\.!lh.r form are nc,t usually appTOved .. 7. In general, poles a.lld other supports shc:.D.d be D".ade as inconspicuous as possible so that the sign is the primary focus. S. The Beard does net encourage brightly lit sigr'~<;. 9. 'Wall signs should appesT as though the building and the sign ","'ere designed Ulgether. The sign should not appear as if it lIo'ere attached as an afterthought. In order-to inS1..lre compatibility I t.he Board may approve a sign ~ubjec.t to conditio1'4 _t..~t invulve the mcdific.atian.s of the .... U. 10. Street numbers shall be i..'"lSta.lled on &11 property use3 and. will not be ccunted t,.o-,.,'aT~ permitted sigr. a-rea. 11. A sign is meant primarily tc identify a use. It is therefore iJoJportant £0':1" the message to be as ~rief and readable as possible. )bre than two colors or lettering styles aTe not recommer~ed because tr~· ~end to make a sign less readable. 12. The Board usually approves or:.e wall sign per building fa.c.e iUld/or one freesbr.ding sign per street frontage. 13. Three signs, one on each elwo.tion. a.re usually net a.pproved. 14. Ncn~ilh:nins.teJJ pedestriii.'1 cTiented signs under it canopy (3 squo.'re feet ma:<it'U!1) are e,i.ccuraged .if tr.ey are oYer 7'-6'1 bgt. IS. Photographs showing surrO'llndir.g signs duill be ~ubrnitteci wi th eacb application. 6 - ...:._ ... __ ... u,,~ .... .."",_~-.-_"" .... -,,,- IV Architecture, Site Plan L Do not design an impr0Ve:i!'erlt primarily to a~tract .:;.:::tentior.. 2. When possible buildings should be set bad:: iraJ the front property line, .,;it.:' landscaping or a people-oriented pla:a b front. 3. All aL'.tomabile parking should be .screened (see la,i.d!;caping requireITJents [or automobile screening) from t.~e street. 4. Areas for-mechanical equipment. ",..r.ether on t..~e TCiJ: or looIithin parking areas, should be screene-d. ructwork shc1l1d b-e painted to ma~ch the color: of the rOlJf if 2. screen is nDt appTJyriate. !'. -/ra:-;h area.", stor-a£C' and senrice yards -should be screened a,-..d keFt away frern residential areas. An Qn-s;,te loading area may be required in areas where the Board finds that street loading Ioill i.JT;pact Mighb'Jrhood tra,fflc flQ",o,'. (;). If a sign is need.e:l. a place for a. sign should be Cesignec. i::tc tt.e elevation. 7. AlI.building elevat.i.ans should have an integrated ~n:hitecturCil character. 8. Buildings should not be overd.e.signed or decorated .. ith superfluo~ details or imi tatiorLS 0= structural IT.aterials. 'f..nen remoeelin,g a better alternative than adding rnaterl.als is repainting and repdring t.i.e building. and adding minor landscape improver:le:;.ts. !). t.!lnl-:iz,jJjg tne fl1.!:T1bcr of drive~'ays t:, t.'le let incn:ases tr,e E:.Tea tor In;hiscarjng clGSE to the stT€i;;;:, decreases t~,€ n:.anter cf cc'nflict poi 'its for ~wtomobilcs , biclClis!5 ::i.."1d pcu~st!'iOJ',s i...!~i;-,~ ti";e ri.ght­ vf ~"";ly, nnu illcn.'."L'>c...:; tho:.;-ore;. of wOJ ter pcrmcilb 1(' ~ ur face. 10. In r--ieig.'-Jborhood. CC1:~nercial (0.;) z.ones, tr.e desi,!;71 should be pedestrian oriented.. Signs and details should net be prirn.a..~il}· autCi:lobile oriented. 11. More than three colors used on a ~tructUTe will hzi<e it i."1ccr;rpatible .... ith the sUn'01.Uldings. l2. USl."lg bright colors, such as reds, yellows, purples and green.s as the predominant color on .a structure may Ir:ake it inccmpatible ";;.t.1 t.h.c 5urroundin&s. The ARS ususaU)' feels these cclors are used to attract attention. 7 o l:'. (or.fI'lI; . .'r(i;J.] bu~lclinbs. ["'.,,"'\011 or rerr.od.eled, which an~ located adjaccl1t tc or in close rroximi t)' to other similar rrGp€Ttie:=;. should be ("Clt!p.J t iblc 1I'ith the i '( n<:; ighbors.. 14. lmpTovetlt-nt.s should cle!icnstra.te a. respeJ..:t fer the rights to light. air, aJ'.d the priva.cy of re5icent.s L'I. existi..:~g de\'e1~ent5. 15 In buildi1"~s ,,"'itt multiple tenants, the design of individual tenant .spates should be canpatibl-e .,'ith the design of u.e buildi.."'l.g as a whole a..'1d .... '1 tr, d'\ose Ot the neighboring tenant. 8 • ~~ ~~~ ~-~ --~-~--.----------------:,,:,,---. V BuCCers,Parking Lots 1. If <1 non~n;:side!'.tial lot abl..:ts 2; re::::idcflti31 let, 3 lO' ""ide IMd.scape buffer shall be ~rovide-d. on the non--TCs!dential lot. (See Zoning Ordlnance fo-r 0. zone -18.41.070 antI CS zone -1.8.45.070.) This buffer should cut do'Wn noise ar.d screen views into the ccrrrnerl: ial lot. CUe 15 gallon tree fOT e'ier), 20' length of ccmnon property line is suggested. 2. A 5' to 8' high solid fence is required. (See ZDni;~g Ordtnai'1Ce lS.41.D7G and 18.34.070.) .Details shO¥ling materials a..l1d cor..structioli. must bl! inc1uded 'with tr.e la.ldscape plan. 3. The front setback shadd be us-ed to previde a. landscatJe buffer­ between the buf1dirls a.,c. tbe street to shield from tra.ffic noise and to creatE a more pleasea. ....... t view of the 'building, and from the building. 4. The Zoni.."'l.g Ordinance does nat permit par-ki.?J.g \\oithin the front setback. (See Zoning Ordina.j,ce Chapter 18. S3.) 5. All parked cars. including new and ~ed car lots. should be screened .... ito;, walls, la."1clsCapi.ng or berms. The total height of the wall berm or landscaping should be aOO'ut 3'-6" ab(we the finished parking lot surface. 6. TI;e Zo:,ing Ordina..'"1ce (Sec:tic·n 18.83) specifies !!ie mir.in."n basic dl!n~:J"I-:lons _ and gui~~lines fer parking lo~s. The Ordin5..,"jce requires Ii S ~ands .... aped pe .. l.l:-let~r and S' to lDi mtenor landscaping; In CilTU;,ln cases, tne AT'::hltectural Reviell: :Soard may requir~ a hi,ghel percer. tage. 7. roe 5' landscaped perimete~ shall contain at Ipast one 15 Ballcn tree fer each 25' of peTL1:e!:er lfngth. 8. In order to COrL">cn'e ener,gy ar..ci lO .... 'er a.T.bicnt tC'1TIDCTatures in parkiTli lots in th.e 5~rJner, the interior lanC'scapi."1& sho~ ... ld be dispersed so that p~vinB i.s sr.aded. 9 VI Lighting ..... :::~~lX~~< ,,"~ ~..i.. 1. rot' safety Tea.sons~ the light source should be visible from ""jtni!1 the parking lot. Z The light pole should be about 12' to 20' high, and the fixture should be vc: :aI-proof ~ 3. The light 50m'ce should not be directly visible at any point over 6 ftct outside the boundaries Qf the lat. 4. OVE'rall s\te lighting intensity should be an a.verage of one half to one quarter (lIZ to ] !tI) foot candle. S. "Walkw·ays should be lit with an average of one foot candle with the light source visible. b~ Low prc:.sure sodium lights are not prtderred. 7. ~pjl1 light ~h3Il nut exceed 0.10 hori~ont~l foot ~a.~le on private prJperty at any point over 6 feet outside the boundaries of u.e r::rhing let . _~ __ ~r .... _ • i I J • 1 I t ~ -J . - VII Arehitectural Review Board Procedures L The.ARB reviews all visible out:side i7ipTOVements tnat require a permit . 2. The Architectural Revie\:,' Board meets on the fi Tst ;mel thiTd Thursdays .cf each merIt-h.. Complete applicati=.ns for review shct:ld be s-.:;bmitted an average of three .,reeks preceding an ARB meeting. Larger, more .. "omplcx projects require more lead time. 3. These guidelines a.re in addition to all codes and o-:dinances which must be met. A preliminary plan check 100ith the &.:ilding Division is SUggE'stN. 4. Applicants are strongly urged to have i1 C!esign representative present at t.i.e meeting. The applica.'1t Or a Tepreser:tative ~ be prese..""l.t. S. All plans must receive a complete check for code a..'1a crcl.ina!"lce CCirlplia."lce. PlaJ1S that do r.ot ccnform \.'i11 nl..1t be fcnrarded for ARB 'I'eview. 6. Plans a."1d elevations and site plans should shm.' hOI .. · these guidelines have been considered. 7. Plans for new structures should s:to'ooi' the relationship of the proposed structure to existing structures and landscaping an aJjacent lots. I'hot6!raohs .arc ~he ideal.way to indici..tc such conditions. Plaru il1..<lf requueU In sor.,c ctr::1..m1Stam:::es. 8. The sitp. plan should show how tbese guidelines r,,~,',e been cor.sleered. Pla.'1S should L'1cluJe basic infcmation such as: a. PrOP<Tty lines b. 8uildir~ setback lines c. All easements d. Significant features to be removed arId those to remain- e. Sections s~ir~ building heights and relatior~hips to adja~ent structures. f. Mechanica.l equipment and screeni.ng ·'~Significant fcatures'l indud~ buildings, parki:-,,6 ::"ot5 I roads, pa\'ing. opeD space area. and major trees I to llame B fe';,', ,-'L---'-·_· ..... """ ..... - 11 -'. () . -, .. 1>.11 !!'Iaterial;; 'to be used b. Type of nXlf c. CClOT of ~ateTials d. Roof or :;--echanical equipment e. Si~rn 1ocations l{). LandsCQ.~e and irrigation_ E..la.ru; co .. tering Ci.1l a.reas of the .site 5hCuld 1l".cILUe: •• b. c. d. e. g. h. i. j , Property lines OJtline of existing an.d prapc!:.e-J. bui'loings Existing trees ~~ large shrubs. includL'~ City street trees, and provision for thflr protection during construction Identification of trees t? be i~~ovecl Layout of all proposed plant lT~teTia15 Sc.hedul'!' of pla.""-.tiI'..g shor."ing o...l<ffiti'tj. shes, common name a.'1.d botanic.l name Cc.mplete irrigation ~lan showir.g type of system and irrigation pipes Proposed drainage plan Laruiscape anrl irria,c.ticr. pla.r~ rust receive p.i<]. apprcval he fore a. building ~ern-d twill be-IS.:;uec Tree protection de~ils ~ be r~quired before a building permit is issued !)cfore submitting plans far ARE review, Pla...-uUnB staff is • .. .rilling to meet with appli:::ar.ts and/or their d-esignef"S for a pTeliJ .. inary revie"" 12 • • J • .; -- o ~ _ z ~~ . . co c z z II t---------------~+- I i 11 6 :1 " i~'; .'::~' :'j. " 1 wOr-,~ Pf.00"~AM (ON::',Lr.A"I1 'o·t-LLCffO' .. • (.'\ LJ --.---------Q c----·------.. '---------, ----"'--.----,,------------,------.. --, 1----.----------. ----'---, Pita,,, I: Confll'matlon()f i I PnQ$&I1: OataCol~ecljon/Ano')'slsoand i; Phaae Ifl: Proparatlon of the I I Comprehensive Pion Issues ! Determination of Ov.rall policy Olrection i I Draft Comp Plan and Omft EIR ! ' NEW'_;I_[rTEf Oct 1992 rRE~jD~-' RE!~ORr At~D r-XI~-jT!rK:' COMVf~[Ht.-r..j':'inc p-LN..; pOLICY "AUn!!' SORVi~y ADMINrSTRAT!OrJ ..... NlJ ANALYS(~j ~L,."t-IN(NG COMM ;,ND CITY COUNCIL MEETlN(,5 10 C:ONFlKM iSSUES BAC~LiR()Ur,,[J ~~EF'OR1"J t-"\~(~i\1 \:Jl\l" COLi.f.CliON AND ANA(_Y!jl~~; Pf:ErARE nU1NICAL ANP r)ACu)ROLl~JD REFORTS fOr( REviEW BY TI-H~ lECHNIC/\L Arvl~:;ORY GROUp (TAG) N~D THt" COMPKEH[J6M:: "'l.AN A[J/ISORY COMMITrEE (CPAC). r-REf"N-;F OVrr:AL i_ roueY [JIR[CTlOr~ i'?(P[)RT FOR ~~rVI[W BY CF-:-,\C Ato!D AT PUBLIC WOP}:/:JHOf'!::~. COW'!RiV\ P'OLiCY PWr:CTION W~TH THE f"LANNINO COMMISSIOfli AND C!TY COU".ICil" April 1993 Jon 1994 COM!' f'LAf'l ADV!SOR'r (:OMlvi REVIE'N Of' A[)MiN DRAf'T J'LMJ fl':,EPARE "'Df\.~jl.,j PRAFi' COMV PLAN ANO fl""Al ~'RAf:T COMP PLAN FOu_O'NING CfAC-RFY1EW F'REP'M:[ LJRAFT EiR. f:cl (/,~ Phase IV: AevifoW, Modification and A.doptlon ~f the Cl)mpt&hen3lvflo Pten rLA!'irV.(. ( l-'M"~!'>-, PL'f'LV ~" rUt' 1 :A-:". ';:~~ F'LANN!~(" COMMI'.Yj!ON r>ur.lIC hl:',"R.I"j(';'~-, CITY C-OUNC!L f'tmUC HEAfJN(~5 ',H," f.,jTS ANO CHf,NGE~j TO ~ 1 "',rr COMf' f"LM!; , ,':SE::' TO f'"UBUC \ "",'; 'H~, ON -rH( DI~NT H' "j, ,; •• A,T,JNOF ft--j[ fiNAL [I? ___ , ___ J L .. ___ ~ ____ ._. ___ ~ _________________ _ L..... _____________ . __ , L. _______ .. Adopiion of thp. Updated City of P.:JloAllo Compre-henslvP­ Plan ".y 1995 City 0/ Pfl/O Allo Comprehr.nsilJr Plnn Updafr PROPOSED PROCESS AND SCHEDULE ~. ~' ,;J:~: " i~t ~i! ,~~, ;r".'"~ -;1,-,' , '~\!f :­ i~~' . ~' , ..